Opposing Views has posted a debate on the question Does Intelligent Design Have Merit?. Here's the complete question ...With about 70 billion stars and as many as 100 million life forms (at least here on Earth), the universe is a stunningly complex place. Did all of this matter evolve independently, or was it guided by a larger force – as proponents of intelligent design believe? With the debate raging in living rooms, classrooms and courtrooms, the stakes are high when it comes to determining intelligent design’s merit.All the players are there so this is a good chance for everyone to see what the "debate" is all about. For the "yes" side we have the Discovery Institute (Casey Luskin), Michael Behe, and Jay Roberts. On the "no" side there's the National Center for Science Education, Americans United, and the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights.
Here's my take on some of the things that are being debated.
- The question is whether intelligent design has merit and it presupposes that the formation of the universe was "guided by a larger force."1 We all know that Intelligent Design Creationism is about religion and about God as a creator. That's not the question and any article that focus on whether IDC is religious and whether religious ideas should be taught in school are off topic. Same applies to whether IDC is unconstitutional in one country or another.
- There are many definitions of "design" but it seems quite appropriate to use this word to describe at least some biological features. Richard Dawkins does it all the time. So the question isn't whether there is "design" in nature, it's how do you explain that design. Evolution is a perfectly reasonable explanation of "design" in nature. Any articles whose main point is that there is design in nature are completely useless. Let's stipulate that there is "design" in at least some parts of nature and get on with debating how best to explain that design.
- In order for Intelligent Design Creationism to have merit it has to offer a reasonable explanation of design in nature. It's not sufficient to just say "God did it." We need to know when, where, and how God did it if it's going to count as an explanation for particular features. Any article that fails to do this isn't defending the proposition. Attacks on evolution do not count as Intelligent Design explanations for things like the bacterial flagella. If we don't see a single attempt on the "yes" side to offer a explanation, then IDC loses by default. It's just the same-old, same-old, cry-baby complaints about evolution that we've been hearing for decades.
I find it astonishing that after almost twenty years the Intelligent Design Creationists can't come up with any better arguments than what we see on this website. I find it mind-boggling that people like Casey Luskin are the best they can offer.
1. The opening article from NCSE tries to deal with this in the first paragraph by saying, "The notion that the universe was created by God may have merit as a religious idea, but it has no merit as science. To some people, the phrase “intelligent design” evokes the belief that the universe, and especially human beings, were crafted by the guiding hand of a loving God. This is a belief shared by many people, including many scientists. NCSE takes no position on the merits of these religious beliefs, except to say that these are not scientific statements, and should not be presented as such." This is pretty dangerous territory. It essentially concedes that IDC has merit and that many scientists agree with it.
70 Billion stars in the Universe? Estimates differ but there are probably at least 100 billion galaxies and each of these could have up to 100 billion stars!!!
ReplyDeleteThere are many definitions of "design" but it seems quite appropriate to use this word to describe at least some biological features. Richard Dawkins does it all the time.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_6.html
Richard Dawkins said:
I believe that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all 'design' anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe.
He blew it with that last line in order to side-step the god issue, and that really is the great shame of this debate, because the observed "design" might very well be perpetually inherent to the energy of the universe.
In the form of a thermodynamic energy conservation law, for example:
http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com/2007/02/our-darwinian-universe.html
Dawkins shot Darwin in the foot.
Creationist retards use 'design' as a code word that means 'magically created'. Does magic have merit? That's a dumb question because nothing could be more idiotic than a belief in magic.
ReplyDeleteI find it mind-boggling that people like Casey Luskin as the best they can offer.
ReplyDeleteHe isn't the best they can offer. No idea what they're thinking. They must be a bunch of real kooks over there or something. Who is in charge of the damn place anyway?
Why do they keep calling evolution an "undirected process"? Nobody knows what the hell that means.
Oh never mind, this is why they call it an undirected process:
"Proponents of neo-Darwinism contend that the information in life arose via purposeless, blind, and unguided processes."
They call it "undirected process" because they're out to trick people, that's why.
A very good précis of the real issues invoved (and surprisingly temperate on the question of religion). Have you considered posting it in the comments at Opposing Views?
ReplyDeleteNo. :-)
ReplyDeleteI've never considered ID or Creationism to have any real use, at all.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I've never, ever seen any evidence given for ID/Creationism that isn't just "Here is something that Evolution can't 100% explain, therefore God did it, therefore there is a designer", and most of *those* claims stem from a fundamental lack of understanding in evolution (such as "half a wing is useless so birds were either made or wings appeared in one evolutionary step", which is an argument I come across with annoying regularity).
In the end, it comes down to this:
Science, real science, such as the theory of evolution through natural selection, comes from observing the facts that we see in the world, and then forming conclusions and theories that are supported by those facts. Evolution fits perfectly in with these. Through decades of challenges and testing, evolution has *always* come out as the strongest possible answer to the facts observed.
ID/Creationism, on the other hand, is fundamentally *anti-science* because it starts off with the conclusion, i.e., "God did it", and then tries to fit the facts around that. Proponents of ID/Creationism claim that anything that Evolution can't explain is automatically evidence for ID, which in itself is a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific process.
If next week, next year, next decade or next century we find evidence that proves Evolution is plain wrong, that doesn't automatically mean that ID/Creationism is correct, but this is what they'd have you believe.
So no. Intelligent Design (I know I keep saying ID/Creationism but that's because I strongly believe that ID is just Creationism given a new name and fancy, pseudo-scientific terms thrown in to give it a feel of something scientific) does *not* have Merit, simply because it's not scientific in any way, shape or form.
"It's not sufficient to just say "God did it." We need to know when, where, and how God did it if it's going to count as an explanation for particular features. "
ReplyDeleteIt is also not sufficient for you dismiss the possibility of “real” design in nature because we do not know the answers to the above questions. Do you know when, where, and how evolution did it for many as yet unexplained features of life? The history of life, like the universe, unfolded many years ago, so we need to be sceptical of any claims to know how it happened.
I have a question for you, however: how does not being able to answer these questions offer compelling proof for evolution? Even if we could not answer them would that mean that a designer did not create the complex structures we see in biology? Attacks on intelligent design do not count as positive evidence for evolution either.
Even if we could not answer them would that mean that a designer did not create the complex structures we see in biology?
ReplyDeleteSo the designer created the complex structures, and then didn't really worry about all the other structures. The designer only likes making really really complex structures.
There are three points I wouldn't mind seeing ID proponents answering.
ReplyDelete1. How old is the Earth?
(Theres practically zero 'controversy' about this in the scientific community, how about the ID community?)
2. Can they give an example of anything in nature that is NOT designed.
and
3. If they insist on using inference of design in human technology to show that apparent design in nature must be intentional, then since human technology has multiple designers why don't they assume multiple designers in nature too?
I think when we really detect design scientifically, there is allways at least one of those elements: (1)when, (2)where, (3)how, (4)who. And if there is more of them, the result is better, more trustworthy.
ReplyDeleteIf we see sawed trunk, we know which kind of marks saw leaves etc. And we have seen once how something is sawed and then compare.
