Beckwith on ID
by BradfordFrank Beckwith wrote The truth about me and Intelligent Design which has been panned by some IDists. Beckwith wrote this:
Despite my interest in this subject and my sympathy for the ID movement’s goal to dismantle materialism and its deleterious implications on our understanding of what is real and what counts as knowledge, I am not, and have never been, a proponent of ID. My reasons have to do with my philosophical opposition to the ID movement’s acquiescence to the modern idea that an Enlightenment view of science is the paradigm of knowledge.
Beckwith identifies what may be the most underrated idea motivating both supporters and opponents of ID. Perhaps the most frequent charge leveled against ID is that it is not a scientific theory. That tends to confirm Beckwith's allegation that ID critics view science as the determinant of authentic knowledge in accordance with a worldview deemed modern even as its roots go back centuries. It is not that IDists and their critics disagree about the utility of science or even the validity of the data itself in most cases. The bone of contention centers around the belief that truth is pegged to empirical results. Yet if both sides value science for its practical utility why are there disputes? Disputes center around issues that a scientific approach is ill-equipped to resolve. Whether the issue is mind/brain duality, the origin of life or the anthropic principle, empirical testing is unlikely to render definitive answers fully supporting either IDists or their critics. Critics can complain about God in the gaps but the truth is that an inability to produce conclusive scientific data is attributable to limitations inherent to scientific methodology rather than IDists exploiting a temporary absence of scientific knowledge.
Why would one complain about God in the gaps? Complainers tout themselves as defenders of science, as if a belief in divine causality jeopardizes good science. It doesn't of course. One can correctly identify a scientific law with the cause of a physical event and still attribute a divine hand to the process. Theistic beliefs are not negated by scientific knowledge. Science is ill-equipped to even define valid knowledge or resolve epistemological questions.
Beckwith has a point in that some IDists unintentionally validate the philosophical underpinnings of critics when they engage critics on their own terms. The antithesis of ID is not science. Its antithesis lies in the belief that it is more rational to believe that the physical world supports an ateleological perspective. Scientific data, as opposed to the scientism embraced by many critics, does not support ID's antithesis.
November 15th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Great post Bradford. I think this really gets to the heart of the debate. Although there are many rational reasons to believe in a Designer, science will never be able to conclusively lead us to that belief. By using scientific investigation to infer a Designer we give the impression that we believe in science's ability to answer this question. We have fallen into the same trap as our opponents who believe that science has proven that there is no Designer.
Comment by 0112358 — November 15, 2008 @ 8:54 am
November 15th, 2008 at 9:04 am
I found this page by Beckwith interesting too.
From the page linked in the OP:
I find this a very odd claim; the practical consequence of “Ockham’s razor? Science all about determining the nature of things, so I have to say, I disagree. Beckwith goes on to reference someone as an example of this, but this reference is from 1948. Perhaps if he is having to devle back sixty years into the pastto find example, this gives us an idea of common this belief is. However, hat is not the point of the OP…
I think a lot of ID critics are scientists, and what they objecting to is the corruption of science. Whether that is people promoting the teaching of pseudo-science in school, or the misreporting of science, or the quote-mining of science, even just pretending that your claims are backed by science. These things all serve to devalue science if left unchallenged. If IDists did not do these things, scientists would not care about ID nearly so much, and the number of ID critics would plummet.
Too right. Scientists demand evidence to support claims, IDs think otherwise.
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 15, 2008 @ 9:04 am
November 15th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Bother, my formating has gone awry, and I am on an old computer that does not support the fancy edit facility. Ho hum…
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 15, 2008 @ 9:08 am
November 15th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Yes, but that is just what this OP is pointing out.
What ID critics fail to see is that their own view of science is often just as corrupt.
Comment by 0112358 — November 15, 2008 @ 9:44 am
November 15th, 2008 at 10:24 am
First fallacies first.
Saying that ID does not meet the definition of a scientific theory doesn't mean that science is the "determinant of authentic knowlege". More precisely, saying {
ID} is not a member of {Science} does not imply that {Science} is identical to {Authentic Knowledge} or even that that {Science} is a member of {Authentic Knowledge}.The use of the term "truth", like {
Authentic Knowledge}, conflates the concept of scientific verification with logical or absolute Truth.It's still a fallacy. Let's assume for a moment that human consciousness is supernatural, completely outside the ability of science to comprehend. You can't merely wave your hands and point to the scientific gap and then correctly conclude that you have provided evidence of the supernatural. One parsimonious explanation for a gap in knowledge is human or personal ignorance.
Comment by Zachriel — November 15, 2008 @ 10:24 am
November 15th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Pixie:
You coopted what I intended as a follow-up entry. The razor is focused more on conciseness than truth. There is more coming on this.
