Bradley Monton's Paper criticizing Dover Decision
by BilboI have yet to receive my copy of Bradley Monton's book, Seeking God in Science; an Atheist Defends Intelligent Design. However, I just found out that there is a review of his book, here. And there is also a previous paper that he wrote concerning the Dover trial, here.
The paper is a criticism of Judge Jones' decision in the Dover case. What is most interesting is Monton's focus on the claim that science entails methodical methodological naturalism. I'll just quote from his paper.
"Most of my discussion will focus on the issue of methodological naturalism – I will argue that rejection of the supernatural should not be a part of scientific methodology.
"The reason this matters is that it’s a dangerous practice to try to impose rigid boundaries on what counts as science. For example, as I will show, a consequence of Jones’s criteria is that the aim of science is not truth. While this may be the case, one would expect this to be established by philosophical argumentation about the aim of science (along the lines of e.g. van Fraassen 1980), not by a specification of demarcation criteria to distinguish science from pseudoscience. My position is that scientists should be free to pursue hypotheses as they see fit, without being constrained by a particular philosophical account of what science is.
"In sum, I maintain that it is a mistake to try to argue against ID by declaring it unscientific. Larry Laudan got the answer right:
If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like “pseudo-science” and “unscientific” from our vocabulary; they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us. (Laudan 1983, 349)
"If our goal is to believe truth and avoid falsehood, and if we are rational people who take into account evidence in deciding what to believe, then we need to focus on the question of what evidence there is for and against ID. I recognize that, if we can’t declare ID unscientific, this makes it harder to exclude ID from pubic school. But we first need to figure out the right thing to think about the scientific status of and the empirical evidence for ID; only then can we take up the very different question of what should be included in public school curricula. This latter question is outside the scope of this paper.
"…We come now to the most promising of Jones’s three criteria, the criterion of methodological naturalism. In this section I will grant that ID does postulate supernatural causation, and I will argue that that is compatible with it being scientific. In the next section I will ague that in fact ID is not inherently supernatural, and hence ID can count as science even if the restriction to naturalism is part of the scientific methodology.
"…I will now argue that it is counterproductive to restrict scientific activity in such a way that hypotheses that invoke the supernatural are ruled out. Specifically, I will argue that it is possible to get scientific evidence for the existence of God. The scenario I am about to describe is implausible, but there is nothing logically inconsistent about it. The point of the scenario is that in the described situation, it would be reasonable for scientists to postulate and test the hypothesis that there is supernatural causation occurring. (I am not the first to present this sort of scenario; for a related scenario, see Dembski 1992.)
"Imagine that some astronomers discover a pulsar that is pulsing out Morse code. The message says that it’s from God, and that God is causing the pulsar to pulse in this unusual way. The astronomers are initially skeptical, but they find that when they formulate questions in their head, the questions are correctly answered by the message. The astronomers bring in other people to examine this, and the questions are consistently answered. The message goes on to suggest certain experiments that scientists should perform in particle accelerators – the message says that if the experiments are set up in a specified precise way, then God will cause a miracle to occur. The experiments are done, and the resulting cloud chamber tracks spell out Biblical verses. Then the message explains to the scientists how to form a proper quantum theory of gravity…
"I could go on, but you get the picture. The evidence doesn’t prove that God exists – maybe some advanced alien civilization is playing a trick on us; maybe the scientists are undergoing some sort of mass hallucination; maybe all this is happening due to some incredibly improbable quantum fluctuation. But the evidence does provide some support for the hypothesis that God exists. It would be close-minded for the scientists to refuse to countenance the hypothesis that God exists, due to some commitment to methodological naturalism. Of course, it is important to consider the naturalistic hypotheses, but one has to consider the theistic hypothesis as well.
Monton cites some scientists and philosophers of science who discount methodological naturalism as a necessary part of science.
"I conclude that it’s not the case that there’s a clear consensus in favor of methodological naturalism (when understood to rule out appeals to the supernatural) in the scientific or philosophical communities."
Dembski, William (1992), “The Incompleteness of Scientific Naturalism”, in Jon Buell and Virginia Hearn (eds.), Darwinism: Science or Philosophy, available at http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/index.html.
July 30th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Bilbo, do you mean methodological instead of methodical in the second paragraph?
Comment by Bradford — July 30, 2009 @ 5:02 pm
July 30th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Bradley Monton:
Well said Professor.
Comment by Bradford — July 30, 2009 @ 5:11 pm
July 30th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
B. Monton continues to fascinate:
Am I correct in understanding that he is arguing that the term "pseudo-science" is essentially misleading?
What of beliefs and pacticises which are normally said to be pseudo-scientific: For example crystal-healing, astrology. According to to Monton is there anything at all which distinguishes legitimate scientific inquiry from that which is clearly not? Does he see fit to draw a dividing line?
Does Monton provide a better definition for science, one which we might filter a whole range of human activities and determine (according to his criteria) which is and is not a scientificly valid belief or practice?
It seems valid to reject a simple equation of "methodological naturalism" with "science", however MR is a very good rule of thumb, especially that in the whole of science no "non naturalistic" explanation for anything has ever been shown to be true, indeed I'm not sure how science can even cope with the non-naturalistic? Is this possible?
HB
Comment by hblavatsky — July 30, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
July 30th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
hblavatsky:
It seems to me Monton is arguing that if a heuristic approach includes consideration of causal sources, considered to have non-natural properties, then research predicated on this assumption should proceed without the a priori assumption of a pseudo-scientific outcome. Otherwise science can not be said to be consistent with a search for truth.
Comment by Bradford — July 30, 2009 @ 5:47 pm
July 30th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
I don't find the distinction between natural and supernatural to be well-defined. However, methodological naturalism is a valid rule-of-thumb. Positing fairies to explain an anomaly is not a valid scientific hypothesis.
Sign on door:Absolutely no demons allowed in the chemistry lab!
Monton gives far too much credit to ID, which relies on equivocation and misinterpretations of the evidence. ID doesn't propose testable hypotheses, but pretends to be science, so it is pseudoscience.
Comment by Zachriel — July 30, 2009 @ 8:18 pm
July 30th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
I find "supernatural" confusing in this context, but I'm fine with the idea that anything that scientific methodology can be applied to it should be applied to. Do we all agree that's what he means?
But are critics imposing arbitrary boundaries, or merely observing logical boundaries? If scientific methodology cannot be applied to something, don't we have a problem?
I'm disappointed to find "truth" used so sloppily. The aim of science is to form reliable predictions about the reality we observe around us. Is that "truth" or not?
And, again, the implication that what's being done is an arbitrary "demarcation" applied for no good reason other than to rule something out instead of a logical evaluation showing something is out of class.
There's nothing wrong with this, except it has nothing to do with the issues. Here at TelicThoughts, hardly a day goes by that some critic doesn't beg ID advocates to pursue a hypothesis. What critics object to is the claim ID can be pursued followed by a failure show how it can be pursued.
Which, of course, no one tries to do. What critics do is to show exactly what makes ID not in the class of things to which the scientific method can be applied.
I haven't abandoned the idea of reading this Monton's book, but I'm really disappointed that this article shows no signs whatsoever of actually grasping the criticisms of ID. It just follows the same old tired line of thinking that ID is rejected for the arbitrary reason of its religious implications.
Comment by don provan — July 30, 2009 @ 8:31 pm
July 30th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
We don't have to misinterpret the evidence. There is no bluffing about what mainstream theories are capable of explaining.
Monton was right. Science is not a search for the truth. That acknowledgement, within a context of recognizing scientific boundaries, would go far to remove the current metaphysical bias existing in biology. The truth is telic inferences are against the rules. It's that simple.
Comment by Bradford — July 30, 2009 @ 10:28 pm
July 30th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Bradford,
Based on my reading of the book I think you have read him correctly on this.
Zachriel,
Has it occurred to you just how painfully obvious that is, and that a mistake that obvious is probably not one that a philosopher at CU, or any of the scientists or supporters of ID would be making? You have caricatured our position so extremely your argument fails to have any relevance to it whatsoever.
Don Provan,
Monton would agree with you. He would say that it should not be assumed a priori that scientific methodology cannot be applied to investigating the possibility of supernatural causes, and he argues in support of that position, as quoted here.
That's one way of describing the aim of science. It's not canonical; it wasn't delivered to us from heaven. The aim of science might be what you described, and it might also be to discover (for instance) what is true about the origins of the universe, life, and the various species. In fact I think both are aims of science.
Further, the context in which he says this is important. Later in the book (and possibly in the online paper, I'm not looking it up now to be sure) he writes,
Thus (he is pointing out) the aim of science on this view, the view he is disputing, is not truth, but something like, "whatever we can regard as true under naturalism, whether naturalism is true or not."
Right. Is there a problem with that?
Wrong. People are calling ID not a science all the time. Judge Jones did it, which is exactly what Monton was responding to in this context.
Comment by TomG — July 30, 2009 @ 11:11 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 5:39 am
TomG
Could you explain to me how this is different to ID? Yes, it is a caricature, but I would be interested to hear from you why you feel it is so extreme as to be irrelevant. To me it seems like a fair analogy. There are certain anomalies that ID likes to focus on (OOL, bacterial flagellum). Instead of fairies, it posits an intelligent designer. How is the "intelligent designer" different from "fairies"? Neither hypothesis offers any evidence for the existence of their proposed entity. Neither hypothesis is testable. Nerither hypothesis suggests how the they can be researched.
Is it possible that the fundamental difference here is that you come to the debate already certain that the intelligent designer exists and fairies do not; the difference is in your metaphysical assumptions, not in the science?
Science is limited to studying those things that science can study. If you hypothesis that fairies explain some anomaly, science cannot study that, and so the claim is not science, whether it is true or not (and there are things that are true, but are not science). However, if you devise a fairy-detector, and you actually research these fairies in a scientific way, then (I would say) the fairies are therefore not supernatural, and your theory is science.
I thought Monton was specificaly responding to people saying ID is not science because it posits a supernatural cause. Sure, people call ID not a science all the time, and I am one of them, however, their reasons for doing so are not (or not only) that it invokes a supernatural cause. This was a major issue on the What is science? thread, of course.