ID claims that we don't need those elements. But even in Caputo -case, they "eliminate random and law" and still "catch" lawlike result (11111111011111 or something like that.) And finally, we know that result is anyway intelligent. Even if it is random. Because there is the guy called Caputo. Actually they say that Dembski uses different method in elimination in different situations: If he know already that there is designer, like in caputo, method is totally different. And in other cases elimination is made through different way. (So it is useful only if we know already the end result in start?)
Martinc,
ReplyDelete1.How old is the Earth?
(Theres practically zero 'controversy' about this in the scientific community, how about the ID community?)
You are right to assert that some people in the ID community hold to a young earth position. We know, of course, that this is based on a literal reading of the bible. Many take the account of genesis and impose it on the physical evidence in our world. Others hold that the earth is 4.6 billion years old. They thus accept the scientific evidence for the age of the earth that is currently the dominate view among scientists.
ID embraces the YECs because its arguments do not depend solely on the age of the universe or the earth. Much as the argument for evolution does not depend on the solution to the origin of life.
Can they give an example of anything in nature that is NOT designed.
They do this all the time in their presentations by using examples from our daily experience. The appearance of an old man’s face on a rock appears designed but was the result of erosion and other natural processes, but one must admit that the information in DNA, the cellular machinery observable in life, the fact that we are metabolic machines should offer some pause when someone claims that a natural, unguided process created these. Why, given such examples, should evolution be the default position? Why can’t science determine if something is designed or not? Is this a considerable limitation for the scientific method?
3. If they insist on using inference of design in human technology to show that apparent design in nature must be intentional, then since human technology has multiple designers why don't they assume multiple designers in nature too?
Human designers are different from a cosmic one. You are quite right, of course, to notice that the identity of the designer is not disclosed. No one knows who did it, so the idea of multiple designers should be considered. However, if you here concede the possibility of design, then why do you not support the idea? What is it about the designer they believe in that makes you attach yourself to evolutionary explanations alone?
Oh, for the reasons you reject space aliens, gods, and the flying spaghetti monster as the possible designers are the same reasons why the intelligent design people reject them.
I have some questions for you:
Has any scientist ever refuted Paley’s argument that a machine which is purposeful requires an intelligent designer to make it?
and
If both sides contend that biological structures are desinged, yet one asserts that it is real and one asserts it is apparent, wouldn't disproving evolution mean that intelligent design is right?
Adam,
ReplyDeleteThe question of the age of the earth is critical regarding the scientific competency of those posing the question of ID or evolution. If they are prepared to ignore even this point then what else are they ignoring? Its equivalent to saying the earth is flat or the moon made of green cheese.
As for the designed, non designed question you provide a different answer to the standard one put out by the Discovery Institute. They claim the physical universe also shows design (I think Guillermo Gonzales is their big name for these sorts of statements).
Are you really suggesting the real test of design from non-design is a cursory examination by eye?
Surely a designer who could come up with everything in the Universe deserves better from ID supporters. If a designer could create the universe then He must be so far advanced that we surely cannot tell what is designed and non designed by simply eyeballing things.
In your designed world are we not as ants walking across the Rosetta stone?
Surely isn't the only logical inference from the design standpoint is to say that everything is designed?
The theory of evolution provides an explanation for the development of complexity in biological systems that makes numerous predictions that can be tested and that can be modelled mathematically using computer algorithms. ID offers nothing comparable.
"if you here concede the possibility of design, then why do you not support the idea?"
I also concede the 'possibility' of a magic chicken poofing everything into existence last tuesday.
The reason I don't accept it is that, like the idea of Intelligent Design, there is zero evidence to support such a conclusion.
As for the Paley question, the problem with using human designed machines as evidence for design in general is that it only provides evidence for human design.
If the only known designer is human then why not suggest design in nature comes from that designer rather than some other one with no proof - such as the christian god or my magic chicken.
As for the final point, the answer is both sides don't, and no, of course it wouldn't.
MartinC,
ReplyDeleteI do not regard the age of the earth or universe as a significant point. Many noted scientists have completed their research believing in a six day creation or in a billion years. I thus do not think that the belief seriously impedes a scientist’s ability to do their science.
I agree that one should not merely use one’s senses to detect design from no design. Scientists, however, need the appropriate tools and methodologies to make these distinctions. The explanatory filter outlined by Dembski offers, at least, some attempt to do just that. When we come across an object, we ask certain questions as to its purpose, the material of which it is composed, and the causal mechanism that generated it. Chance, necessity, or chemical and physical processes are all presented as possible mechanisms to explain the pattern we see in the thing we are investigating. Can scientists not make a reasonable inference (remember, we do not need absolute proof) that the proposed mechanisms for some object or pattern X are insufficient as causal explanations for the complexity and specification of the object, and therefore one is safe in inferring design? Why can’t science develop tools to distinguish between designed and undesigned objects in our universe? Even the cosmological argument for a design inference simply presents the evidence of fine-tuning and asks about some of the explanations for this pattern. Real design should therefore be considered as a competing alternative to necessity and chance or even the unobserved and, at present, unproved multiverse hypothesis.
You correctly state that our experience of design is confined to human beings, but I think you have overlooked the fact that human beings use the materials of the world to do their designing. They therefore have a keen knowledge of the limitations in the material processes that are used to design things and explain the emergence of other things. We know what matter can and cannot do on its own. We know that chemical and physical processes have limits that are testable and observable. Therefore, one again needs to use the explanatory filter when addressing the question of design from no design.
I know that evolution is a fact. In Behe’s Edge of Evolution he grants that natural selection, gene mutation, and common ancestry are all right to varying degrees. The theory of evolution embraces a number of ideas and so it easily makes the debate more complicated. The ID people, for the most part, would accept the evolutionary account of life’s development, for they believe that natural processes do have a role in the history of biological life. They merely assert that some things in nature seem best explained as the product of an intelligent cause. Evolution is an historical science and therefore warrants an inference to the best explanation. If the explanation is limited by metaphysical and philosophical prejudice to natural causes alone, then how can we adequately and fairly assess the merits of the alternatives? As regards the idea that evolution is an important part of the scientific enterprise, I would direct you to the statement of Scott Minnich who said that he does not use evolution in his work. He is in the business of reverse engineering. All of science involves intelligent design in investigating the properties of these molecular machines. Evolution was used to offer the final narrative of how the machine developed; it offered no predictive power as to what experiments one should run to find out how the thing works.
You made the statement that intelligent design should consider a number of designers, not just one. I think that you are right. Now you have stated, with the usual comic genius of all atheists, that you merely wrote this point to show that there is no evidence for any designer. Now, does that mean that there is no design? This is not a scientific argument. You are basically stating that if the designer does not reveal himself, herself, or itself to me, then I cannot take the idea of real design seriously. Nonetheless, not knowing the mechanism by which the designer made something or the identity of that designer does not mean that the thing in question was not designed. Your argument states that positing a designer as complex as a God offers no explanation for the thing you are trying to explain. However, one can say that a cosmic designer is an adequate explanation for terrestrial biological complexity, for here we have only sought to account for one part of complexity itself, not all the complexity in the universe.