Comment by Bradford — November 15, 2008 @ 10:50 am
November 15th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Zachriel:
You're promoting your own fallacy and in the process demonstrating the accuracy of Beckwith's point. You believe that my evidence for the supernatural is predicated on scientific results. Wrong. It is based in part on my belief that the history recorded by both biblical and secular historians of the first century is accurate. It is also based on personal interaction with God- mind to mind; a spiritual occurance which is independent of physical constraints. You're free to disbelieve in this phenomenon but it is one that has transformed many lives throughout the centuries. When science ceases to effectively predict it has lost its empirical utility. So to use your own hypothetical, if consciousness is completely outside the ability of science to comprehend then we need to cease speaking of scientific gaps and speak instead of scientific limits.
Comment by Bradford — November 15, 2008 @ 11:09 am
November 15th, 2008 at 11:11 am
0112358:
Well said.
Comment by Bradford — November 15, 2008 @ 11:11 am
November 15th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
You just claimed that the particular Gaps are due to limitations inherent to scientific methodology. Even if we accept that {
Limitations imply Gaps}, that is not logically equivalent to the particular {these Gaps imply these Limitations}. You are left assuming your conclusion.Even if you *know* through revelation that these Gaps are filled with a supernatural explanation, it still doesn't represent scientific evidence or even an argument. The only *argument* you have is to point at Gaps and exclaim.
Comment by Zachriel — November 15, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Gaps in knowledge are ubiquitous. As long as there is knowledge to be gained there will be gaps. Scientific methodology is directed at acquiring knowledge through a specified approach. It has yielded much fruit. But it is neither exclusive of other approaches or infallible. You err in stating that I attribute gaps solely to limitations of scientific methodology. Gaps can occur in spite of a valid use of science due to technological limitations. What I have been claiming (and Beckwith as well AFAIK) is that an empirical testing approach has no claim to superiority within the realm of epistemological options.
Comment by Bradford — November 15, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
In your original post, you attribute the gaps in human knowledge of the origin of life to "… an inability to produce conclusive scientific data is attributable to limitations inherent to scientific methodology …" Your argument remains {{
Limitations imply Gaps} therefore {Gaps imply Limitations}}, a fallacy.I note you left the first fallacies first for last.
ID is not scientific theory.
Comment by Zachriel — November 15, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
No, the argument is not that gaps are implied by limits to scientific methodology. The concept of gaps in knowledge predates the scientific era. What followed the advent of science was the philosophical position that science is an exclusive and sufficient means of bridging all gaps. That assumption will never bring about conclusive data which can resolve design questions one way or the other.
Comment by Bradford — November 15, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Zachriel: ID is not scientific theory.
Bradford: The antithesis of ID is not science. Its antithesis lies in the belief that it is more rational to believe that the physical world supports an ateleological perspective. Scientific data, as opposed to the scientism embraced by many critics, does not support ID's antithesis.
Comment by Bradford — November 15, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Okay, then we agree that ID has no scientific basis. You may want to provide a clear definition.
Comment by Zachriel — November 15, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
To be clear neither ID nor its antithesis would qualify as scientific theories although proponents on either side are free to and often do cite scientific data in support of their arguments.
Comment by Bradford — November 15, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
You seem to be saying ID is orthogonal to science. That would mean it has nothing to do with science, or only tangentially so. Metaphysics perhaps. That is contrary to what most people claim about ID.
Also, you forgot to provide the definition of ID.
Comment by Zachriel — November 15, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
My own definition would be that Nature (the universe included) indicates that life and the universe were intelligently designed. To support or oppose that argument one must reference physical properties of Nature.
Comment by Bradford — November 15, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
"Nature" can be a rather vague term. But if you refer to the observable properties of Nature, then the evidence strongly supports the Theory of Evolution as a natural, spontaneous process.
Comment by Zachriel — November 15, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Just make sure there is a viable cell available.
Comment by Bradford — November 15, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Let's assume had no knowledge of precellular life. What reasonable scientific conclusions could you draw?
Comment by Zachriel — November 15, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
0112358
Claiming that science indicates there was no designer certainly would be a corruption of science, but the number of scientists that actually do that is pretty small I think (even Dawkins has said recently that a case can be made for a designer, or something like that). Or are you thinking of something else? Some evidence to support a claim can be helpful.
Bradford
Sorry, if I had known I would have waited. That said, I am not sure your point is quite the same.
We believe that because your posts at Telic Thoughts are primarily draw from science
How odd. I cannot recall any posts here on the history of the first century or your personal interactions with God. I hope you can see how we might get the mistaken impression that your belief in a telic force is science-based.