Comment by The Pixie Again — July 31, 2009 @ 5:39 am
July 31st, 2009 at 6:03 am
Except that's not so. Archaeologists, forensic scientists, historians, all consider purpose in their scientific studies. The difference is taht they have evidence. What's against the rules is positing an arbitrary entity that acts by unknown methods during some unclear epoch for some unfathomable purpose. It's an operational objection that encompasses Monton's argument.
Comment by Zachriel — July 31, 2009 @ 6:03 am
July 31st, 2009 at 6:13 am
Sorry, but just pointing to Monton's qualifications is not an argument. Instead of saying it, argue it by reference to the text. Monton would say it is science, but not supported by the evidence. The problem is with the definition of fairy. If you mean a well-defined entity, then it is a testable and frivolous claim. If you mean a vaguely defined and arbitrary effect that fills in the blank for why the solution turns blue, then it is not testable and a frivolous claim. Either way it's not science. The former because it is a claim already known to be without scientific merit, the latter because the claim is untestable.
Monton's mistake is to believe that ID is a well-defined claim. Equivocation is not science. It's also a mistake to say that a claim already demonstrated to be without scientific merit becomes science simply because one repeats the false claim.
Comment by Zachriel — July 31, 2009 @ 6:13 am
July 31st, 2009 at 9:50 am
That's what currently passess for science today. An unknown entity (undefined chemical pathways) sequentially ordering polymers into biologically functional biomolecules (for unfathomable reasons). The real objection to Monton's argument is that he exposes OOL for what it is- not a search for truth but the spinning of wheels made inevitable by the rules of the game. You can posit unknowns just make sure they are not consciously intelligent ones. That's fine as long as the sterility of the approach is acknowledged. This cannot be described as an effort to find the truth of what actually took place.
Comment by Bradford — July 31, 2009 @ 9:50 am
July 31st, 2009 at 9:56 am
Speaking of equivocation, the chemistry dunnit monopolistic approach has multiple meanings even if its sterility is singular. The most important meaning lies in its support (albeit not through evidence) of the NA narrative.
Comment by Bradford — July 31, 2009 @ 9:56 am
July 31st, 2009 at 10:02 am
Here's a clue for the geniuses that post comments here. Fairies are not posited as causal sources by IDists. They are used to form dishonest caricatures by those more interested in attaboys from fellow obstructionists than in truth.
Comment by Bradford — July 31, 2009 @ 10:02 am
July 31st, 2009 at 11:04 am
No I'm saying your commitment to atheism rules out an intelligent discussion of the issue. You might as well caricature for as long as the patience to tolerate it exists here.
Comment by Bradford — July 31, 2009 @ 11:04 am
July 31st, 2009 at 11:04 am
Bradford:
If you say so. IDists are usually not so keen on identifying the Designer, for fear of making ID sound like religious apologetics (which, of course, is what it is).
Comment by Raevmo — July 31, 2009 @ 11:04 am
July 31st, 2009 at 11:06 am
Did the fairies make Pixie's last post vanish?
Comment by Raevmo — July 31, 2009 @ 11:06 am
July 31st, 2009 at 11:11 am
A broad claim of abiogenesis only has relevance if it encompasses specific and testable hypotheses. There are ways to test the feasibility of many aspects of natural abiogenesis, though there is no complete theory yet.
In any case, it makes no sense to try and discuss abiogenesis in any detail without establishing the Theory of Evolution as the evidence overlaps considerably.
Comment by Zachriel — July 31, 2009 @ 11:11 am
July 31st, 2009 at 11:28 am
Pixie,
I am going to have to assume you are not asking "how is the intelligent designer, if one exists, different from fairies, if fairies exist?" If fairies exist, they are (according to most fables) a kind of physical being that plays around in nature and tries not to be noticed by humans. They are part of some kind of natural order, though in some fable versions they have some kind of magical power. They do nothing of any real significance in the world. There is no evidence for their actual existence, and everyone knows they are creations of imagination.
The designer, if one exists, is powerful and intelligent beyond imagination. To posit one (if it exists) as the source of all we see in nature is quite a hugely different matter than positing the other (if it exists) as that source.
But Zachriel's caricature was that we were "positing fairies to explain an anomaly." We aren't. To suggest that we are, even as a kind of figure of speech, is to distort the argument beyond recognition, at which point it becomes irrelevant to discuss it, which is what I said. Now, on one level I don't particularly mind if ID opponents argue against irrelevant distortions of Intelligent Design. I don't even mind if they argue against those distortions and come away thinking they have won. It gets a little irritating, however, when they keep doing that over and over again, claiming each time that they're scoring points against ID.
That's why I have offered the "strategy advice" that I mentioned near the end of my review of Monton's book. It would be so much more satisfying to have this kind of discussion if we were talking about the same thing; that is, if when ID opponents make arguments against ID, their arguments were more closely related to what ID actually affirms.
Your own real question is somewhat better than Zach's caricature, I'll acknowledge. You went on to write:
So your question is, "what is the difference between our evidence for fairies and for an intelligent designer?" or "Aren't these both just creations of our imagination, as far as science is concerned?" The first and most obvious answer is that people have looked for fairies for centuries and no educated person now thinks there are any, whereas a lot of very intelligent investigators have concluded there is a designer. Some very intelligent investigators who were predisposed against the existence of a designer have recognized there is evidence for one: Antony Flew, for one. So you might take that as a caution against the absolutist language you have employed.
In fact I can prove your absolutist position wrong in one easy paragraph. Just bear in mind how carefully biologists are told to guard against any impression that the world is designed. The reason they have to guard against it so carefully is because the world appears to be designed. That's evidence. It is evidence that you think neo-Darwinism has overcome, but that does not make it non-evidence. Neo-Darwinism, for all of its bluster of being a 100% proven theory, remains an historical science. It is in its supporters opinion the best explanation for things we cannot see and never will, because they have already happened and are inaccessible to observation. It is an argument of the "inference to best explanation" variety. Arguments of that sort cannot transform evidence for competing solutions into non-evidence. They can only make competing interpretations less likely.
I picked the easiest and most obvious evidence in behalf of ID for that illustration. The same kind of thing could be stated much more emphatically for more technical examples of apparent design. If Ken Miller says there's another explanation of the evidence for design in the bacterial flagellum, he's not saying there's no evidence for design there, he's saying he has a better, competing interpretation of that evidence.
So you yourself are caricaturing reality with your absolutist position. Any time I hear people say there's "no evidence for ID," I think, "that person's world is too simple to match reality."
Is it possible that your own metaphysical assumptions color your approach to the question?
Further, you may not know what my position with respect to the science is. My position is that the scientific question of ID is worth pursuing, not that it has been decided. I'm able to hold some ambiguity in my mind, i.e., that I don't know yet whether the scientific arguments for design are lock-tight certain. Further, I don't think there is such a thing as a purely scientific argument either for or against design: evidences from nature (science) must be evaluated philosophically before they can be taken as arguments either for or against design. Our understanding of reality is not based in "science versus ignorance." It is "knowledge versus ignorance," and knowledge is not all scientific. Knowledge that comes from sources other than science may certainly still be knowledge.
I don't think you read Monton's paper. If you had, you would know that he devoted considerable space to this. My comment here is getting long, and if you really want to discuss this I would prefer you present some argument in response to what Monton wrote on this, which is quite good. I'll be glad to come back to it if you do that.
Comment by TomG — July 31, 2009 @ 11:28 am
July 31st, 2009 at 11:40 am
I would say fairies are a logically possible subclass of intelligent designers, along with flying spaghetti monsters. Once one thinks one has evidence of intelligent designers, one can then look for distinguishing evidence, to determine whether the designers are fairies, FSMs, or something else.
I think we have evidence (whether it is strong or not is up for debate), of intelligent designers of life. I'm not sure we have distinguishing evidence that allows us to favor fairies, FSMs, God, or others.
Comment by Bilbo — July 31, 2009 @ 11:40 am
July 31st, 2009 at 11:42 am
Zachriel,
You just changed the subject. Pointing to an academic philosopher's qualifications is legitimate in the context in which I employed it, which was to demonstrate that your depiction of ID was a caricature.
As for your second sentence, have you read his book yet? If not, how do you come to that conclusion? I don't think he would agree with that at all. He would say something much less absolutist than that, for example that it is somewhat supported by the evidence but not completely.
Absolutism runs amok among commenters here.
You oughtta read the book (I mentioned this in the review, briefly). He is very, very aware of how well the claim is defined. It's the subject of most of the first chapter.
It's a mistake to say that this is what Monton is doing. Let me quote from the beginning of Chapter Three:
I think he's on the right track there. The previous chapter is not something we can quote in its entirety, but I think you get the picture anyway.
Comment by TomG — July 31, 2009 @ 11:42 am
July 31st, 2009 at 11:49 am
Bilbo,
The designer would have to be the kind of entity that could do the design. Fairies as commonly understood in fables and fairy tales are not of that sort.
As for God, FSMs, or any other possible designer, I think we do a disservice to knowledge if we limit our inquiry just to science. We should follow science as far as it takes us, without external limit or reservation. We must recognize that it has its own inherent limits, however. At every step along the way, and especially when it has gone as far as it can go, its knowledge must meet with other knowledge from other disciplines like philosophy, history, and yes, theology, which are proceeding forward in parallel with science.
They do seem to rule out FSMs rather decisively.
Comment by TomG — July 31, 2009 @ 11:49 am
July 31st, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Are you suggesting that if fairies were real and impacted the natural world that science could neither formulate hypotheses nor do research into the matter?
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 31, 2009 @ 12:05 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 12:11 pm
That's a great question, Daniel.
Comment by TomG — July 31, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 12:12 pm
You are mischaracterizing my comment which was in the context of drawing a valid scientific distinction between natural and supernatural.
It's not scientific evidence, which is what is being discussed.
Waving your hands and saying "historical science" doesn't mean it isn't science. Dinosaurs roamed the Earth. is as well established a fact as Eppur si muove.
The Theory of Evolution proposes testable hypotheses. That's what makes it science.