My final point will focus on the idea of natural theology. Many atheists like to remind us that ascribing arbitrary attributes to a creator is not warranted from the evidence of design. You are right. Natural theologians, however, have known this for centuries. Leibniz, Paley, and Aquinas all sought to discover what the natural world said about the creator, and they realized that there were limitations to what one could know. One can know some things about the creator, however. The designer would have to be an immensely intelligent, powerful, and self-conscious being. The inference to design does not say the being must be infinite, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, or omniscient. That is why intelligent design should not be considered as an attempt to introduce religious ideas into science classrooms. Your example of the chicken reveals your obvious ignorance of natural theology. It is a mere parody that, when examined closely, is not particularly sophisticated in refuting the idea of design or in dismissing a designer.
Are you declaring that intelligent design can never be scientific unless you know who the designer is?
I do not regard the age of the earth or universe as a significant point.
ReplyDeleteYeah really. Who cares!
Therefore, one again needs to use the explanatory filter when addressing the question of design from no design.
For something that "needs" to be used, not one person is using it. Nice fantasy you're having there.
Larry:
ReplyDeleteI find it astonishing that after almost twenty years the Intelligent Design Creationists can't come up with any better arguments than what we see on this website. I find it mind-boggling that people like Casey Luskin are the best they can offer.
I don't find it astonishing at all. The proponents of IDC are biblical creationists, either OECs or YECs. They have on many occassions said as much themselves. If they provide any scientific explanation or evidence for design, it would undermine the value of faith. Please don't ever underestimate a religious person's need to show the value of their faith.
Adam,
If they are to claim the mantle of science, it is incumbent on natural theologians and IDC proponents alike to provide explanations that make testable predictions and then test them. Thus far, IDC proponents have produced fewer papers than a pentadactyl primate can count on one hand none provided evidence supporting IDC. Instead, ID creationists rely on press releases and politicians to push their agenda, whether it be an extreme Christian theocracy for the YECs or more mild theocracy for the OECs.
On the other hand, evolutionary biologists have tested predictions of universal common descent, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, punctuated equilibrium, and so on, over and over and over and, say, over again thus far without end. At least one of these hypotheses has been supported every time.
Until ID creationists are willing to get off their lazy butts and actually put their faith-addled minds to placing their philosophy into a scientific context, honest scientists will never accept their nonsense as science.
“On the other hand, evolutionary biologists have tested predictions of universal common descent, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, punctuated equilibrium, and so on, over and over and over and, say, over again thus far without end. At least one of these hypotheses has been supported every time.”
ReplyDeleteNow this is where the debate becomes complicated. In order to defend evolution’s utility in scientific research, scientists include many terms under the idea of evolutionary biology. Many of the ideas you gave arose either before or after Darwin published his book. The major fields of science were founded, for the most part, without any reference to evolution. The ID people accept that natural selection, a rather obvious idea, has a role in nature. They likewise accept that mutations and other genetic processes can produce changes. They emphasize that organisms change to adapt to their environments and that there is a certain variability and elasticity to life, which is certainly necessary for survival. Punctuated equilibrium has not, it seems, been accepted by all biologists as a solid theoretical construct. So testing sexual selection, natural selection and genetic change is certainly possible, but it does not necessarily support the Darwinian model of evolution.
Ralph Seelke uses his experiments with bacteria to show how the Darwinian process works in the laboratory. He found, as Behe noted in his recent book, that there are clear limitations to the mutation and selection process. The creation of new genes and structures was immensely difficult for the evolutionary mechanism to accomplish. So despite the testing of the ideas you alluded to, the actual test of the mechanism’s capacity to create has not furnished us with reasonable grounds to assert that it did indeed create. We must therefore approach this problem with a more open mind.
I think that ID involves a different kind of science altogether. The natural sciences can show variability within biological life and perhaps ascribe such change to Darwinian processes, but for the more complicated features of our biosphere it seems to have limitations. Science should be able to assert when something is designed and when it is not. This, it seems to me, is an essential tool for the scientific investigation of our world. The ID project proceeds precisely as it should: it notices the limitations of proposed causal mechanisms for a certain structure and considers what cause sufficiently explains the phenomenon. What is not scientific about this? Is this not some kind of inductive thought process?
Design is not enough, you need implementation. It would be fascinating to know who the designer is; it is essential to know how the designer made electrons move in ways they would not do naturally. Any invocation of an immaterial agency tends to violate the laws of thermodynamics; a material designer just raises the question "Who designed the designer?"
ReplyDeleteAdam says,
ReplyDeleteThe ID project proceeds precisely as it should: it notices the limitations of proposed causal mechanisms for a certain structure and considers what cause sufficiently explains the phenomenon. What is not scientific about this? Is this not some kind of inductive thought process?
Can you give me an example of this kind of reasoning? Take the bacterial flagellum, for example, can you point me to an article where the Intelligent Design Creationists have offered a "scientific" explanation that accounts for all of the facts?
All I ever see are variations on two themes: "evolution can't be the explanation," and "God did it."
Is "God did it" scientific? Is it a sufficient enough explanation to satisfy you?
Adam said:
ReplyDelete"Many of the ideas you gave arose either before or after Darwin published his book."
This is typical creationist thinking, implying that only Darwin's idea of natural selection counts as evolution and that On the Origin is a revelatory text equivalent among biologists to biblical scripture. Yes, I know you mention IDC proponents' acceptance of mutation as a source of genetic variation but you play down its importance and that of genetic drift. After all, if the name Darwin is all that is needed to whip the faithful into a frothing frenzy, why bother to know squat about anything else in evolutionary biology?
"The major fields of science were founded, for the most part, without any reference to evolution."
This is a non sequitur. When various scientific fields were founded and the prevailing ideas of the day are irrelevant. E.g., Newton's ideas preceded Einstein's. BFD, it has no bearing on the importance of Einstein's theories to physics.
"Punctuated equilibrium has not, it seems, been accepted by all biologists as a solid theoretical construct."
Since when is acceptance by all a requirement? There is broad support for PE as a valid historical theory that explains the patterns we see in the fossil record.
"Ralph Seelke uses his experiments with bacteria to show how the Darwinian process works in the laboratory."
PUHLEASE! You have got to be kidding me! This OEC is the best you can pull out of your hat? His failures to find evidence of natural selection producing novel genes in his lab are not evidence supporting IDC.
I'll avoid the dueling authorities name-dropping tactic for the moment. But there are plenty of studies that have shown that new genes can evolve both by drift and by NS and that this process can be extremely rapid. In fact, there is considerable evidence for the duplication of entire genomes with the 'extra' genes being coopted for other functions in later generations. In fact, this is known to have occurred multiple times in the metazoan tree.
"We must therefore approach this problem with a more open mind."
But not so open that our brains fall out.
"The natural sciences can show variability within biological life and perhaps ascribe such change to Darwinian processes, but for the more complicated features of our biosphere it seems to have limitations."
Wow. Ignorance on parade. Variability is not change. It is the result of change. "Biological life" - what other kind is there? Observation shows variability among living things, no science necessary. Explaining that variability is where science comes in. Evolutionary theories (and yes, these include more than just Darwin's theories) and mutation explain all the variability studied so far quite handily. To what "more complicated features of our biosphere" are you referring?