The God-of-the-gaps argument is the same as the argument from ignorance. We do not understand thunder, so it must be a supernatural being doing it. We do not understand how prebiotic chemicals assembled to make the first cell, so it must be a supernatural being doing it. We do not understand how the Big Bang happened, so it must be a supernatural being doing it. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, and the philosphical position that followed is that ignorance is not a good foundation upon which to base your claims.
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 15, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Bradford:
This is my experience as well. I am positive of God’s existence in the person of Christ. Science can’t lay a glove on that one.
My interest in ID has nothing to do with proving God with science or any other such nonsense.
It’s about an interesting speculation about how God might have accomplished his purposes in our physical universe.
It’s about questioning the atheistic presuppositions that undergird much of what passes off as science today and trying to evaluate evidence from a frame work that is not hostile to design at the outset.
It’s clear to me that once you allow the possibility that God might have left objective evidence of his existence. Open minded folks can’t help but see that evidence. I don’t care if this process is called "Science" or something else.
If on the other hand you are only interested in explaining away what you know to be true. You will find a way to do that as well.
It would be a mistake to call such a process Science or to claim that you have scientific support for your denial IMHO.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 15, 2008 @ 7:47 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
All the above is a manufactured caricature. Theists don't believe any of that garbage, not now, not hundreds of years ago. No theist believes that when we understand a detailed scientific explanation of a natural phenomenon that God is unconnected to his creation. But enjoy your fantasized caricature.
Nice speech. I suppose the implication is that you are endorsing my position on abiogenesis- ignorance not being a good basis for a chemicals to cell thesis.
Comment by Bradford — November 15, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
fmm:
You're in good company fmm. That was the approach of earlier scientists to natural philosophy.
Comment by Bradford — November 15, 2008 @ 8:04 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Bradford:
Really? Nobody believed that, say, Thor had a hand (or a hammer) in thunder and lightning? At the time it probably sounded just as sophisticated to theists as ID does in modern times. Now we all have a good laugh at Thor, although certain theists apparently still believe that Katrina was God's punishment of "Sin City". You may not like that your fellow theists believe all kinds of nonsense, but you do not speak for them.
Comment by Raevmo — November 15, 2008 @ 8:53 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Raevmo:
The ancients aren't easily caricatured either. They knew it to be the mythological metaphor it is. What's with the strawman caricature fixation. When you indulge in it do you feel like you've just boosted your own IQ?
Those really focused on sophistication are the ID antithesists. It's a new phrase just introduced into the English language Raevmo. Look it up in a coming edition of Langenscheidts.
Comment by Bradford — November 15, 2008 @ 10:13 pm
November 15th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Now, I'm not sure that Zachriel is a scientist and I'm not sure that he would ever make the claim that science indicates that there was no Designer. But when scientists and others make statements like:
It gives the impression that they are making that claim.
Now these people certainly have a right to believe this way but it is just that . . . a belief. It is not scientific fact.
Another person may have the belief that the observable properties of Nature provide strong evidence for a Designer. This also is a belief and not a scientific fact.
As Frank Beckwith says in the quote posted by Bradford:
The point is that both ID proponents and ID critics are in error when they insinuate that science is our only way of knowing.
Comment by 0112358 — November 15, 2008 @ 11:57 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Bradford
Is it? I understood the IC argument to be: Evolution cannot produce an IC system, therefore it must be an intelligent designer. That is an argument from ignorance (we do not know how an IC system might appear, so assume a Designer). How about the Expanatory Filter? Again, the argument from ignorance wrapped up in probability calculations (the probability of X is so very low it must have happened in some unknow way, i.e., a Designer).
That is an interesting claim. Do you think they did not believe in their own gods at all, or just that they did not attribute the unexplained to their gods? I wonder what they did attribute to their gods?
Do you think the creation of the universe by God is a mythological metaphor? How about the miracles in the Bible? I assume not. So why do you suppose the pagans' beliefs were merely mythological metaphor?
Any chance you can support this surprising claim?
I was interested to hear what you thought about those who attribute Hurricane Katrina to God (eg here). Is that just a mythological metaphor?
Thank you.
Of course. Ignorance is no basis at all. That would be why scientists are trying to learn as much as possible about abiogenesis.
0112358
Read Denton's book, Nature's Destiny. Denton, an IDist, advocates a Designer who created a universe where the process Zach described takes place to produce mankind. Talk to theistic evolutionists. They believe in the Christian God, and accept evolution too. Bear in mind that a lot has been published in the scientific literature (in part by Christians of course) that supports Zach's claim that there is evidence. Sure, people might "have the belief that the observable properties of Nature provide strong evidence for a Designer", but the scientific evidence is zilch.