Comment by Zachriel — July 31, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Raevmo:
It was an unidentifiable pathway.
Comment by Bradford — July 31, 2009 @ 12:16 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Pointing out that Monton was wrong about how ID is actually practiced is not a matter of his unrelated professional qualifications. Understanding the argument regarding design is a specialty, like brain surgery or litter collection.
By reading Monton.
Notice the use of the word "conclude".
Well, apparently not.
-
Comment by Zachriel — July 31, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 12:25 pm
The problem is with the definition of fairy. If you mean a well-defined entity, then it is a testable and frivolous claim. If you mean a vaguely defined and arbitrary effect that fills in the blank for why the solution turns blue, then it is not testable and a frivolous claim.
Comment by Zachriel — July 31, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 12:26 pm
I think this is a brilliant and thought provoking comment for both sides to consider. One the one hand, you actually understand the fairy argument, which seems hard for the other ID advocates. On the other hand, you defuse it by accepting that, yet, fairies might well be a possibility.
The only problem is that critics aren't really putting up fairies as alternatives to ID, but rather pointing out the similarity between ID and fairies put up as alternatives in other cases before we knew the actual answer, such as planetary motion. If you imagine a time back before Newton, if someone were to propose fairies to explain planetary motion, wouldn't you be asking questions about what they mean by "fairies" and how we can confirm their actions? What about ID today that is different from that case? If it helps you see the problem, imagine that the fairy theory was widely accepted by the general population and taught every week in Sunday school classes. Would that make you view the fairy theory differently, or would you still find it just as ill-defined regardless of its popularity?
Comment by don provan — July 31, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 12:33 pm
You were the one who introduced the term. Not Bilbo. Not me. Not Daniel or anyone else. When Dembski and Marks theorize about the conservation of genetic information they are referencing specific nucleotide patterns, not fairies.
Comment by Bradford — July 31, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 12:43 pm
We do understand dp. We also understand the arrogance and perhaps the denseness of those who think this is clever. Take a page out of aiguy's book and at least take issue with what IDists have in mind – conscious intelligence or physical extensions and manifestations of it. These are definable terms. Fairies are not defined by those using the term because they are meant to show an imaginary positional superiority. Some appropriate responses are in order.
Comment by Bradford — July 31, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Well, that's excellent. So we can dispense with the discussion of "supernatural" and simply consider whether scientific methodology can be applied to ID. The quoted section presupposes that it can be. If I read the rest of the article or the book, will I find a place where he shows why he thinks it can be?
Science's search for origins does not deviate from the aim of forming reliable predictions about the reality we observe around us. Science's search for origins involves predictions about what observations we will make about the effects of those origins.
If more and more evidence came in suggesting a supernatural being exists, in what sense would we still consider that being "supernatural"? That's why I suggest forgetting the term "supernatural"; it is a red herring. Instead, let's go back to what we agreed about: if we can apply the scientific method to it — for example, if more and more evidence came up suggesting it — then we agree that we can call it science because we can investigate it scientifically. It no longer matters whether anyone wants to call it "supernatural". I'm sure some people might not understand that, but none of them are posting to this forum.
Again, we're back to the real question: Is ID something that evidence can support? Or is it so vaguely defined that we cannot actually say what observations say anything about it?
And here we have another red herring: "naturalism". The accurate question is whether we can confirm something with verified observations, or, as we put it earlier, whether the scientific methodology can be applied to it.
When we start to throw around words like "naturalism" or "materialism", we obscure the foundation of science in observation. We pretend that foundation is somehow arbitrary and optional.
I'm not sure what you're asking. Yes, there is a problem with claiming that the argument against ID is accomplished by establishing an arbitrary line for the sole purpose of keeping ID out of science. The principle arguments against ID as science involve showing exactly why the scientific methodology cannot be applied to it.
I agree Monton appears to be responding in that context, but it's rubbish. Judge Jones didn't just call ID not science: he produced a judgment in which he explained exactly why he concluded ID was not science.
Now perhaps Monton's criticisms of the judgement actually get into why he rejects Judge Jone's ideas, but in this exerpt, he doesn't talk about ID theory itself at all, but only argues against the ruling with these generalities we've been discussing, an approach that ignores the reality of what ID actually is as presented to the court by the defense team.
Comment by don provan — July 31, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 1:24 pm
don provan,
Yes, in both places.
Read Monton.
Not a red herring. See Monton again.
What is "the scientific methodology," and how do you rule something "out of class" reliably? Laudan showed that whatever you use to distinguish this class, you will rule out something that we all accept as science, and/or you will include things we do not call science. I hope you're aware of the demarcation problem.
And his conclusion was based on faulty arguments. Read Monton. It's really quite a useful paper. The book is even more so.
Comment by TomG — July 31, 2009 @ 1:24 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 1:28 pm
I don't usually do what I just did here—refer a fellow commenter to an external source repeatedly, rather than arguing it myself. I have four reasons for it. First, the original post was about that external source. Second, dp asked whether certain information could be found there. Third, the external source does a very good job of addressing the issues. Fourth, I was traveling all day yesterday and didn't get home until 3:00 this morning (Atlanta was a mess). I did want to do some catching up on the comments here and on my own blog, but I've got some other catching up to do: unpacking, and sleeping!
Comment by TomG — July 31, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 1:29 pm
And yet you show that you do not. There's nothing arrogant about underscoring a definitional problem by citing another case with a similar problem. I ask how ID is different, and all you can do is accuse me of arrogance. If you do understand the objection, then why can't you tell me how ID is different? Bilbo actually recognized that ID isn't different, and went from there.
We all do this all the time. In addition to pointing out ID's definitional problems, which is really the only issue on the table in this OP, we also try to imagine various definitions and discuss the consequences of them with you. Aiguy is, indeed, the master of this, but his point is invariably that no matter how you imagine ID being defined, it still doesn't hold water.
Comment by don provan — July 31, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Why is it that the critics will not face the fact that they too have their own "fairy"? Do they truely not see that their basic assumptions and presuppositions have nothing to do with what they call science?
Comment by 0112358 — July 31, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 1:35 pm
The definitional problem lies with you dp. Your buddy introduces a term without defining it. I go for days exchanging messages with aiguy over conscious intelligence which can be defined. So are you afraid of substantive discussions involving definable terms?
Comment by Bradford — July 31, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 1:37 pm
0112358:
Which goes to show the lack of objectivity among critics. To me OOL seems very poof like. I refrain from habitually using such terms because I know they are conversation stoppers. But perhaps obstructionism lies at the heart of NA motives.
Comment by Bradford — July 31, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Now you got it.
Sign on door:Absolutely no demons allowed in the chemistry lab!
-
Comment by Zachriel — July 31, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 1:50 pm
It's quite simple, really, to show that ID is not vacuous. There is clearly some level at which even the staunchest critic will infer design. For Jerry Coyne, it is a 900 ft. tall Jesus. For others it is the stars spelling out a message, or a talking pulsar.
There is also, just as clearly, a level at which the staunchest advocate will infer NO design.
So we can assume that somewhere in the middle is some level of evidence at which design can reasonably be inferred. The fact that this threshold is difficult to define takes nothing away from the fact that design can be detected at some evidentiary threshold. Like Potter Stewart, though we cannot define it, we "know it when we see it".
Comment by chunkdz — July 31, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Each of those examples match patterns of known "designers", humans.
Comment by Zachriel — July 31, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 2:06 pm
So what? They also match what one would expect of a conscious intelligence source. Do you have evidence that human intelligence has unique properties that would distinguish it from any other conscious intelligence or that we ought to dispense with inductive reasoning and logic when purposeful arrangement is suspected?
Comment by Bradford — July 31, 2009 @ 2:06 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 2:08 pm
If fairies exist, they are most likely intelligent beings, and would be a possible subclass or subset of ID. So asking me the what the difference is between fairies and ID is like asking me what the difference is between dogs and mammals. Now if you ask me what the difference is between fairies and FSMs and God, I could give a meaningful answer.
Yes, Tom, in rethinking my answer, I would say that whereas we have evidence for God's existence (how strong is up for debate), we don't have evidence for FSMs, and much less evidence for fairies. Therefore, it appears to me that God is a more likely candidate for ID than fairies or FSMs.
I would define "supernatural" as something that is causally independent of our physical universe.
Comment by Bilbo — July 31, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Brilliant observation, Zach. In order for humans to perceive design, design must be perceivable by humans.
Comment by chunkdz — July 31, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Because the claim implies that we can recognize a disembodied designer, but the examples don't support that position.
Do you have other examples of conscious intelligence that are subject to scientific investigation?
Comment by Zachriel — July 31, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 2:17 pm
That's as good a definition as I've come across. The only difficulty I see is distinguishing between causal independence and currently unknown causes. But in some cases that distinction would not be necessary. Rising from the dead after three days would be an example.
Comment by Bradford — July 31, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 2:17 pm
True. I wonder, however, if we should regard ID as science. If we do, it seems to me that we will also have to regard as science the idea that life has purely naturalistic origins. Though neither idea can really be answered in a scientific sense we can use our reason to favor one of these ideas over the other.
Comment by 0112358 — July 31, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Think about your claim. You don't think the cosmic claim above might not, at the very least, suggest a disembodied designer? If that's your sincere belief then exchanges are pointless.
Comment by Bradford — July 31, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Even staunch critics admit that design can be detected. If science has a difficult time quantifying this, then it speaks to an inherent impotence of science, not the vacuity of ID.
Comment by chunkdz — July 31, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Morton: Imagine that some astronomers discover a pulsar that is pulsing out Morse code. The message says that it’s from God, and that God is causing the pulsar to pulse in this unusual way. The astronomers are initially skeptical, but they find that when they formulate questions in their head, the questions are correctly answered by the message.
I didn't say we couldn't recognize design. But we recognize the design because of its resemblance to the artifacts of *known* designers. It's not abstract, but concrete.
Comment by Zachriel — July 31, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Zachriel:
It's also inaccurate. It's saying normal cognitive functions are put on hold where telic inferences are concerned. We would and should use our reasoning ability to infer that cosmic codes imply a source of intelligent input somewhere in the causal chain.