"I think that ID involves a different kind of science altogether."
Yes, I'm sure the type of science where value judgments, star signs and omens are used in place of hypothesis testing would be just the kind of different science IDC proponents would love. Behe said as much in his testimony in Dover.
"The ID project proceeds precisely as it should: it notices the limitations of proposed causal mechanisms for a certain structure and considers what cause sufficiently explains the phenomenon."
You left out the most important part that makes it science and not mental masturbation: you have to actually provide testable predictions to your sufficient explanation and then test them. All IDC proponents have done thus far is shrug and hand wave in public while privately saying "Goddidit" (and in their meetings, recordings of which have on occasion slipped out). So far, IDC has no research program. It has a multi-million dollar PR campaign, PACs, and a blistering loss in a PA courtroom. Please, if you are going to try to support IDC, do so with positive evidence favoring IDC. NOT with the standard creationist nonsense of claiming that if someone can't show that a trait evolved then it must have been designed. IDC is not the null hypothesis.
But there are plenty of studies that have shown that new genes can evolve both by drift and by NS and that this process can be extremely rapid.
ReplyDeleteYeah but that's because Jesus was "designing" the genes in those studies. Jesus won't do that for Ralph Seelke because Seelke is a believer who is specifically NOT looking for design, but rather he was looking for the shortcomings of evolution instead.
Adam is just pulling some crap talking points out of some ID web page or other. He don't have a damn clue about any of that. (Assuming he's not just trolling of course.)
Prof. Moran,
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned in your post that the ID scientists would have to tell you when, where, and how the designer did his work. So God did it would indeed be an explanation. Perhaps it is one you find theologically and philosophically unacceptable, but it is, alas, a decent answer for explaining the emergence of complexity. You thus have two choices here: evolution did it or God made it, which one do you find scientifically acceptable and why?
c-serpent,
I detect in your obvious foaming at the mouth that you have interacted with many creationists before. I am not one of them. I am a theistic evolutionist and contrary to your puerile assertions, it is not the ID people who are fanatical about their beliefs. I have read enough of your commentary to know that.
The question that ID people, it seems to me, are trying to address is what is the best explanation for a pattern we see in nature. Both design and no design, intelligent activity and random, material processes are possible explanations. The design filter is a necessary tool in science. It may help you resolve vexing questions and uncertainties about these issues. In response to this, you think that I have attacked either science or evolutionary biology. I can assure you that I have not. The ID people accept many of the terms you listed in your previous post. They just doubt that the causal mechanism for some structures was the result of necessity or chance.
I also never referenced the other fields of science to invalidate evolutionary biology. I am not here to do so. I merely wanted to indicate that these fields themselves independently influenced evolutionary thinking and were not the direct offspring of it. You further mentioned that acceptance by all is not a requirement in science, and I think that you are right, so the fact that a majority of biologists and other scientists accept many of the claims of evolutionary theory could be explained by their firm adherence to the definition of science: natural causes for explaining natural things. I guess that scientists are certainly influenced by maintaining the priority of the paradigm.
"UHLEASE! You have got to be kidding me! This OEC is the best you can pull out of your hat? His failures to find evidence of natural selection producing novel genes in his lab are not evidence supporting IDC."
It is also, incidentally, not evidence supporting evolution either. I find it amazing how scientists, being human, all too human, dismiss their colleagues by searching for the reasons why they have done the experiment and thus declaring the experiment to be invalid or wrong on that account. This is a genetic fallacy. He did, nevertheless, discover a limit to what the Darwinian mechanism could do, did he not?
“Explaining that variability is where science comes in. Evolutionary theories (and yes, these include more than just Darwin's theories) and mutation explain all the variability studied so far quite handily. “
Except the structures that the ID people are claiming cannot be adequately explained by such means. However, if science comes armed with its definition that the supernatural is not scientific, then you have obviously restricted your resources for explaining anything. I find it remarkable, as well, that Darwin’s theory and its present variant can actually be deduced directly from atomistic philosophy without needing any proof for its claims. Can you think of another area of science where this is the case?
I do think that ID is a different kind of science. It will force a redefinition of science for future generations, so that supernatural causes and non-material explanations may become possible. You constantly refer to the fact that all they have to offer is that God did it. Yes, and maybe he did do it. Perhaps he spoke it into existence, or used his hands, or forced mutations. I do not think that offering an answer to your question will make you any more receptive to the idea of divine causality. As I said, a new kind of science emerges with the consideration of a supernatural intelligence. It happened in cosmology (Big Bang and fine-tuning), so why not in biology as well?
Evolution is not the default position either. If you have no explanation for something, then it seems quite prudent to investigate such with all ideas on the table. One need not restrict oneself, unless theological and metaphysical prejudices actually influence scientists, to naturalistic explanations alone. Why is ID such a threat to you people? It is not so to science. I think this issue involves world views, and you people find the idea of intelligent agency in life’s development as distasteful. Well that’s fine, but it is not a scientific argument against intelligent design. There is a debate and we need to introduce it into the classrooms and the universities. The ID people are not fanatics and their argument is not going away.
386sx,
I am not a troll. I merely wished to see what the best defenders of evolution could argue against such an eminently reasonable hypothesis like ID. I now know that your atheistic bias is far more involved in this debate then you desire to acknowledge. I admit that I am a theist, but I am also open to seeing the ID project disproven on scientific grounds. I have yet to see that here. You establish so many conditions for the ID people so that it is never made into a science. How is this fair or even decent? God could have made life and other complex structures; you cannot assert this to be untrue.
Your condescending and derisive comments also offer little to the discussion. If I were to speak to you like that, then I should justly be censured. I am honestly seeking the truth. I have always thought of scientists as seekers and pilgrims, not a dreadful priesthood.
I have read a few of your articles here, Prof. Moran. Thanks for posting them!
Adam says,
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned in your post that the ID scientists would have to tell you when, where, and how the designer did his work. So God did it would indeed be an explanation. Perhaps it is one you find theologically and philosophically unacceptable, but it is, alas, a decent answer for explaining the emergence of complexity.
I'd like to see an Intelligent Design Creationist explain the bacterial flagellum or any other biological structure. The explanation has to account for the data and it has be an explanation that we can examine. "God did it" is not an explanation. It's a cop-out. Which God? When? How many times? What species? Why?
You thus have two choices here: evolution did it or God made it, which one do you find scientifically acceptable and why?
Any explanation that requires the supernatural is not scientific by definition. But I'd be willing to listen if the creationists would just get their act together and propose something. Are you willing to be the first one to offer a plausible explanation other than "God did it?"
I'm not holding my breath.
You mentioned in your post that the ID scientists would have to tell you when, where, and how the designer did his work. So God did it would indeed be an explanation.
ReplyDeleteAdam, you've never seen this God. If you saw it, you wouldn't know if it "designed" anything. If it told you it did, it might be lying, and it might not even be a "God" because it might be lying about that too. You have no idea if a "God" ever "designed" anything, or ever wanted to design anything. You don't know what a "God" is, nor do you have any way of knowing what a God can or cannot do.