Beckwith argues that science should not be the be the final arbitrator of Truth - and I will agree with him, because there certainly are issues science cannot investigate.
If you want to talk about science, it is a fact that the evidence strongly supports the Theory of Evolution as a natural, spontaneous process, and there is no evidence for a Designer. The issue of this thread is whether ID should or can use science. Beckwith says "no". The numerous posts on this site about scientific papers suggests to me that IDs around here say "yes" (in common with IDists in general). Unless it happens to suit them to say "no" on a particular day, of course.
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 16, 2008 @ 8:49 am
November 16th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Pixie:
Do you have scientific evidence that hurricanes are not attributable to God?
If you read Denton and Zach side by side it does not sound like they are talking about the same process. That’s the point
Your point is? I’ve never read a single IDer who rejects evolution
This is exactly the kind of statement that bugs me. When you say there is no evidence of a designer do you mean that…. ???
1. Scientifically It appears that there is no designer
2. We have no way of knowing scientifically that a designer exists
3. We have defined Science in modern society in such a way that it rules out the kind of investigation that would produce evidence of a designer
The way you answer that question makes all the difference in this debate
I would say 3 is correct.
I would expect Denton to say 2 is true.
And
I'll bet you and Zach think 1 is correct
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 16, 2008 @ 9:26 am
November 16th, 2008 at 10:42 am
We say that salt dissolving is water is a natural, spontaneous process—even if you are the one who dumped the salt in the water. The Theory of Evolution is a robust scientific theory that makes important predictions in a number of fields from geology to molecular genetics. There is no scientific evidence to support Biological ID.
Please note the claim is limited to within the vantage of science. I don't *argue* that you must accept scientific findings, which are tentative after all. Or that you even believe the world is older than Last Thursday. But if you care about sick children, then you probably hope scientists will apply their knowledge to effect a cure. Demons may cause disease, but that medieval concept has not been useful in finding a cure for tuberculosis or the plague. Angels may push planets on crystal spheres, but that medieval concept hasn't helped guide robot planetary explorers.
I would certainly not make that claim. However, many in the ID Community have falsely *claimed* that the scientific evidence supports teleology in biology, and that the Theory of Evolution is incapable of generating the complexity and diversity we observe in life.
Comment by Zachriel — November 16, 2008 @ 10:42 am
November 16th, 2008 at 10:43 am
The problem is providing a non-vacuous scientific definition of "attributable to God". Is salt dissolving is water is a natural, spontaneous process? If you're using words in a private manner, then we may have no disagreement other than semantics.
Your first problem is providing a clear, scientifically useful definition of what you mean by "designer". The scientific method is just that, a method. An important component of the scientific method is to crop off extraneous entities. We often say that lightning is caused by static electricity. This is the scientific explanation. Naïve notions of an angry sky god on Mount Olympus who hurls lightning at the wicked in the Vale of Tempe below have largely been abandoned. But maybe the god is invisible, inscrutable, undetectable. But it is scientifically vacuous to say that such a god hurls lightning, but has no empirical effects other than creating lightning in a way that we observe to be identical with static discharges in the atmosphere.
We test for designers all the time. However, we can't scientifically test scientifically vacuous claims.
Scientifically vacuous claims are ruled out in science. There is nothing to prevent science from investigating non-vacuous claims of design. It's done every day.
Comment by Zachriel — November 16, 2008 @ 10:43 am
November 16th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Zach:
Can something be non-vacuous and not be “scientific”? I would say yes you I’ll bet would say no
It depends on whether or not there is a person doing the dissolving
My words are public
Must all public speech be Materialistic and Atheistic so that they meet your definition of science?
One who designs Duh
The problem is when you define anything that is not natural as extraneous
But lighting can be the result of Design
What about a Designer that controls aspects of the weather for his own purposes? You cant rule this out as we have evidence for such a designer
Or maybe he is none of these things and is instead a master designer
Who said such a designer has no has effects other than this? We all see the effects of this particular designer all over the place I saw a convoy of his designs move past me on the highway just yesterday
Even though his lighting might appear to be not designed it most assuredly is.
To say that Scientifically It appears that there is no designer in the case of this paticular lightning just because it looks like it was caused by static electricity would be untrue a big mistake and a science stopper
The problem arises when you define vacuous to mean not confined to the material universe.
When in fact it means
1 : emptied of or lacking content 2 : marked by lack of ideas or intelligence : STUPID , INANE a vacuous mind a vacuous movie 3 : devoid of serious occupation : IDLE
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 16, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Zach:
The closer we look at life, the more it supports the appearance of telic design in its complexity, its functions and its adaptability. This is why we are constantly told that we must ignore the appearance of telic design and instead profess faith in molecular accidents sifted by incremental reproductive superiority over ~600 million years.