Comment by Bradford — July 31, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 5:39 pm
TomG
Right. The issue is; why should we consider one to be science, but not the other. I will note in passing that Bilbo accepts there is no difference (and as usual, Bilbo's view here is both honest and unusual for an IDist), while Bradford seems to think that the difference is that IDists posit an intelligent designer, as though that makes it science.
No, Zachriel is saying you are positing the equivalent of fairies, and there is an important difference. We all know IDists are not positing fairies; Zachriel is suggesting that ID is of the same scientific standing as positing fairies.
I see nothing there that addresses the key issue of why we should believe that ID is science, but positing fairies is not.
On the other hand, we have no evidence for fairies, and we have no evidence for a intelligent designer (beyond the trivial designer, mankind). A lot of people do believe in an intelligent designer, but then, a lot of people used to believe in fairies. A lot of people believe in homeopathy, alien abduction and astrology. Should we count them s science (as Behe does). I think not, so I find this a less than convincing argument for ID to be science.
It also appears to flat. Most people nowadays reject that theory, but if we go with your logic, maybe we should start teaching that in schools. And yes, that is a caricature taken to an extreme but that is what your argument seems to point towards – if a first glance at the evidence points to a theory, even though science has determined that the theory is wrong, we should still treat the theory as though it has some merit, we should continue to consider it a scientific method.
And by the same token, the spherical Earth theory has overcome the evidence for a flat Earth. So, sure, there is evidence for a flat Earth. But that evidence also fits the spherical Earth theory, and the spherical Earth theory also explains a ton of evidence that the flat Earth theory cannot. The evidence for the flat Earh has become non-evidence, if you like.
It is just the same for modern evolutionary theory (MET).
It is not entirely historical, as mutations, selection and new species have been observed.
And MET transforms evidence for competing solutions into non-evidence by explaining that evidence, just like the spherical Earth theory did. Whether it is a historical science is irrelevant, as far as I can see.
So let us bring this back to the fairies. We have an anomoly; let us suppose it is the bacterial flagellum. MET posits an evolutionary process involving co-option, and points to similar systems in related organisms. The IDist posits an intellgent designer. The fairy advocate posits fairies. I believe MET is science as its hypothesis can be tested; for example, I have a feeling that people started to look for similar proteins in related organisms specifically to test this hypothesis. What have the IDist and the fairy advocate got?
I wonder; do you accept the possibility that there is no intelligent designer? Or do you hold your own "absolutist position"? Whatever; you seem to be trying to drag this argument off at a tangent. How about we focus on the science question, and leave any supposed "absolutist position"?
I expect I do. Please feel free to expose them, should you find any.
Now, is it possible that the fundamental difference here is that you come to the debate already certain that the intelligent designer exists and fairies do not; the difference is in your metaphysical assumptions, not in the science?
Do you feel the same about fairies? Would you admit that you think the scientific question of ID is worth pursuing because you, as a Chritian, are already convinced that an intellgent designer, i.e., God, exists?
"lock-tight certain"? There seems to me a huge gulf between not sure if a hypothesis is scientifically worth pursuing, and thinking the hypothesis is "lock-tight certain". How long was it, I wonder, between Einstein coming up with the embryonic theory of relativity, and pondering if it was worth pursuing, and the full-fledged theory being "lock-tight certain"? Is relativity "lock-tight certain" even now?
Irrelevant. We are discussing whether ID is science.
I was reponding to your reply to Zachriel comparing ID to positing fairies as science, rather han specifically to anything in Monton's paper. However, if I get the time, I was planning to post about the paper.
I thought I had already answered that in my previous post when I said: However, if you devise a fairy-detector, and you actually research these fairies in a scientific way, then (I would say) the fairies are therefore not supernatural, and your theory is science.
I will, however, elaborate. Science can formulate hypotheses and research anything at all. Sometimes that will come to nothing. If fairies cannot be detected, and act unpredictably, then your research will turn up nothing conclusive, and your hypothesis will be unsupported. The research was (or could be) scientific, but the hypothesis will not get accepted as science. On the other hand, if you develop a camera capable of photographing fairies, devise hypotheses that require fairies, but give testable predictions, and those predictions are confirmed by others, your hypothesis is science (nd I would say fairies are no long supernatural).
Comment by The Pixie Again — July 31, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Pixie to Tom G:
Or conversely do the Pixies of the world oppose analyses of data inferring design because they have already made of their minds a designer does not exist? What makes Monton remarkable is his ability to separate his own personal predilections from an investigation that allows for a view opposite of his. For that he merits credit for intellectual integrity.
Comment by Bradford — July 31, 2009 @ 6:00 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Sure, assuming fairies have the required intelligence to make the artifact in question. But in that case, the only thing that makes it equivalent is that fairies have the required intelligence. Any property that fairies have, their wings, their clothing, their cute little noses, and whatever else, would be irrelevant and not worth mentioning except as an exercise in silliness.
So then, what's the point of mentioning fairies?
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 31, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Bradford:
It seems to me that you yourself do not allow for a view opposite of yours, seeing as you systematically play down any and all OOL research. Thus, by the same token no credit for intellectual integrity for you. Speaking for myself, as an atheist, I am open to any evidence for a Designer. I often get the impression here that believers think that atheists don't want God to exist, but personally I wouldn't mind at all that an afterlife exists, and I think the same holds true for many atheists. The problem is, we haven't seen any convincing evidence that such is the case. In a sense, you have much more to lose if you're wrong. Before you say "yes, but you have a lot to lose too because you might end up in hell" or something similar, I say that I find it extremely hard to believe that a Loving Supreme Being would send anybody to hell for not being convinced by the sloppy excuse for evidence that has been provided so far.
Comment by Raevmo — July 31, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Zachriel,
You're begging the question by demanding that some other example be subject to scientific investigation. If the designer is independent of the natural order, the designer is not subject to scientific investigation. If the rule is that the designer must be subject to scientific investigation, the rule limits inquiry: it prevents one from even asking whether there is such a designer. A rule like that has this result: if all design (or apparent design) occurs from within nature, then perhaps we can discover it; if any design originates from outside of nature, then we are not allowed to consider whether it exists. Thus by default we conclude that all design (or apparent design) is caused from within nature.
The conclusion follows from the rules of the game you want to set up, but it clearly begs the question, and you ought to be able to see that clearly enough to know that it should be tossed out.
Pixie:
Absolutism runs amok. Astonishing. Just because you don't agree with the conclusions from the evidence you say it isn't evidence. That just isn't the way evidence works.
Why do you insist on repeating what is so easily refuted?
You sidewise reference to Behe there perpetuates a misconstrual of his testimony in Dover, by the way. It amounts to name-calling, really: you pick up something he said that has the capacity to be ridiculed when taken out of context, you care nothing about what he actually said in context, and you mock him. That's not arguing against ID, it's arguing against some distortion in your own imagination. Read the end of my review again.
It only appears to be flat on a very, very casual observation, which is why no educated person in the history of the Western world has actually believed it to be flat.
What you write here has absolutely no relevance to the point I was making: that when you say there is no evidence for design, you are just wrong. There are differences in how people interpret that evidence. That does not make evidence into non-evidence. The flat-earth comparison you proceed to walk through is a poor analogy, because the evidence for a flat earth is extremely weak by comparison to the evidence that there is design in the natural order. You don't hear geologists saying, "You must constantly guard yourself against succumbing to the impression that the world is flat." But you do hear the corresponding warning with respect to biology. There's a qualitative difference between the two cases.
I don't have a clue what the fairy advocate has got. The IDist has the prediction of irreducible complexity, the fact of information existing in the natural world, and so on.
I just think you might be embarrassed to keep saying over and over, "there is no evidence for a designer." If that doesn't embarrass you, then go ahead and keep saying it. It's a ridiculous position to hold, but you're welcome to it.
Cute. Afraid to share your beliefs?
Yes. Certainly. You're finally getting it. I don't think it has to all be in the science. There's history, philosophy, theology, etc. to consider as well.
I'm open about my metaphysical position (as you do not appear to be) and in other contexts (mostly my own blog) I open that position up for discussion and questioning (as you do not appear to do). My metaphysical position is open to the possibility that ID is valid. It's also open to the possibility that ID is not valid, in this sense: if ID is taken to be the position that God's "fingerprints" are discernible in creation in a way that absolutely disproves naturalistic origins, I'm not certain that's the case, and I don't think it has to be the case (see here).
Now, is your hidden metaphysical position open to anything other than evolutionary origins? If not, then your position is suspect. It would be easy to conclude you were forced to it by your metaphysics rather than by the evidence.
I gave my answer and you called it irrelevant. Thanks for the extensive argumentation! It was very complex, so complex and long it bears repeating:
Wow. The rest of us are stunned at your ability to carry that one through from beginning to end without losing track of the flow of it.
Comment by TomG — July 31, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 6:50 pm
I express my views as to the inadaquacy of OOL evidence but unlike ID critics I do not follow the recipe of personally attacking researchers or mocking them.
Comment by Bradford — July 31, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 7:16 pm
We can detect design even when science utterly fails to define the parameters for design detection. Once this notion is established, (and it appears that plenty of scientists like Coyne and yourself agree), the possibility presents itself that the evidence for design may already be present, but that we simply haven't found a way to cognitively reconcile it.
Hence the need for Francis Crick to constantly remind himself that what he sees was not designed.
Comment by chunkdz — July 31, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Bradford:
Hardly anybody disagrees that there is no adequate OOL theory yet. But you have claimed on many occasions that there is not a chance such a theory will ever arrive, even though there is definitely progress in OOL research. It seems as if you don't want OOL research to succeed.
What researchers have been personally attacked (whatever that means) by ID critics? And don't tell me you have never mocked a researcher.
Comment by Raevmo — July 31, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Raevmo:
The first thing I noticed when I began commenting about ID was the incivility of the exchanges. That has remained a constant. I've seen Dembski mocked and villified and once even watched a commenter attack his autistic child. Dumbski. One thing the man is not is dumb. IDiot used to be much more common. I think the fact that IDists now play with that term has robbed others of the joy of using it. I once Googled some well known IDists and creationists just to read the commentaries about them. It was not pleasant. Pharangula is a repository for up to date insults. Even mild mannered types like Behe and Mike Gene are magnets for internet thugs.