Even after all that, you're still jumping from "designer did his work" to the designer is either God, or evolution did it. And you say you are not fanatical about your beliefs. You are delusional, and you're shoveling out a pile of delusional crap, and you can take that pile of crap and grow a pile of trees or something. Have a nice day!
You thus have two choices here: evolution did it or God made it, which one do you find scientifically acceptable and why?
ReplyDeleteOh Adam, that is so pre-Dover. There's always at least a third possibility: We don't know. Actually, I believe this includes every single example that might fall into the category of "God(s) made it," or are you claiming special knowledge of what God(s) did?
With regard to scientific acceptability, how can the doings of a supernatural being ever elucidate the workings of the natural world in the way science seeks to do?
Consider ID, which takes as its centerpiece the proposition that natural forces cannot produce the diversity and complexity of life, so a supernatural guiding force had to do so. (If you would respond that the guiding force need not be supernatural, think again - if natural forces cannot produce complexity, they cannot produce a Designer.) If this guiding force is supernatural, then its actions aren't capable of elucidation through the scientific method, which relies on the repeatability provided by natural laws. For example, 5+2=7 is repeatable. In the hands of a supernatural force, however, 5+2>5000, see http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2014:13-14:21&version=8 . Such miraculous events are by definition not repeatable in a natural experimental setting (if they were repeatable by just anyone, they wouldn't be miraculous, would they?), and thus not subject to scientific inquiry.
"I detect in your obvious foaming at the mouth..."
ReplyDeleteThe only foam here is from my cappuccino. Theistic evolutionist, raving creationist, hardcore atheist... doesn't matter. I don't care. It is your arguments and examples that I criticized.
"The design filter is a necessary tool in science."
Are you referring to Dembski's design filter? The one that was thorough discredited by his fellow mathematicians? Or are you referring to something more philosophical in nature?
"In response to this, you think that I have attacked either science or evolutionary biology."
You now claim to read minds? I said nothing of the sort. I pointed out that you zoomed right in on Darwin, addressing all the other evolutionary explanations either tangentially or dismissively. This is a typical debate tactic taken by creationists - keep the opposition defending Darwin and the audience focused on Darwin while ignoring explanations and evidence. Even if you are not a YEC or OEC, you used the tool and I called you on it. Deal.
"I also never referenced the other fields of science to invalidate evolutionary biology."
Either you are being wholly disingenuous or you misunderstood my point. You brought up the timing of Darwin's theories' publication and their influence in what read as an obvious attempt to dismiss the importance of evolutionary biology by dismissing the importance of Darwin. I pointed out that it was a non sequitur and gave you an analogous example from physics.
"They just doubt that the causal mechanism for some structures was the result of necessity or chance."
Like eyes and bacterial flagella and mammalian immune systems - all of which are explained handily by evolutionary mechanisms (the first one by Darwin himself in 1859) and despite which, the IDC proponents keep trotting out as examples. IDC proponents propose no alternative amenable to testing using scientific methods. In fact, the only alternative they propose is the simple statement, "these things are designed because evolution couldn't do it" and then they walk away. Seelke's hero Behe showed exactly what IDC is about with his testimony at Dover. When confronted with a stack of primary literature all dealing with the evolution of the mammalian immune system, Behe said it didn't matter and wasn't convincing even though he admitted not having read most if any of it. He said, essentially, that no amount of research ever could convince him. In other words, the poster boy and paid expert witness for IDC admitted that his expertise stems from willful ignorance and that he is absolutely unwilling to use an objective, scientific approach when dealing with evolution. His fellow IDC travelers frequently make similar statements - remarkably similar to those made by YECs and OECs.
Again, it is the responsibility of IDC proponents to provide positive evidence supporting design. Negative evidence regarding evolution, such as Seelke's work is not evidence for design nor for any alternative. Nor do Seelke's experiments falsify evolution of all life on earth. They simply show that natural selection didn't produce the results he expected in his cultures under his experimental design. I focused on his bias because he stated that his work on selection began after reading Behe's book Darwin's Black Box. His bias entering the experiments is reason to scrutinize his experimental design, just as any evolutionary biologist's bias is reason to scrutinize their experimental design. This is not a genetic fallacy. If it were, I would have to have attempted to discredit Seelke by referring to an irrelevant prior condition. Nor am I critical of his negative results. Lots of experiments return negative results. I think they should be published along with any positive results. What I criticize is stretching the assertion based upon his results way beyond the scope of the study, as he did in the Kansas kangaroo court. That his few experiments failed to turn up novel genes doesn't negate the evolution of "new information" outside his lab. Lenski's work, which began before Seelke got involved with this stuff, pretty much puts Seelke's to shame - much longer time frame, many more replicates, substantially better controls, etc. To be clear, Lenski's results also do not mean that NS, drift, or other mechanisms do produce or have produced new genes outside of the laboratory. But, they show that those mechanisms can produce new genes in direct contradiction to Seelke's conclusions.
"However, if science comes armed with its definition that the supernatural is not scientific, then you have obviously restricted your resources for explaining anything."
Cue Behe saying that under his paradigm, astrology would be science. This is what you propose? Supernatural explanations are not falsifiable. A sample dialog:
Biologist: "The bacterial flagellum is a beautiful example of an elaborate structure evolved through gene duplication, genetic drift and repurposing by natural selection."
IDCreationist: "No it isn't. God did it. See how much it resembles a machine? It obviously was designed. My design filter says so."
Biologist: "Here is the toxin injection mechanism that preceded the evolution of the flagellum. See how many of the proteins use the same sequences, more or less modified, to carry out different tasks in each of the two structures. Common descent predicted that we would see sequence similarities in the genes coding for those proteins and there they are!"
IDCreationist: "God just made it look that way to test our faith. And you said 'mechanism' - as in machine - see - you think it was designed too! You just don't want to admit it!"
And on and on and on and on...
Supernatural explanations stifle progress, inhibit knowledge, and maintain ignorance. We'll keep our science out of your god and you kindly keep your god out of our science. What you do with peanut butter and chocolate is your business.
"I find it remarkable, as well, Darwin’s theory[1] and its present variant can actually be deduced directly from atomistic philosophy without needing any proof[2] for its claims. Can you think of another area of science where this is the case?[3]"
Excrement.
1) That's theories - as in more than one, please let that penetrate your brain pan. And, it is not just about Darwin - of which you just can't seem to let go (see creationist debate tactic above.)
2) Now you break out the philosobabble and banter it at us. Science isn't in the business of proof. We leave proof to the mathematicians.
3)All of them. Yes, some rely heavily on mathematical proof for their theories, physics for example. But none require 'proof' for testing their hypotheses. Mathematical proof demonstrates internal consistency. It does not test the predictions of theory against data, which is at the heart of science.
"I do think that ID is a different kind of science. It will force a redefinition of science for future generations, so that supernatural causes and non-material explanations may become possible."
Hence rendering science utterly worthless. The strength of modern science is in its ability to self-correct by accepting that scientific explanations may be wrong and searching for evidence. Accepting supernatural answers negates that strength and turns science into religion. As illustrated above, those types of answers stifle progress and maintain ignorance. Why bother with changing science when religion already does this?
"Evolution is not the default position either."