The theory of evolution is incapable of generating anything other than a lot of words humans use to communicate and/or argue with each other. It cannot poof life into existence from raw matter or any mixture of chemicals. It cannot produce a multi-level coding system of biomolecules used to control construction of a life form, it cannot correct errors, proofread, translate or construct functional biomolecules that perform the activities of life. And it cannot evolve a single-celled microbe into a T-rex or a human being.
Comment by Joy — November 16, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
How could you depict ID arguments this way when both Behe (the popularizer of IC) and Mike Gene (TT's popularizer of FL) both affirm evolution and yet both find evidence for ID in the evolutionary process itself. Unlike your simplistic thought process summary, front loading would explain a cooption pathway in telic terms and without the thoughtlessness implied by well, if it isn't x it must be y. Z is the telic evolutionary option.
Comment by Bradford — November 16, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Yes, of course.
That would eliminate salts being dissolved by a flowing river, then. So we have discovered at least one thing which is a natural, spontaneous process. I'm sure we can discover others that meet the same definition.
Yes, but the question concerned the meanings of those utterances.
The meanings of words should be clearly understood by all parties to a conversation, whether scientific or not. When someone asks for clarification, it is usual among those desiring communication to be helpful in that regard.
Is that your idea of a "clear, scientifically useful definition"?
When using the word "natural", you may want to make clear whether you mean the antithesis of supernatural or artificial. Science is quite capable of studying artifice.
That humans can create electrical discharges is not the issue. The question concerned lightning associated with weather patterns. But you knew that.
So, we return to science. Well, at least we agree that salt dissolving in a flowing river is a natural, spontaneous process. Yet, the movement of water in a river has the same basic physical explanation as turbulence in the atmosphere causing lightning. While the former is natural and spontaneous, while the latter you claim to have scientific justification for claiming otherwise.
Empty or lacking (scientific) content. Scientifically vacuous means not having specific and distinguishing empirical predictions entailed in the hypothesis.
Comment by Zachriel — November 16, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Other than empirical predictions in everything from geology to genetics.
Comment by Zachriel — November 16, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
That's what happens when you coopt words. The Pixie's use of the word "evolution" presumably refers to the processes described in the Theory of Evolution. The usual ID claim is that the mechanisms of the Theory of Evolution cannot produce an IC system. This is false.
Comment by Zachriel — November 16, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
fmm
Sorry, I have no idea how this is relevant to what I said or to Raevmo's original comment (though personally I do not think there is any evidence either way).
Really? Where exactly do they disagree about the process of evolution?
You need to read my comment in context; I was specifically talking about evolution as defined by Zach (and quoted in my post).
Number 2, in the geneal sense of a Designer existing outside the natural world; scientifically we cannot tell.
How would you improve science? What changes do you recommend to the scientific method would help our search for the truth?
The thing about science is that it has a methodology that eliminates crackpot ideas like astrology. I am interested to see if you new improved scientific method is up to that. I am betting the answer is no (or more likely, you will not have any solid proposals at all).
Bradford
Well, yes, Behe's IC argument is a little confused, is it not? If a structure is IC, then it cannot evolve. Only Behe thinks actually it did evolve? Sorry, my thought processes are just too simplistic to get around that kind of doublethink. Is Behe arguing for front-loading? First I heard of it, but really I do not know what specific theory he advocates if any.
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 16, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Zach:
In my view Supernatural and artificial are synonyms both mean ,not reducible to the laws on nature. Although an artifice may be subject to Natural Laws it is not reducible to such.
The same goes for God he will not (by choice) violate his own laws but is not reducible to them as we discussed else where.
Ditto for other supernatural things like human Consciousness it can not violate natural laws but can’t be fully described by them either. Is Science capable of studying these kinds of things?
Lighting is always associated with weather patterns. This holds for the designed as well as "natural" kind. Can science tell the difference with out direct contact with the aforementioned designer?
Depends, Was the salt placed in contact with the river by design? Was the river's flow manipulated so that it contacted the salt? There are lots of things you must answer before you can rule out design. Have you done this?
Exactly and like the river dissolving salt lightning might also be the result of design. In both cases much research would have to be done to rule it out.
Is science capable of doing this kind of research?
Since when did I claim to have scientific justification for any thing?
I know that lighting can be the result of design because I read an article documenting this design
So when you say vacuous what you mean is
Not empirically testable as far as you know.
If you would use that sort terminology we may have no disagreement other than semantics.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 16, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Zach:
The very same "predictions" ensue from a theoretic holding that life evolves primarily through telic design. Fossils preserved in sedimentary rocks will display that era's primary forms, reflective of that era's ecology and life's adaptations to best exploit it. And there is nothing unique in genetics that obviates the superfluous idea that all genetic change is randomly caused and random in effect (i.e., "random wrt fitness").