Comment by Bradford — July 31, 2009 @ 7:25 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Bradford,
I agree that Dumbski is not dumb and I don´t like the uncivil simplistic exchanges at Pharyngula much either, which is why I almost never go there and prefer to hang out here. However, I do think that Dembski is a disingenuous bitter dick (excusez ma francais) that has given up on being taken seriously by science and is milking the rubes to the maximum extent. The guy even demands of his students that they post pro-Christian comments on "hostile" blogs.
Comment by Raevmo — July 31, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
July 31st, 2009 at 8:01 pm
What I hear the atheists saying is that – no matter what – even if God really did create the world and the life therein, science could never find that out.
What I read into that is that they are not interested in investigating the question.
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 31, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
August 1st, 2009 at 3:50 am
Dan:
Unless "the Intelligent Designer" or God(s) – remember Dr. Davison posits at least two dead ones – act supernatually on the natural world from time to time (miracles, for example), in which case the scientific observation of events would be some kind of anomaly, like a football sailing into the air without being kicked. Maybe ID researchers could look for this kind of event?
Nothing stopping you from having a go, Dan. Or even just suggesting how one might go about it.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 1, 2009 @ 3:50 am
August 1st, 2009 at 3:57 am
Dan:
I challenge your assertion that you hear "the atheists" saying anything consistently as a group, other than they doubt the existence of god(s). There is no Church of Athiest with a book of sayings that all atheists refer to.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 1, 2009 @ 3:57 am
August 1st, 2009 at 4:06 am
TomG
Why should Pixie's beliefs (presumably religious) matter to you? Seems a bit like asking someone how he votes. Secret ballots are intended to prevent intimidation, as are laws supporting secularism. Or is God dependent on people's belief for his existence, like in "Neverending Story"?
Comment by Alan Fox — August 1, 2009 @ 4:06 am
August 1st, 2009 at 4:12 am
TomG
And yet your last post on the issue of why ID is science and fairies only offered us the "evidence" that lots of people think ID is true, and things look designed. If that is the best you can do, I will stick to my absolutism. Perhaps we have difference concepts of eidence.
So refute what I said, rather than merely claim that it can be refuted. Explain the context, and why I have misrepresented him. What did he really mean? When ID opponents accuse IDists and creationists of quote-mining, you will find that the ID proponent will explain what te quote really meant, nd compare it to how it was made to appear. If you want to accuse me of using something "taken out of context" then I suggest you follow there example.
I will get you started, here is a transcript of the trial, just search for "astrology" on that page.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html
If you cannot or will not do that people round here (me for one) will dismiss your comment as bluster.
What review is that?
Ah, right. So ID is science because "educated person in the history of the Western world" believe in ID? Is this really your demarcation for science, or is it an after-the-event ratinalisation?
Well "educated person in the history of the Western world" believed in astrology, homeopathy and alien abduction. I guess we can lump ID in with them.
So ID predicts things will be irreducibly complex? I had no idea. Does this mean that anything that is designed must necessarily be irreducibly complex, or a certan proportion or what? Perhaps only things made by a certain class of designer? Can you link to a web web where Behe makes this prediction? Did he state this prediction of ID at Dover, and why not?
I try to approach these questions as neutrally as I can, wihout prior assumptions. If you think that is not the case, I invite you to point out my biases. Almost by definition, I do not know what they are.
Are you open to the possibility that God does not exist?
I m certainly open to the position that he does, though I suspect not, and strongly doubt the Christian god exists. However, I do not think there is anyway we can be sure about this.
On the contrary, my metaphysics are forced on me by the evidence. I was brought up in a Christian family, and taken to church regularly. What stopped me being a Christian was the evidence against the Christian god, and later to become an atheist was the lack of evidence for any gods.
On the other hand, I am big fan of science fiction, and if Mike Gene's front-loading evolution turned out to be true, I think that would be an amazing revelation. As yet, I see no evidence for it. Really, if though some things look designed, and some people believe it is true).
Comment by The Pixie Again — August 1, 2009 @ 4:12 am
August 1st, 2009 at 4:16 am
Ditto, though PZ's scientific posts are often excellent. I guess he is too busy or unwilling to police the comment fests, which have become anarchic. The right level of moderation is hard to pitch so that everyone is happy. But I guess I don't need to tell you that!
Comment by Alan Fox — August 1, 2009 @ 4:16 am
August 1st, 2009 at 8:26 am
Alan Fox:
It's right here at Telic Thoughts. All those years of comments. If we identify, organize and publish them we will have that book of sayings. Atheists meet here anyway. We could have a separate thread where you hold services and read from the Book of TT Sayings.
Comment by Bradford — August 1, 2009 @ 8:26 am
August 1st, 2009 at 8:35 am
Tom G to Pixie:
What commenters generally leave out of Behe's astrology/science reference is the falsification point. It's "predictive" prowess can be asserted and just as easily refuted by observation. Everyone knows this including Behe. When the astrology reference is made in isolation from the refutation point you are looking at the use of selective quoting to convey a misimpression.
Comment by Bradford — August 1, 2009 @ 8:35 am
August 1st, 2009 at 8:40 am
Alan Fox:
Ha ha ha. After years of being told my belief in God is linked to my ID views I now find out that the views of critics are irrelevant to their views. Consistency is a critical orphan.
Comment by Bradford — August 1, 2009 @ 8:40 am
August 1st, 2009 at 9:30 am
No, I'm asking a question after Bradford suggested there were other conscious intelligences. I want to know if they are beyond scientific investigation.
That's quite a mixed up statement. The rule isn't that you can't ask a question or consider a possiblity: The rule is you can't claim a proposition is scientific if it isn't subject to scientific investigation.
You said that already.
Comment by Zachriel — August 1, 2009 @ 9:30 am
August 1st, 2009 at 9:34 am
Alan Fox,
Pixie's beliefs are relevant in the context of the discussion.
Pixie,
We certainly do have "difference concepts of eidence." Was that the best I could do? I told you when I wrote it that it was the most basic. If you think the overwhelming appearance of design, which biologists regard as so oppressive they must keep continually reminding themselves it is only an appearance, is not evidence of design, then we do have different concepts of evidence. But that is only one example. There are many others. You know them already. Information in the cell. Biochemical nanomachines. These are evidences of design. To say they are not is to be guilty of un-nuanced, black-white, absolutist thinking.
I think you've probably heard this before. I'll play your game, though.
Here's why I consider it a game, by the way. You're saying that Michael Behe believes astrology is a science. You put the most ridiculous possible construction on that, without bothering to take a moment to google it, and find out what he really meant. You assume on completely inadequate evidence that a tenured Lehigh biochemist is an ignorant throwback to the Dark Ages, not considering how utterly unlikely that is, or how uncharitable your position on him is. It suits you to be uncharitable, because thereby you can dismiss him as an ignorant throwback to the Dark Ages.
But there's no intellectual curiosity in your approach. The trial was three or four years ago, and you could have taken the time at any point in those years to explore this strange thing he said, if you had been curious. You lack curiosity, you lack intellectual adventure, but you are full of conviction about whatever supports your biases.
I have very little respect for such a huge unwillingness to find out what your opponents actually believe.
The one mentioned in the original post. The one you apparently didn't pay any attention to when I mentioned it to you in a comment yesterday. I figured that having mentioned it to you once before with specific identification, I didn't have to do it again this time.
Amazing. You bluster about me blustering, but you're not paying a bit of attention to what I do write.
This, too, is amazing:
For as much as you argue against ID you, display an astonishingly, embarrasingly low level of awareness of what it affirms. (you really should read the end of my review again. Need I tell you which one?)
This is not difficult. This is not arcane. This is not off in a corner, or obscure. ID predicts that there are at least some irreducibly complex structures in biology, and holds that each instance of IC increases the overall probability of design. Either you knew that already and you're baiting me, which is not arguing in good faith or good character, or you're ignorant of the topic you are writing about. Which interpretation do you prefer we put on this?
You don't know what ID affirms, yet you argue against it. You don't know your own biases (you said that in your last comment) so you have no defense against them. You practice un-nuanced, black-white thinking. For years you display no curiosity about a position (Behe's) that you regard as odd. You put the worst possible construction on it instead, giving him no grace whatsoever, but construing it in the manner most congenial to your own bias.
I have engaged in a lot of Internet debate with a lot of people who disagree with me, and I've never had occasion to ask a question like this before, but I'm asking it now: Is there any reason at all we should regard your approach here with any intellectual respect?
I would like to give you some grace with respect to your own approach here. Please give me some grounds on which to do that.
Comment by TomG — August 1, 2009 @ 9:34 am
August 1st, 2009 at 9:40 am
Evidence has a different meaning than observation. The observations are the observations, but evidence is an observation predicted by a hypothesis. Arbitrary facts are not evidence. Evidence are those bits of information that lend support to a particular conclusion, such as the guilt or innocence of the accused at trial.
So when Intelligent Design claims to have *scientific* evidence of design, it means they have specific observations that are entailed in the hypothesis, and that these observations distinguish the hypothesis from other competing explanations. And ID doesn't have that sort of evidence, so it is a false claim of support.
Comment by Zachriel — August 1, 2009 @ 9:40 am
August 1st, 2009 at 9:58 am
This is instructive. What Behe means is that we can test astrological predictions therefore it qualifies as science. The problem is that astrologers work with secret and inconsistent methodologies that are not entailed in any specific theoretical framework. The resulting claims are consequently arbitrary and non-replicable. Astrologers compensate by adding a modicum of vaguity which makes even the claims that we do have untestable.
Comment by Zachriel — August 1, 2009 @ 9:58 am
August 1st, 2009 at 10:00 am
Designers can certainly manufacture Irreducibly Complex contraptions, but so can evolutionary processes. It is not a distinguishing observation.
Your human predilections are not scientific evidence.
Comment by Zachriel — August 1, 2009 @ 10:00 am
August 1st, 2009 at 10:02 am
Zachriel, this is instructive of your approach. Behe was talking about astrology as it was practiced centuries ago, when causal relations between sky and earth were yet unknown, and you speak of it as if he were referring to it as practiced in the present.