Never said it was. The default explanation in science is "I don't know." It is the ID creationists that insist that negative evidence regarding evolution is positive evidence of design. It is ID creationists that insist that design is the default position.
I will criticize your ideas as well. Dembski’s design filter is indeed controversial, and he has stated that for every qualified expert who thinks it unworkable many others believe it to be an essential part of scientific investigation. I would think-perhaps you do not- that scientists should be able to discern between the things that are designed and those that are not. Are you suggesting that science is incapable of doing this in our world? Or are you incapable of accepting the fact that science can do it?
ReplyDelete“Either you are being wholly disingenuous or you misunderstood my point. You brought up the timing of Darwin's theories' publication and their influence in what read as an obvious attempt to dismiss the importance of evolutionary biology by dismissing the importance of Darwin. I pointed out that it was a non sequitur and gave you an analogous example from physics.”
My intention was not to dismiss Darwin, neo-Darwinism, or evolutionary biology (did I get all the terms right?), for I merely wanted to critique the incredible importance that biologists place on this theory when it has some obvious explanatory limitations. I wanted to critique the notion that if we attack or criticise evolution, then we are in fact attacking science. We are not doing anything of the sort. We are merely asking about the utility of Darwinian theories in the scientific community. If I have conveyed something different, then I am sorry. I do not regard Darwin as having been mistaken in his ideas, and I know that modern science has greatly extended the early versions of Darwinism to include many other things, including genetics. The Darwinian Theory, however, is the purported grand narrative of the history of life on earth, which is something no one was there to see or document. The fossils remain the physical evidence for reconstructing such a story, and they are interpreted without any reference to intelligent design. You do not approach the physical evidence impartially at all.
I find the statement that Behe’s being confronted with a stack of papers claiming to offer explanations for the evolution of the immune system as an obvious victory for science disconcerting. If you actually cared to look at what he was trying to say, you would notice that those papers do not handily address his own claims made in Darwin’s Black Box. Furthermore, does being able to pile books or papers in front of your antagonist make your argument unassailable? Why didn’t they just produce the paper or finding that clearly countered his claim? Unless, of course, the stacks of papers and books that their lawyers placed before him represented speculative thinking as to the evolution of the immune system and not hard evidence against Behe.
You have made a dreadful charge against the ID people in stating that no amount of evidence will convince them. It is precisely because they avidly searched for evidence that they now doubt the theory. I think no amount of evidence will ever convince the evolutionists that their theory may be wrong, because it accords precisely with the current definition of science: natural explanations only.
Perhaps the work of Seelke may be wrong or stretched beyond the evidence (as if evolutionists have never done that before!). You nevertheless have a clear dislike for his claims because of his design oriented motivations for having done the experiment. He is trying to test what the proposed naturalistic mechanism for creation can actually do, and so far one must concede that there are limitations. I think it may not be evidence for design, but it sure does open the possibility and necessity for debate in your enclosed, naturalistic institutions of science.
Your puerile parody of what design theorists think will now be met with a more accurate one of mine for Darwinists.
Scientist: “The origin of genetic information, molecular machines, and design everywhere in the world needs a suitable explanation, so what do you have?”
IDer: “Well, we have a range of causal mechanisms that may explain what we see. It could be real design or it could be the result of chance and necessity. We may never know, but let us not limit the potential tools we need to explain the pattern in life. We have considered the possibility that life was placed on earth by some alien life form. We call this theory Directed Panspermia. Life, it seems to me, is too complex to have evolved by the materialistic mechanisms being proposed by other scientists. One needs to concede that the difficulties are shocking. We really have no idea how it happened, and yet the pattern we see in “primitive” life forms exhibits the unmistakable marks of design. It has purpose, functional complexity, purposeful machines that do a certain function, and information processing systems which place in doubt the contention that undirected, material processes could possibly have made this. We should broaden the debate a little to include more possibilities.”
Scientist: “But the theory of intelligent design is not science. Remember at the previous meeting of our colleagues when they said that in order to explain material phenomenon we need material explanations. We cannot violate the holy doctrines of our faith. It would seriously disturb the scientific profession, for they have all been taught that this is the only possible kind of science one can conduct among thinking men and women. The rest is a simple appeal to magic.”
IDer: “I see your point. However, these systems bear the appearance of design so perhaps the scientific community should consider the idea with a greater degree of precision. We should not dismiss it only because it is so obvious and interferes with our preconceptions of the world.”
Scientist: “We may be able to use the alien as an explanation, but any appeal to an immaterial designer is forbidden. The alien must have evolved somewhere else. I think that this design was the result of alien experimentation, but we have no physical evidence for that yet so I remain convinced of the truth of evolution. Evolution did it and we will find the answer, so have faith!”
IDer: “You have dismissed design not because it is not in fact there but because the explanation for the design we see may lead to the idea of a cosmic being having done it. You cannot dismiss a legitimate inference to the best explanation just because you hate the explanation, so what is your scientific argument against this idea?”
Let me give you an example of what I mean: We have a computer here. It was designed by computer technicians and other intelligent beings. I may not know precisely when, where, and how it was put together and I may not even know the full details of the myriad number of machines which contributed to its creation, but that should not stop me from recognizing that it was designed.”
Scientist: “Invoking a designer beyond the physical stops science. We don’t have to explain things anymore. God did it! The explanation violates our core tenet of scientific thinking and the idea that we should explain everything without resorting to a designer, especially a supernatural one.”
IDer: “Well, I disagree that it stops science. We may be able to declare that someone or something designed X but that does not tell us how and why X is put together like it is. Biological life is immensely complex. To invoke design is merely to concede that what we see has been designed; we can break the things apart and put them back together in our labs. That is real science and it will continue unabated. The questions for science really begin to explode: Who is the designer? How did it, she, or he do it? We can even make the prediction that these machines could perform more than one function. It is the mark of an excellent engineer that their designs are applicable in a number of cases. If you do not take this idea seriously, then we may be disqualifying a powerful concept without fairly assessing its potential. Good science is an open science. We should go where the evidence leads us.”
Scientist: “You are enemy of reason and science and I will have nothing further to say to you. Naturalism is true. We can never detect real design because it brings us to a real designer and that is unacceptable to me!”
You seem keen to mention mathematicians a lot, so tell me what do they think of Neo-Darwinism? Are they as supportive of the idea of a random universe as you are?
The idea that ID will stop science is ludicrous. I find this scare tactic used constantly. One should recognize in this debate that the phrase, “evolution did it”, could be just as harmful to scientific enquiry. Since many of you are in science, I fear it has already taken its toll. You were asked to think the most dangerous thought of all: that there may be a creator. In response to this problem you rallied behind lawyers and the definition of science, negative arguments against ID, ridiculous caricatures of their positions, and broad dismissals of the very idea. This is not the behaviour of people who have overwhelming evidence on their side. It is, rather, the behaviour of people who wish to defend the paradigm against any alternative that is not naturalistic. I therefore doubt your impartiality when one considers this issue. If the universe was designed by an intelligent being, then science should be able to tell us that.
"The idea that ID will stop science is ludicrous."