You keep arguing against a straw man version of big-c Creationism that denies evolution occurs. That is not ID, nor is it telic design as represented here on TT. Yes, many of our participants do believe God is the 'final cause' of life and its evolution, but that's superfluous to the idea of telic design.
Science learns something new every day. What it's learning includes an emerging picture of adaptive evolution that looks less and less random, more and more self-organized and directional. And before you fall back on the tired old Darwinian whine that evolution has no "end product," I'll remind you that you and I are both end products of evolution. Evolution is not life, it's an idea about how life's forms change and adapt to new conditions over longer periods of time than any individual life exists. Life is just clay to the process of evolution. It's a whole lot more meaningful than that to those of us who live.
Comment by Joy — November 16, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Hey Pixie:
I happen to believe that God shows his wrath against sin in all kinds of ways including natural disasters I know of now scientific reason to think otherwise. Do you ? Raevmo called this idea nonsence I just wan't to know on what basis he made that determination.
As far as I know nothing but they sound as if they do. That's the point
This is not Zach’s view as shown above. I actually have no beef with this view as far as it goes. I would argue that my candidate for designer is present in the natural world in the Incarnation so can be the subject of scientific inquiry
I would, like Newton and all early scientists not exclude something as extraneous if it was the best explanation for a phenomenon for no other reason than it was “outside the natural world”
I would subject astrology to the same testing as any other idea if it produced a better explanation for a phenomena so be it.
If it did not then we could file it away as crack pot.
The scientific method newton used is not good at eliminating ideas out of hand before they are studied but it is pretty good at finding the truth.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 16, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Bradford:
Is that so? According to Wikipedia
What makes you think Thor wasn't really held responsible for thunder and lightning? He wasn't some comic book super hero. As pointed out, even now there are plenty of Christians (fmm seems to be one of them, but I might be wrong) who believe that God uses hurricanes to get even with, say, fags and Negroes. It seems a bit of a stretch to deny that Thor was attributed similar powers.
It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that the old Germanic people had spiritual hallucinations in which they had personal communication with Thor, like you seem to believe you had with Jesus.
Comment by Raevmo — November 16, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
fmm:
You seem to know an awful lot about God. How do you know he doesn't (voluntarily) violate his own laws?
Do you believe that Katrina is an example of that?
I also have no scientific reason to exclude the possibility that Satan makes me type these words. Yet I feel confident enough to declare this nonsense.
I think the onus is on you to support your extraordinary claim. That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
Comment by Raevmo — November 16, 2008 @ 5:01 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
He was but that does not mean ancient people conform to your stereotypes any more than theists do to your present day stereotyping. It doesn't matter how many times I repeat this because you are determined only to hear what you wish to hear. It does not matter that there is a scientific explanation for lightening. I still attribute the causal origin for that and all else to God. That's why the God in the gaps nonsense is absurd.
I don't think that accurately states fmm's position.
There is a distinction to be made between an attribution of capability and a metaphorical depiction of it.
That's the value of Beckwith's insight. I need not be guided by your assertions of what constitutes reality.
Comment by Bradford — November 16, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Zachriel:
ID is not a monolithic unit. There are diverse views among IDists. Pixie stated what was his understanding. My response was meant to show his understanding does not encompass everyone and that includes two prominent IDists.
Comment by Bradford — November 16, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Can you point to anything that is not supernatural or designed?
You said that whether salt dissolving in water is a natural, spontaneous process "depends on whether or not there is a person doing the dissolving". As we know of many examples that do not involve people, then we have met your requirement. (By the way, according to how everyone else uses the terminology, salt spontaneously dissolves in water even if a person dumps the salt into the water. To maintain your position, you are unnecessarily mangling the language.)
I have already answered this repeatedly. Science is more than capable of investigating empirically well-defined claims of design.
I understand your basic point is that some things are outside of the ability of science to determine. There could be a designer that is undetectable by the means of science. I have no problem with that position. However, I do have a problem when you distort scientific findings and even normal everyday language by saying that science can't reasonably scientifically determine that lightning is a natural and spontaneous phenomena associated with weather or that a rock slide is natural and spontaneous as opposed to purposeful.
The scientific method is a process of testing hypotheses, clearly stated assumptions with specific and distinguishing empirical implications. If a claim doesn't entail empirical predictions—at least in principle—then it is scientifically vacuous. That doesn't mean the claim is meaningless. I have stated this many times before.
Comment by Zachriel — November 16, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Raevmo
Because any being who would find it necessary to break his own laws is not God by definition and because he has said so.