If astrologers' claims are untestable as you claim, by the way, how do you know they are wrong? I think you really do think they are testable, else you wouldn't have reason to disagree with them.
Comment by TomG — August 1, 2009 @ 10:02 am
August 1st, 2009 at 10:10 am
Zachriel,
I wrote this before you wrote this:
But it certainly applies anyway. Human predilections are relevant to this debate in ways you may not have considered.
But I do agree, predilections (interpretations) are not evidence. Interpretation is what one does with evidence.
Comment by TomG — August 1, 2009 @ 10:10 am
August 1st, 2009 at 10:12 am
The famed physicist Erwin Shroedinger hypothesized that a biological code would be found in cellular constructs before Crick and Watson did their ground breaking work with DNA. Shroedinger's guess that coding would be found was confirmed. That's evidence of design. Denialists will assert that the design was incidental to a hypothesized non-telic process which they support only with arbitrary facts.
Comment by Bradford — August 1, 2009 @ 10:12 am
August 1st, 2009 at 10:14 am
Astrology practiced years and years ago did not have a theoretical framework that entailed consistent predictions.
You might try to read more carefully. Indeed, I'm sure some astrological predictions were specific enough to be subject to verification.
Comment by Zachriel — August 1, 2009 @ 10:14 am
August 1st, 2009 at 10:17 am
And you also wrote,
Can evolutionary processes really produce IC (with any reasonable probability)? Is the debate really over that? Or is the debate over whether IC actually exists; if there is anything in nature that really is irreducibly complex?
If IC actually exists, then there is a reasonably strong probability argument against evolution being able to produce it.
Comment by TomG — August 1, 2009 @ 10:17 am
August 1st, 2009 at 10:17 am
So we have established that Behe is not claiming that astrology is science.
Comment by Bradford — August 1, 2009 @ 10:17 am
August 1st, 2009 at 10:19 am
The question concerns whether ID is science.
In science, we form a hypothesis that entails specific predictions that distinguish the hypothesis, then we test those predictions through independent and replicable observations. That is what is known as scientific evidence. It's very similar to how courts make determiniations. Evidence must be relevant to the claim under consideration. And your predilection that he seemed like a bad person, or that you saw a demon on his shoulder is not allowed in courts (Salem vs. witchery 1692). Your intepretations or witness of spectres are not evidence.
Comment by Zachriel — August 1, 2009 @ 10:19 am
August 1st, 2009 at 10:20 am
TomG:
Does it now? From what ID-theoretical assumptions does that follow logically? By how much does the probability of design increase per additional discovery of an IC structure? Where are we now on the probability scale?
Comment by Raevmo — August 1, 2009 @ 10:20 am
August 1st, 2009 at 10:25 am
From Kitzmiller v. Dover:
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is — a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.
Comment by Zachriel — August 1, 2009 @ 10:25 am
August 1st, 2009 at 10:25 am
Zachriel,
You're contradicting yourself on the astrology thing. But never mind that, you're also putting the worst possible construction on Behe's words, as the Pixie was doing. It's very convenient for you to do so, but it's not arguing in good faith.
There is a case that can be made that astrology viewed in a certain light, at a certain time of history centuries ago, could have been the subject of scientific inquiry. The same could be done today, but nobody bothers because it's been done, to universal satisfaction among scientists. The fact that it has been subjected to that inquiry and has been shown false does not mean that it was never capable in the past of being subject to that inquiry. The fact that Behe recognizes that in the past that was possible does not mean he is unaware of how the inquiry turned out. The fact that you put that construction on what he says probably means you don't really care to know what he meant by what he said.
I'll go ahead and quote from one of the pages I linked to above. This is an interview, where he's answering some direct questions:
Comment by TomG — August 1, 2009 @ 10:25 am
August 1st, 2009 at 10:27 am
Raevmo,
I'm not going to accept your bait. You know the answers to your questions well enough already. If not, then you don't know enough about ID to be disputing it as much as you do.
Comment by TomG — August 1, 2009 @ 10:27 am
August 1st, 2009 at 10:33 am
Part of the problem is the ambiguity in the definitions of IC that Behe has provided. But by the usual definition, then there are many IC systems in biology. For instance, if you remove one of the bones in your middle ear, it will significantly disable your hearing. This is clearly Behe's argument, that such a system could only have been *popped* into place by someone who can foresee the final assembly.
We know that IC systems can evolve. For instance, we may have a functional system A which acquires a helper B. Eventually, through functional polarizaton, A may become dependent on B. Additional components can be added in this way creating a very complex—and irreducible—cascade system. Or we may have say three structures that gradually change to acquire a new function. Same three structures, but now co-dependent.
Comment by Zachriel — August 1, 2009 @ 10:33 am
August 1st, 2009 at 11:04 am
Bradford:
You make my point for me! Why expect anything other than inconsistency from atheists? They don't have to refer to a book of sayings. There's no party line!
Comment by Alan Fox — August 1, 2009 @ 11:04 am
August 1st, 2009 at 11:25 am
Alan Fox:
Then why do the thoughts of TT atheists appear to be formed by cookie cutters?
Comment by Bradford — August 1, 2009 @ 11:25 am
August 1st, 2009 at 11:30 am
Behe:
Behe is stating that astrology is one of those things that progress has shown to be incoorect. Behe is saying that astrology is not contemporary science.
Comment by Bradford — August 1, 2009 @ 11:30 am
August 1st, 2009 at 11:45 am
Viewpoint bias?
*added by me for clarity
Comment by Alan Fox — August 1, 2009 @ 11:45 am
August 1st, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Zachriel,
IC is a probability argument. The probability of three bones having evolved to their current configuration is not necessarily insuperable, especially since you're talking about a difference of degree in functionality, not a bridge from virtually zero functionality to full functionality. The probability of far more complex, multiply interdependent structures having done so, when there is zero functionality without the full structure in place, is far smaller.
So the fact that some IC structures can be conceived to have evolved I will grant. I'll adjust the wording I used. The argument is over whether IC really exists in the form of structures containing multiply interdependent parts, which without that entire structure (or something like it) being in place, have no function that provides a selectable evolutionary advantage.
Comment by TomG — August 1, 2009 @ 12:04 pm
August 1st, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Just counting the bones doesn't explain the precise relationship which requires placement and connecting shapes. If we examine the bones in detail, we see that it takes a large number of exacting changes to make the bones fit properly. But yes. Once you see how it evolved, it's easy to understand. The known fossils were predicted from theory decades before their discovery.
The idea of adding helpers that then become necessary is not only conceivable, but plausible, rebuts the probability claim, and is supported by the evidence for a number of molecular cascades, as well as macroscopic systems, such as skeletal relationships.
Molecular cascades (e.g. blood clotting) in their *present* forms are often irreducible. However, we can see how they evolved because there are precursor systems that are missing parts.
Comment by Zachriel — August 1, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
August 1st, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Observation: It's not science that atheists are concerned about – it's religion.
Atheists–like their unknown inspiration–oppose God at every turn. Because of this, their comments are predictable. God is the sticking point here – not science.
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 1, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
August 1st, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Dan asserts:
Whilst it may be true that some people who self-identify as atheists are more concerned with the influence of religious groups than having an interest in science, your claim seems very bold. How do you know what atheists in general think? Bear in mind that the enfant terrible Richard Dawkins only puts himself at a 6 or 7 on the atheism scale.
Which of the many posited gods are you referring to? What's an unknown inspiration? Why so concerned whether others are less enthusiastic about your particular god?
Comment by Alan Fox — August 1, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
August 1st, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Re: There are certain anomalies that ID likes to focus on (OOL, bacterial flagellum). Instead of fairies, it posits an intelligent designer.
Question: I think there is a leap between evidence for intelligent design and a ‘designer’ which suggests an independent being of some sort. I am not aware of the latter being a core part of the ID argument even if some of its adherents personally believe this to be the case. Are you sure this is the ID argument, that there is a ‘designer’? I keep hearing this but it was not what I got from reading about irreducible complexity several years ago.
Re: I would define "supernatural" as something that is causally independent of our physical universe.
Response: but the term supernatural in this context usually refers to the notion of a designer or causative God principle who has created the physical universe and therefore cannot be said to be causally independent.
Tangentially, I think the real issue is if there are elements in the physical universe that are not immediately apparent to our senses and thus appear supra-physical even though they might not be, such as magnetic fields from various planetary bodies which we cannot see or feel but which modern technology has found ways to measure. Who knows what other influences and forces there are in the natural world that we have not yet managed to perceive, either naturally or with technology?
Re: It is not entirely historical, as mutations, selection and new species have been observed.
Response: could you (or anyone) please cite an easy reference of an emergent new species? I would love to take a look at it.
Re: On the other hand, if you develop a camera capable of photographing fairies,
Response: actually, Russians were into this about thirty years ago and found extraordinarily different and particular ‘auras’ (or whatever) that vary from plant to plant, person to person. I forget the technology but the photographs – which I saw in a very expensive book in a private collection decades ago – are stunningly beautiful, no matter what it is they are depicting exactly.
Re: ID predicts that there are at least some irreducibly complex structures in biology, and holds that each instance of IC increases the overall probability of design.
Response: that to me is the core of the ID presentation and I find it impossible to refute – indeed I felt that way myself as a teenager looking at cells in a microscope. Even if Darwinian Evolution Theory is true, it is incomplete in that it does not get close to explaining the intelligence involved in biologically complex, highly sophisticated processes. In short, it neither defines nor explains intelligence, evidence for which is all over the place.
Re: This is clearly Behe's argument, that such a system could only have been *popped* into place by someone who can foresee the final assembly.
Response: do you have a simple quote somewhere for that being the conclusion? I.e. is he really saying that because irreducible complexity is evidenced in biological organisms that therefore ‘someone’ effected this?
Re: Behe is stating that astrology is one of those things that progress has shown to be incoorect. Behe is saying that astrology is not contemporary science.
Response: have any modern scientists taken a real crack at astrology in the sense of analysing what effects different planetary bodies have on physical organisms? Somehow I doubt it.