ReplyDeleteIntelligent design has been around for about a decade now. It's had a lot of money thrown at it by various foundations so presumably its had ample opportunity to prove its critics wrong in the best way possible, by producing hard evidence.
Would you care to give us a few examples of its best discoveries?
Intelligent design has been around for about a decade now.
ReplyDeleteIntelligent Design has been around a lot longer than a decade.
"Third, I say that, if there were a real proof that the Sun is in the centre of the universe, that the Earth is in the third sphere, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and we should rather have to say that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But I do not think there is any such proof since none has been shown to me."
386sx quoted Cardinal Bellarmine:
ReplyDeleteBut I do not think there is any such proof since none has been shown to me.
That's because scientists are ideologically predisposed to explain-away this kind of evidence, so you will rarely find them looking into it from this angle:
Does the motion of the solar system affect the microwave sky?
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29210
Lawrence Krauss even talks about this direct observation:
THE ENERGY OF SPACE THAT ISN'T ZERO
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/krauss06/krauss06.2_index.html
But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.
-Lawrence Krauss
http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/guest-post-rick-ryals-the-anthropic-principle/
Adam,
ReplyDeleteUltimately, IDC proponents have to provide evidence supporting IDC. Simply claiming, often wrongly, that evolutionary theories do not explain a specific structure in a specific taxon does not give support to IDC. Negative evidence for one hypothesis does not automatically support another of your choosing.
Again, it is not all about Darwin. Saying that Darwin's theory is the grand narrative uniting all life on earth is stretching things a bit. Universal common descent, a hypothesis that preceded Darwin is the common thread that unites all life on earth. UCD makes certain predictions that we can test through simple, and not so simple observation. The hypothesis is now considered theory because over about 200 years, as technological advances allowed, thousands of experiments and observations have confirmed the predictions of UCD, at least back to the early stages of life on earth. Those predictions continue to be supported with continuing experimentation on ever increasing numbers of taxa. It is falsifiable because at any time someone may find taxa that share none of the molecular mechanisms or biochemistry of any other existing taxa, thus demonstrating at least one separate origin and evolutionary lineage of life. That would not falsify all of common descent. But it would require it to be modified and it would no longer be universal. That natural selection is the single most important driving force producing diversity is certainly controversial. I'm pretty sure Larry, for example, considers genetic drift to be much more important than natural selection.
Darwin explained how diversity could arise through descent with modification. Sewell Wright championed genetic drift as an important mechanism. Ernst Mayr combined and extended these to describe allopatric and peripatric mechanisms, linking what some choose to call microevolution and macroevolution. Others have done the hard work and tested the predictions of allopatric, peripatric, and sympatric speciation and found each to explain speciation events for various taxa. Combined, the thousands of empirical and descriptive studies investigating evolutionary hypotheses have produced a veritable mountain range of evidence that ties together all life on earth with a single common thread and provide explanations for the diversity we observe.
As for the fossil record, again there are predictions made by the various evolutionary mechanisms that can be, have been and continue to be tested through comparative anatomy using fossils. Again, in combination, these independent tests of evolutionary hypotheses support UCD and they support evolutionary explanations for prehistoric and modern diversity.
IDC rarely makes predictions that are testable. IDC proponents have provided no evidence whatsoever to support their contention that some structures ARE designed as opposed to merely APPEARING to be designed. In fact, Behe's argument is basically that if it looks designed it is designed. IDC still consists of solely of hand-waving and arguments from analogy supported by a massive well-funded political PR campaign. Behe, for example, when confronted with the question of why not do the research to provide evidence of design said that he had no interest in doing so and that it was evolutionary biologists that had to do it! Seelke didn't do it. Dembski hasn't done it. Thus far, there is no IDC research program despite considerable private funding.
Speaking of Behe, regarding his testimony, I was not condemning his refusal to accept the literature presented to him as sufficient. I was condemning his admission that he hadn't even read it and that he would not accept it even if he had because NO AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE would be possible to convince him. He decided a priori that the mammalian immune system is designed and cared not one bit about trying to demonstrate it through scientific methods. His attitude along those lines is typical of every ID proponent I have ever encountered and it is identical to YECs and OECs.
Lastly, this blog is an appropriate forum for debating these points. A university (particularly grad school) philosophy, history, or science course is an appropriate place for comparing these points of view. In primary and secondary education, where the students have yet to learn the fundamental principles of the various scientific disciplines, when there is little time to cover even a small fraction of the evidence supporting evolutionary theory, a science class is not the place to introduce IDC as anything other than a non-scientific way of explaining observations. Done reasonably well and accurately it would demonstrate how one way of thinking (scientific) requires evidence to support predictions and thereby support (or reject as the outcome may be) explanations, while another way of thinking (IDC) uses nothing but analogies and therefore doesn't meet the criteria of modern science. But, I don't think that IDC proponents would like that outcome. Instead, those like Behe would like their pet convictions, such as 'the bacterial flagellum was designed because it looks like a machine and I don't believe that kind of complexity can evolve' be presented as valid alternatives sans predictions, testing, evidence, and so on. That just will not be acceptable to any honest scientist. Like Larry, I would be very happy to see a scientific IDC hypothesis if there ever is one. Thus far however, IDC has no scientific hypotheses, let alone any theory. At best IDC tries to modernize, by incorporating molecules, Paley's attempt to understand god by looking at creation. This is theology or philosophy. It is not science.
I have a question for all of you: would you believe in evolution if we knew for certain that a creator existed?
ReplyDeleteIf you answer yes, then I will concede that the physical evidence for the theory was profound. If you answer no, then I will conclude that the physical evidence was not as profound and that the theory was sustained more heavily by philosophical and metaphysical presuppositions.
Many of the evidences you mentioned can be interpreted differently if one has a different worldview. Would you thus agree that what we see on earth has the appearance of being designed for a purpose? In all my previous posts I mentioned that science should be able to distinguish a designed object from one that is not designed. In response to such an eminently reasonable idea, you proclaimed that the Theory of Evolution offers the best explanation for the scientific community. That may be true, but I do not regard it, interestingly, as the only way of looking at the world. Because we do not have the answer to how, where, and when the bacterial flagellum, the cilium, and other systems evolved, we cannot presume that they indeed did. We need to debate the idea. You people treat the notion of intelligent design as inherently unscientific and stupid. You offer no evidence for this assertion, yet all of you in your laboratories intelligently design experiments. Intelligent design is such an obvious part of science that I remain shocked when people tell me it is not science.
The current debate is not between YEC and evolution. It is between intelligent design and evolution. The broad claim that there was no intelligence involved in life’s development seems shocking to me. I obviously have a bias of my own when reading about these matters, but it does not hinder my thinking of other ideas. Should you not also consider how one can make intelligent design a robust science? If you really are committed to understanding the world fairly and impartially, then why not aid them in developing the program to its fullest potential. Perhaps we may discover that life is more complex than we previously thought, and at such times being prepared to view the world from two angles is, I think, immeasurably more pleasing than using reductionism.
I have talked to many students in my department, and they see you people as close minded and terribly doctrinaire. I was taught in the university the evidence for evolution, and I turned into what many of you have become. I now freely confess that I do not know where this complexity came from. I am only committed to searching for the truth, and entering into an environment where that is possible. I do not believe that it is possible to do that here. You people just don’t want to consider that intelligent design might have some merit. You have other reasons for believing this.