Not being a prophet I have no way of knowing God’s reasons for allowing any individual event to happen. But being a good Calvinist I have confidence that nothing happens with out his permission
On what do base this confidence? Could you be mistaken?
Oh I've got plenty of evidence for my "extraordinary claim". I'd be happy to share it with you but I'm not sure this is the place for discussion of Biblical inerrancy.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 16, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
1) So "telic evolution" makes the same predictions, but includes an extra, extraneous entity.
2) Previously you said the theory of evolution is incapable of generating anything other than a lot of words. Now, you say it makes the same predictions as "telic evolution".
3) Previously you said the mechanisms posited in the Theory of Evolution cannot produce the biological structures we observe. Now, you say it makes the same predictions as "telic evolution".
Comment by Zachriel — November 16, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Bradford:
What stereotypes are those?
No, it's not absurd. There is a clear historic trend that scientific explanations replace religious explanations. You admit (to your credit) that evolution has occurred and you are forced to fill gaps ever more distant in time. Is your faith not strong enough that you so desperately seek "objective" evidence?
Comment by Raevmo — November 16, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
What religious explanations are those? I supplied the explanation that attributes ultimate causality to God. There are not a great many scientific specifics in the Bible. The discovery of specific scientific data can hardly invalidate a general narrative whose primary theme is a moral one. Fine tuning is not a gap. Neither is the anthropic principle. Neither is mind/brain duality even if you believe otherwise. Neither is front loading. You can argue chemical causality for OOL as I can symbolism. The gap stuff is an ill-conceived concept inaccurately applied to theistic positions.
Comment by Bradford — November 16, 2008 @ 5:37 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Zach:
I can think of lots of things that are not supernatural that river and salt for example both are reducible to natural laws.
I can’t point you to anything that is not designed but some things can more easily be identified as designed that others.
My whole garden is designed but the tiller looks more designed than the section I let go fallow this year
I’m not sure who this “everyone else” is but Webster agrees with me
I made no such claim. I only asked if you could tell the difference between natural and designed lightning with out prior knowledge of the designer. Well can you?
I live in an area where rockslides are often the result of design. To say that they are natural and spontaneous with out evidence is a bad idea in my neck of the woods.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 16, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
One more thing Raevmo. The reason I cite data favoring an ID position is because I believe it. I believe God is capable of choosing among an infinite variety of pathways to attain an end. I also believe he can leave behind fingerprints of his creation. Faith is a belief in what is unseen. That is an accurate description of my views vis a vis God.
Comment by Bradford — November 16, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
fmm:
What's your definition of God then? When and where did he say this?
So the victims of Katrina had it coming?
Of course I could be mistaken. I just consider it very unlikely that Satan makes me type these words. Unlikely enough not to worry about it too much.
I guess it's not, although I find it quite fascinating that people believe in the inerrancy of the blible. It might please you to learn that I'm having a go at N.T. Wright's tome on the resurrection, as you suggested.
Comment by Raevmo — November 16, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Bradford:
You know what I mean. The weather, disease, you name it, it was explained by divine intervention, possession by demons, etc. Until the actual mechanisms were discovered.
You use your religion to postulate the answers because science hasn't come up with a satisfactory answer yet. But you will probably abandon those answers once science does, and then you'll be forced to find even smaller gaps.
I believe you do.
Comment by Raevmo — November 16, 2008 @ 6:03 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Raevmo:
What answers can science come up with to explain the narrow range of values associated with nature's constants or factors associated with the anthropic principle? It's not even the business of science to try and explain away such things so as to make materialists feel better. But there is another option you have neglected to point out. If a thousand years from now researchers are still striving to explain how biochemical building blocks formed the systems observed in cells it will be evident to most that it is faith in materialism that needs to be explained.
Comment by Bradford — November 16, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Turns out that at least some lightning is natural also.
If, in the entire library of human knowledge, you can't find anything that is not designed, then it is an empirically vacuous distinction.
In science, you need a testable hypothesis entailed in the claim.
You certainly do try very hard to avoid the point. Yes, some rock slides are designed. Would you agree that some rock slides are natural and spontaneous? Can we make this distinction?
Comment by Zachriel — November 16, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Zach:
No, this is NOT what I said. There is no extra, extraneous entity. There is the entity which exists. It never ceases to amaze me how you guys can manage to leave life out of these questions about life. Maybe it's a forest-trees thing.
Previously you implied that the "Theory of Evolution" (your capitals, though whether that's the old standby RM-NS or something else just as blindly formulaic is not explained) is capable "of generating the complexity and diversity we observe in life." When I mentioned that your theory doesn't generate anything but words, you defended by asserting that those words "predict" everything from the geologic column to genetics. So I responded that the existence of fossils in the rocks can as easily be "predicted" by a theory of evolution by telic design, and that the existence of genomes coding for the forms and functions of life is also "predicted" by a theory of evolution by telic design.