Re: The argument is over whether IC really exists in the form of structures containing multiply interdependent parts, which without that entire structure (or something like it) being in place, have no function that provides a selectable evolutionary advantage.
Response: This statement brings into focus the cross-currents in the polemic, namely that on the one hand ID clearly has evolved as a refutation of conventional (materialist) evolutionary theory/beliefs, whilst on the other it stands as a scientifically deduced argument about the nature of biological organisms.
Generally: I find that most people seem to totally discount many of the discoveries made by the Quantum Boys back in the 30’s wherein the inseparability of mind and matter was more or less firmly established, wherein the possibility that the so-called ‘physical universe’ is a far more flimsy affair than was heretofore supposed in that what we perceive as ‘solid’ might well be the result of maintaining certain perceptual frequency zones, let us say, rather than inherent, absolute physical qualities of the matter itself. In other words, for us a rock is solid and impenetrable, but for those on a different frequency level, it might not even be perceivable as such if at all. I understand all this, of course, from many years of carefully studying the dialogue in that greatest of cult classics, Buckaroo Bonzai!
Lastly: is there any way to get email updates from threads to which one has made posts?
Comment by ash — August 1, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
August 1st, 2009 at 5:14 pm
From Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe: The straightforward conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed. The designer knew what the systems would look like when they were completed, then took steps to bring the systems about.
Comment by Zachriel — August 1, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
August 1st, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Zachriel: thanks. Personally I think it is a leap to infer a designer from evidence of design. It presupposes a split between organism and environment as if the organism itself could not possibly be its own designer, or that the designer and the organism are necessarily separate entities, or that there might be a monocausal agent rather than multi-causal agencies/influences. And so on.
That said, in the narrow terrain in which the ID versus MEP (?) argument resides, it is hard to refute the obvious evidence of extraordinary intelligence at work in any organism we can observe in Nature with the notion that it is the result of random, mindless, mechanical improvisation.
Both Buddha and Nargarjuna addressed these sort of things head-one a couple of millenia ago, the first with the hypothesis of 'codependent origination (pratityasamutpada), the second with his logical systems that can effectively reduce any relative proposition to being falsifiable. Although the latter is of more relevance in mainly philosophical processes, it and the former do a very good job of highlighting the potential traps involved with slicing reality up into discrete sections, a cognitive function often referred to as 'conceptualisation', and confusing these conceptual divisions as reflective of actual 'reality'. The entire proposition that there can be a division between the physical and non-physical worlds is in this context extremely questionable and demonstrably so using just simple logic.
But it seems in modern times we have forgotten many well hammered-out insights even though we do not feel obliged to address them directly and show exactly why they no longer hold water.
Comment by ash — August 1, 2009 @ 6:34 pm
August 1st, 2009 at 8:00 pm
TomG:
Me:
Tom:
In other words, you don't know the answers yourself. That's what I thought. Ironically, you seem more ignorant about ID than most critics on this forum. You apparently do not realize that ID makes no predictions about IC whatsoever. Instead, IC is promoted by IDists as negative evidence against the mainstream scientific theory of evolution, and therefore by default a designer must have dunnit. But as far as I know there are no design principles being invoked to predict that a designer must create IC structures. Do you know of any?
Comment by Raevmo — August 1, 2009 @ 8:00 pm
August 1st, 2009 at 8:23 pm
What design principles eliminate the possibility? You can't reverse a theoretical process to lesser and lesser complexity because you come to a point which exceeds the "simplicity" of the least complex cells known. At that point you are beyond solid empirical grounds for predicting precursor candidates. Your speculation would be as valid as Tom's but no more so. In fact you could test for IC by genome reduction coupled with sub-optimal enzymes for critical functions. That's what one would expect if the clock were reversed. If the IC objection is truly invalid there should always be a point where evolution is viable. If not, well then design merits another look.
Comment by Bradford — August 1, 2009 @ 8:23 pm
August 2nd, 2009 at 5:55 am
Obviously atheists wouldn't say that, because atheists don't think God exists. I would say that, though. There are several lines of logic that lead to that conclusion, but the primary one is that science is based on observations, and God can create whatever observations He wants. It logically follows that science could only observe what God wanted it to observe: we can never tell if our observations are evidence of what God did. This logic actually extends to beings considerably less powerful that God.
(I have to disagree with Alan Fox on this point. For example, God showing up and performing miracles in front of our eyes only proves that God can make us observe miracles. It doesn't tell us anything about whether He had anything to do with our creation. What's worse, He could make us believe both emotionally and intellectually that He was responsible for our creation even if He wasn't. Note that this isn't some kind of extreme skeptism, such as doubting reality. These abilities are, by definition, within God's powers, and that forces us to the logical conclusion.)
I suppose that's a valid reading: I am not interested in investigating the question scientifically because investigating the question scientifically is pointless.
On the other hand, we can look for evidence of Christian claims. That's different from looking for evidence for God. For example, we can investigate claims about creation based on interpretations of the Bible. And we did. And we didn't find any evidence supporting the claims. The effort is known as "scientific creationism."
But, going back to the first point, that doesn't tell us God doesn't exist, or even that God didn't create the world exactly as those interpretations claim, because one possible explanation for the lack of evidence is that God hid it.
Comment by don provan — August 2, 2009 @ 5:55 am
August 2nd, 2009 at 6:04 am
When Monton spoke of "more and more evidence", I assumed he was speaking of evidence that would be beyond question. Are you saying that he's thinking of evidence that would be controversial, evidence which would require a debate about the scientific method?
Comment by don provan — August 2, 2009 @ 6:04 am
August 2nd, 2009 at 6:54 am
Can you point out where he does this in the article? I've read the article now, and all I can see is that he simply takes the DI definition, adjusts it, and then continues by presuming this definition can be investigated scientifically. But as you surely must know, the criticism is that a scientific investigation would require understanding what "intelligent cause" means. Monton gives no indication that he's considered that problem, let alone resolved it.
I did. The article consistently uses "supernatural" in a casual way — "While I have not given a definition of 'supernatural', I take it that the Christian God counts as supernatural" — and does not consider the meaning involving an inability to make empirically verified observations of the subject. He seems to think that once we call it supernatural, we always have to call it supernatural. I was asking why he'd still consider something supernatural once we understood it. But this just takes us back to the previous point: "supernatural" just confuses the conversation. The question is whether we can collect evidence.
Monton doesn't use methodological naturalism as a red herring. He discusses it because it's part of the ruling, just as he discusses supernatural because it was part of the ruling. But I was saying that the term is a red herring in our thinking because it does nothing except distract us from the question of verified observations. Monton's objection to methodological naturalism is simply another side of his discussion of supernatural. I think it is more useful to focus on verified observation rather than arguing over what "supernatural" means or whether methodological naturalism can be applied to supernatural things.
I'd say that what Monton sees is more a result of his own faulty interpretations of what was being said, principly not thinking clearly about what "supernatural" means or why the term is being applied to ID. Instead, he swallows a typical ID line that the claim of supernatural is based on nothing more than the presumption that ID is talking about God, and that "supernatural" is meant in the casual sense of things people believe in without evidence. But the claim against ID is not that trivial.
Comment by don provan — August 2, 2009 @ 6:54 am
August 2nd, 2009 at 7:09 am
By the way, we can see here in the concluding paragraph what's going on. Monton is making the rookie mistake of granting scientific validity in order to refute by evidence. To a scientific mind, this not only makes sense, but it seems unassailable.
But anyone with more experience discussing ID knows this approach leads to two lines of argument which, thanks to the grant of scientific validity, are undeniable: the "what about this evidence?" argument, and the "we'd have evidence if scientists would look for it" argument. The evidence offered in the first case invariably can only be considered "evidence" because the problem is not clearly stated. And the second cannot be countered until you recognize that no one's looking for evidence because there's no conceivable evidence to look for.
Comment by don provan — August 2, 2009 @ 7:09 am
August 2nd, 2009 at 8:28 am
Hi Don
I'm not sure what we are disagreeing about. I am doubtful about the existence of the kind of christian god that many seem to subscribe to here. Many gods seem to have too many human attributes not to have been created by human imagination. Also I suspect the desire for some kind of benevolent guardian or protector is a variable human characteristic, which I apparently lack. So religious "explanations" fall a bit flat with me. But that's just my personal view. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion (usual caveats apply).
Comment by Alan Fox — August 2, 2009 @ 8:28 am
August 2nd, 2009 at 1:56 pm
I agree we're disagreeing about very little. I didn't mention it because I thought you and I needed to clear something up, but only because I was directly contradicting you in our answers to one of TomG's questions, and I was explaining to TomG why.
I think our disagreement is simply a different slant on how science would be applied to God. You are accepting the Christian definition of God as a single entity with a set of unique characteristics. In a way, that's commendable, since you're reflecting the views of the people you're talking to, but it means you accept some decidedly unscientific things, such as in this case where you're accepting that if some entity performed a miracle for you, then that entity must be the Christian God and is, therefore, our Creator.
But if we really to look at these questions scientifically, we have to recognize that the connection between various characteristics of "God" are not scientifically established, they are simply presumed by the Christian definition. So, for example, proof positive that Jesus rose from the dead is typically taken by Christians as evidence for all the other aspects of Jesus, such as His divinity. But we are looking at the question from the impartial view of scientists, so we can see that The Resurrection does nothing to support any other aspect of Christianity: yet another scientific set of evidence would be required to connect that event to divinity or support divinity from some other angle.
In passing, let me mention that this unified definition attitude colors much of the ID debate. For example, the anti-evolution arguments very often hinge on thinking evolution started as a unified definition for which scientists seek supporting evidence. IDers think that because that's what they're doing, of course. So they imagine that if they knock out one part of the definition — "mutations aren't random" is a typical example — then the entire definition collapses. But, of course, evolution grew in exactly the opposite manner: many, many datapoints grew into a unified explanation, so even if they were to successfully show a problem with the definition of evolution, it would merely mean that the defintion is a flawed description of the explanation, not that the explanation, supported as it is by so many individual examples, is itself flawed.