I should also inform you of the fact that theistic evolutionists are not as desperate to dismiss the idea of intelligent design as you are. We have no preconceptions about the world we live in, and we see no reason to become defensive when evolution (the modern theory) is critiqued. Why do you feel otherwise? Does your world view influence your interpretation of the facts? Can you even honestly admit this?
Remember, all scientists were ever meant to be were seekers and pilgrims toward truth in a world that shows design everywhere. When did the profession become such a ravenous priesthood?
Adam, don't avoid the question.
ReplyDeleteWhat are the top discoveries of intelligent design research over the past decade?
Adam says,
ReplyDeleteI should also inform you of the fact that theistic evolutionists are not as desperate to dismiss the idea of intelligent design as you are. We have no preconceptions about the world we live in, and we see no reason to become defensive when evolution (the modern theory) is critiqued. Why do you feel otherwise? Does your world view influence your interpretation of the facts? Can you even honestly admit this?
I admit it. I see absolutely no evidence for the existence of supernatural beings so the idea that life can be explained by the action of such beings seems like nonsense to me. I don't believe in magic, astrology, and mental telepathy for the same reasons.
I see some evidence of "design" in nature (eyes, brains, coconuts, bacterial flagella) but these are quite compatible with naturalistic explanations. Most of nature doesn't look very well designed to me and this doesn't seem to be consistent with the actions of a "intelligent designer."
Adam, the idea that Christians (or Muslims or Hindus or whatever) have no "preconceptions about the world we live in" is ludicrous. Your entire line of argument is based on the assumption that supernatural beings exist and that they care enough about the world we live in to intervene from time to time.
I have no need of that preconception so I don't employ it to interpret the natural world.
What you are claiming is no less than "scientific" proof of the existence of God. What are the best "facts" supporting your claim? Be careful now, the only "facts" you can lay on the table are those that don't rely on your preconception that God exists. Otherwise it's an invalid circular argument.
Adam,
ReplyDelete"I have a question for all of you: would you believe in evolution if we knew for certain that a creator existed?"
Yes, as much as I believe in gravity. It is, as are all scientific beliefs, a conditional belief, subject to rejection in light of contradictory evidence.
"Many of the evidences you mentioned can be interpreted differently if one has a different worldview."
Absolutely true. I couldn't agree more. But, such a worldview would be outside of the realm of science. IDC purports to be scientific and at least most of its prominent proponents demand that we change the current rules of science to accommodate it. It would be no different for an astrologer to demand that physicists change the rules to accommodate belief that the arbitrary appearance of groups of unrelated stars affects the personalities of people who may never even have seen those patterns. Scientists are very resistant to change, i.e., conservative, and extremely resistant, perhaps even hostile, to demands for dramatic change without any evidence to justify it.
"The broad claim that there was no intelligence involved in life’s development seems shocking to me."
This is a common and deliberate in some cases misinterpretation of what evolutionary biologists say. Generally, we make no such claim. We claim that the evidence overwhelmingly supports evolutionary explanations for the diversity of life on earth. Special creation fails as a scientific hypothesis because it makes no testable predictions. Intelligent design is simply special creation with the proper name 'God' removed and 'designer' put in its place. We do not make, as scientists, a positive assertion that a creator does not exist. We claim that there is no scientific evidence supporting the positive claim that one does exist. If someone provides such evidence, based upon a falsifiable prediction stemming from a hypothesis of an intelligent creator, then scientists will accept it.
"I should also inform you of the fact that theistic evolutionists are not as desperate to dismiss the idea of intelligent design as you are."
Utter horse hockey. First, we are not desperate. We insist that IDC go through the same process as any other scientific hypothesis before we will accept it as a scientific idea. And we become frustrated and angry when IDC proponents, as the creationists that came before them, insist that their 'worldview' be treated as a scientific theory on the level of evolutionary theory despite not one single piece of evidence to support IDC. Again, do the work, produce the evidence, or stop calling it science. Because if no one does the work to produce the evidence, then calling it science is bald-faced lying.
As it stands, IDC is a perfectly acceptable worldview, theological position or philosophical concept. It is not science.
"We have no preconceptions about the world we live in,..."
This is demonstrably false. You either are a shameless liar, careless writer, or possess an astounding cognitive dissonance. Calling oneself a theistic evolutionist indicates unequivocally that one believes in a supernatural power influencing, guiding, directing, or designing the process of evolution. That is the very definition of a preconception! It is precisely this sort of disingenuousness or phenomenal cognitive dissonance that so distresses evolutionary biologists and other scientists. That you are incapable or unwilling to admit that a prior belief in god(s) is a preconception detracts from any credibility you may try to project as a scientist.
"and we see no reason to become defensive when evolution (the modern theory) is critiqued. Why do you feel otherwise?"
More disingenuousness or cognitive dissonance - we don't defend against scientific critiques of evolutionary biology. We welcome them. We will defend vigorously against political and PR attempts to supplant evolutionary theories with supernatural supposition within the context of science because such things are not scientific.
To use an analogy that began on Usenet and later popularized by The Onion, imagine if a group of theologians, philosophers, mathematicians, engineers, and chemists were to demand that physicists accept their idea of Intelligent Falling (IF), based upon the image in the Sistine Chapel of the hand of god reaching down to Adam. Do you think for a moment that if there were the same multimillion-dollar PR and political operation supporting IF that physicists would cheerfully say "sure, we'll teach that in our physcics classes" without any argument or discussion. If you do, then you are truly naive and delusional. Yet this is precisely what you demand biologists do.
To turn it around, suppose that I, as a biologist, demanded that you give equal time in a class on the Books of Genesis to scientific theories such as the principle of uniformitarianism and evolution. And, imagine if I launched a multi-million dollar PR campaign demanding that all the Christian churches, Jewish synagogues, and Muslim mosques provide equal time in their ceremonies for accurate presentation of scientific explanations that contradict the things that they take on faith. In the first case, theologians, including theistic evolutionists would be beside themselves with territorial angst. In the second case, preachers of all faiths worldwide would scream and stomp their feet, there would be wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth, and cries of "unfair" and "your ideas don't belong here" and so on... culminating almost certainly in extreme violence against the scientists. And, IMO, except for the violence they would be right. Science has no place in any religion that does not want it and religion has no place in any science at all. When science and religion conflict, honest scientists side with the evidence and religionists side with faith, unless they happen also to be scientists, in which case the honest ones may be willing to modify their religion. In science, modifying or rejecting any hypothesis requires the accumulation of contradictory evidence. Faith and unconditional belief do not enter into it.
If you want to use the outcomes of science to wax poetic about the magnificence of the creator, analogous to Paley's Natural Theology, then by all means have at it. Just don't claim that your poetic musings about that creator are science, because unless you are doing something that no one else has ever achieved, the evidence doesn't point to the existence of an intelligent creator. The creator in this case is an untested prior assumption that science is unable to address.
Hey, without even realizing it was there, here is an example from physics along the lines of what I mentioned in my last comment.
ReplyDelete