Of course, the truth is that these aren't predictions at all, but post-dictions, ad hoc explanations for what we observe to be fact. Rocks and fossils are a brute fact, so are genomes. But you already know this, you're just playing some dumb game today as if you just discovered Telic Thoughts this morning. I'm not buying that either.
Now, where in the world did I say that? I just posted my first comment to this thread this afternoon (here), and neither that comment nor any comment I have posted since claims that the mechanisms of your "Theory of Evolution" cannot produce the biological structures we observe. I said your THEORY can't produce a damned thing but talk-talk and write-write. When you are sloppy with your assertions, don't complain when their sloppiness is pointed out to you. Consider it an educational opportunity.
Comment by Joy — November 16, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Bradford:
I think you know some of the answers that science has come up with so far.
Who said it is?
Materialism is not well defined.
Comment by Raevmo — November 16, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
fmm
Perhaps we should check back at what people actually said:
Now Raevmo has labelled the idea that God causes bad weather as "nonsense", and Bradford seems to have labelled it as "garbage". Perhaps you should question what Bradford meant? I must admit I do not know, as he seems to now be saying that actually the Norse people did actually believe Thor was responsible for thunder; whether they also thought he was a mythological metaphor or Bradford has now abandonded that claim I really have no idea.
For myself, I am interested in how theists (indeed, people in general) have an apparent leaning to attributing that which they do understand to the supernatural. Bradford makes the claim that that does not happen, by invoking stereotypes - I assume he thinks we have a single stereotype for theists that covers modern day Christians and vikings and pretty much everyone else as well.
Anyway, my point is that the labelling of this view as "garbage" or "rubbish" is incidental to the issue I was trying to explore, and really you need to take that up with Bradford and Raevmo.
Er, what? Are you saying that they sound as though they disagree, but actually if you look at the details, they agree on every one? Then that supports what I said.
But Zach's view is consistent with Denton's, which includes a designer and, say, Dawkins, which does not. So Zach's view is neutral on the subject of a design (though it does eliminate some designer scenarios).
I must admit, I am with Beckwith on this one.
If your explanation goes "outside the natural world", but you can still apply the scientfic method to it (draw predictions from it and test those predictions), then it is science. We just move the boundary of the natiral world to include it.
If you have some experiments in mind I would seriously advise you to perform them. If you need funding, enquire at the Templeton foundation. You will revolutionise science, you will prove the existence of God (I think most atheists are atheists only because of a lack of proof). Providing some sort of scientific evidence for God would be one of the most important accomplishments of the human race. I mean this sincerely and seriously.
Bradford
Yes, can you explain what that distinction is. As fas as I know, the Norse people actually believed Thor created thunder. I am not getting the metaphor bit, wich seems to imply they did not think he did, it was just a poetic phrase.
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 16, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Weird. I post a reply and suddenly the whole page looks rather different…
Comment by The Pixie Again — November 16, 2008 @ 7:46 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Don't worry, Pix. It got changed accidentally, Guts can probably fix.
Comment by Joy — November 16, 2008 @ 8:10 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
It's not that complicated. Theists do attribute causality to God but that does not mean they buy into comic book like portrayals of causality taking the form of God looking like a man and literally flinging a thunderbolt or arranging to have angels push planets. Those frequently alluded to metaphors are meant to belittle and it looks as if those promoting this type of imagary have succeeded in getting the troops to think it really reflects theistic thinking.
Comment by Bradford — November 16, 2008 @ 8:42 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
See how atheists reason. They post a message and it causes a transformation of the blogsite. Bring on Thor. LOL.
Comment by Bradford — November 16, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
It's the Katrina effect. Telic Thoughts has been downgraded as punishment for hosting the critical comments of ateleologists. ROTFL.
Comment by Bradford — November 16, 2008 @ 8:49 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
We're back. Pixie, there is a scientific explanation for all this.
Comment by Bradford — November 16, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
It's just one of those random accidental mutations that strike with no warning, and the web page devolves into a prehistoric version of itself, losing in one fell swoop the entirety of accumulated complex form and function it took years to evolve. It's a wonder humans don't give birth to lemurs a lot more often than to humans!
Our critics might try to tell us that random accidents sifted over time got us all that accumulated complex form and function in the first place, but I'd suspect Guts (our intelligent designer) would argue against that effectively.
Comment by Joy — November 16, 2008 @ 9:29 pm
November 16th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
I went to the link Bradford provided to Beckwith's blog to see if I could grok his problem with ID. In the comments, he provided an endorsement he wrote for Ed Feser's new book, The Last Superstition. It reads…