Comment by don provan — August 2, 2009 @ 1:56 pm
August 2nd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
I made the comment in the context of a discussion on ID. Those who argue against it, while appearing to do so on scientific grounds, seem much more concerned with the supernatural aspect of ID than they are with the science of it.
The one who is universally hated.
Satan. He hates God and "inspires" unbelievers to do so as well. They are his unwitting tool. This may seem foolish to you, but from a Christian perspective it is obvious and explains a lot of things that have no other rational explanation.
Just pointing out the obvious underlying motivations behind the dispute.
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 2, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
August 2nd, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Here's one: Polyploidy: recurrent formation and genome evolution
This is especially interesting in that this evolution of a new species is both recurrent and rapid, therefore it does not appear to be of random origins at all:
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 2, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
August 2nd, 2009 at 4:17 pm
This ought to be interesting!
Wow! No one can argue with that logic don. This is the cream of the 'reasons science can't investigate God' crop! Congratulations.
IOW, even if God shows up and performs miracles in front of don's eyes, he'll still find a reason to doubt God's creative causation of life! Bravo!
The understatement of the year.
It's only logical in that 'un'biased brain of yours don!
Thanks for being honest don. I'm wondering though why you claimed previously that you had investigated this?
I don't know how many different ways I can say this don, but all evidence is subject to interpretation. What you should have said is "I didn't find any evidence that I'd interpret as supportive of scientific creationism". That would've been a more accurate statement.
The fortress you've built in your head to keep God out is impressive don. Of course God can still worm his way in there. Better keep constant vigilance!
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 2, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
August 2nd, 2009 at 4:28 pm
This whole debate about origins is a bit silly IMO. No one is arguing that nature makes complex regulated machinery except on the molecular level. Why is that? If nature makes machinery from inanimate matter, why doesn't it happen regularly and on a larger scale?
Another question for the naturalists: Explain the evolution of regulation in metabolic cycles. Pick any metabolic cycle and explain how it went from unregulated to regulated. How does an unregulated metabolic cycle function? How does an unspecific enzyme work? Have any of you even thought about these questions? Or is your critical eye only trained on the theories and hypotheses that hint at the need for God?
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 2, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
August 2nd, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Daniel Smith:
Not unwitting at all. I sold my soul so I could have my pick of non-Christian virgins in hell, for all eternity. Just like Dembski instructs his students to infiltrate hostile blogs, so does my master Beelzebub and that's why I'm here.
Comment by Raevmo — August 2, 2009 @ 4:44 pm
August 2nd, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Dan:
You seem to be calling me a tool of Satan.
Indeed so! But I'm a continent away from you so relax!
Comment by Alan Fox — August 2, 2009 @ 4:52 pm
August 2nd, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Don:
Still wondering if you are attributing someone else's views to me but the current (for instance) Southern Baptist version of Christianity is one among many dogmas. Christianity (UK Church of England) is what I was raised to believe so I am most familiar with their dogma. I think Islam and Judaism are human constructs too.
No, I don't think that. I dismiss the Christian representations of God as human constructs. I don't think I'll live long enough to see a miracle* and I can't imagine how I would react. I doubt I would be immediately leaping back into the Christian faith.
This makes complete sense to me. Arguing over the historical evidence for Jesus is a non-issue for me. Not really my business… second thoughts…I'll refrain from further comment except to say science is only a problem for religions when religions make testable and refutable claims.
*miracles are very susceptible to scientific scrutiny. Turin shroud dating, for example.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 2, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
August 2nd, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Dan:
Can you honestly say that you believe anyone can give you any sort of scientific answer that will satisfy you? You didn't respond well to the answers you got at AtBC, for example. Remember science can only address the real world, not the imaginary.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 2, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
August 2nd, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Daniel Smith:
We don't realy know Daniel. But remember don't put your God into our gaps.
They try not to. Metabolic pathways? Uh… er… they evolved from simpler precursor pathways. How do you like them apples?
Did you just say the G word? Harrumph. Let's get back to science Daniel.
Comment by Bradford — August 2, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
August 2nd, 2009 at 10:17 pm
It does. It does. There's a clock that sweeps out the ages of humankind. There's a vast and complex pump that moves water on a regular basis over South Asia. A uranium atom is a very complicated mechanism, but does tend to break down on occasion* — but it's still a lot more reliable than any human device. If you want to see the latest in naturalistic manufacturing, though, check out the Eagle Nebula where the factories are putting out the latest model stars.
* Every few billion years on average for Uranium-238. Stay away from those U-234's. They tend to break down thousands of times more often.
Comment by Zachriel — August 2, 2009 @ 10:17 pm
August 2nd, 2009 at 10:57 pm
You forgot to put anything in your post to suggest why my position is not logically required in the way I explained.
Comment by don provan — August 2, 2009 @ 10:57 pm
August 2nd, 2009 at 11:14 pm
I'm not sure why you think I was being anywhere near that specific. In our conversation, the definitional requirement is that if an entity performs a miracle, then it must be our creator. I don't think that's specific to any particular brand of Christianity.
Well, then I must have misread what you wrote. I thought you presented a confirmed miracle as a specific example of evidence that the entity was either God or our creator, but I won't bother to go back and look.
I was using that as a comparable example of a proof linked by nothing beyond the definition, not as something reflecting your position. Sorry for not making that clear enough.
We could debate whether it actually makes sense to use "miracle" in a sentence with "scientific scrutiny". As with "supernatural", I have a hard time understanding how we can continue to use the term "miracle" any more once we've determined how to scrutinize it. We can perform various tests on the Shroud of Turin to investigate various physical possibilities, but no test can confirm or refute that it was "a miracle". But in this conversation, I was accepting that we could establish scientifically that a miracle had occurred. The point is that such evidence only tells us a limited amount about the entity performing the miracle, it doesn't confirm whatever characteristic we care to define in.
Comment by don provan — August 2, 2009 @ 11:14 pm
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Well at least you're honest!
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 3, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:12 pm
No I didn't. I specifically said "No one can argue with that logic don".
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 3, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Are you calling metabolic cycles "imaginary" Alan?
As for AtBC, if you're insinuating that I "didn't respond well to" the answers I received there because I found them unconvincing and didn't become an atheist – then you're right.
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 3, 2009 @ 12:21 pm
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Oh, OK. So you agree with me. Dunno what the rest of your post was about, then, but I'll ignore it.
Comment by don provan — August 3, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:28 pm
I am pointing out that scientific explanations are limited to the real world and may include the phrase "we don't know (yet)".
Thanks for the confirmation that you will never be satisfied with scientific explanations.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 3, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
August 3rd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
IIRC Alan, you very rarely popped in at AtBC, so unless you went back and actually read all three threads I was involved in (for months at a time), I don't really see how you can make such a blanket statement.
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 3, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
August 3rd, 2009 at 7:23 pm
That's not surprising don. My post brought up some points that could be very embarrassing for you.
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 3, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
August 3rd, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Nice one Zachriel! As soon as I posted it, I thought about the weather system and star formation, etc.
I still think debating origins is silly though. If you want to believe that all of this 'just happened', no amount of reasoning will change your mind.
The truth is, because of the circumstances involved, either viewpoint can be supported by a biased interpretation of the evidence. Debates just end up going in circles.
I'm just trying to get people here to admit their bias.
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 3, 2009 @ 7:33 pm
August 4th, 2009 at 1:36 am
I guess we'll have to take your word for it.
Comment by don provan — August 4, 2009 @ 1:36 am
August 4th, 2009 at 8:09 am
Talk about tu quoque! Dan, I read threads much more than I comment. I followed your progress with interest initially but it did get repetitive and a little embarrassing to read towards the end. That's why I suggested you might find TT more to your taste.
Who here is arrogant enough to claim to be free from personal prejudice and view-point bias? Do you think you are?
Comment by Alan Fox — August 4, 2009 @ 8:09 am
August 4th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Raevmo wrote:
Sorry, you were only shown the demo version of Hell. They took out all virgins in beta and now in version 1.0 you're stuck in a small house with your wife, your kid as a teenager, and no beer or other controlled substances, for eternity.
Hope you got a good price for that ragged thing you called a soul.
Comment by angryoldfatman — August 4, 2009 @ 9:13 am
August 4th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Alan, why not just provide the scientific answer detailing how regulatory complexes evolved.
Comment by Bradford — August 4, 2009 @ 9:17 am
August 4th, 2009 at 9:54 am
angry:
Oh man. Not even warm beer? And what's my wife doing there? She's a believer.
Can't even trust Beelzebub these days – what's the world come to? Hopefully they bring back the virgins in version 6.66.
Comment by Raevmo — August 4, 2009 @ 9:54 am
August 4th, 2009 at 10:35 am
I think you mean originated. Let's assume there is a Gap in human knowledge. So? Does that mean the Theory of Evolution is not scientifically valid? If there's a Gap, can we perhaps try to propose a testable hypothesis?
Comment by Zachriel — August 4, 2009 @ 10:35 am
August 4th, 2009 at 11:16 am
The ones I have in mind would have evolved. Or do you take the position that gene regulation was front loaded at the outset?
Comment by Bradford — August 4, 2009 @ 11:16 am
August 4th, 2009 at 11:39 am
———————————————————————————————–
You call it bias because you obviously have a bias, and you want to think I obviously have one, too. But you're wrong: I am open to any evidence you want to present, and I will view it impartially.
———————————————————————————————-
I look at the scientific evidence impartially, so I recognize that the evidence doesn't support the existence of God regardless of whether or not He exists and regardless of whether or not you and I know He exists.
———————————————————————————————
What positive evidence for intelligent design am I missing? I've been listening intently for many years, entirely impartial, completely open to any and all evidence, with absolutely no ax to grind, and I've seen nothing to even suggest that there's evidence for intelligent design.
———————————————————————————————
some people such as the critics on this board listen to its case and evaluate it impartially and with fresh eyes. And we've discovered that it really is nonsense.
———————————————————————————————
I've told you many times: I'm impartial. That means I don't have a position. That helps me fairly evaluate how well other people support their positions. You're failing.
———————————————————————————————
As an impartial observer, I'm judging between what you find acceptable and what Dawkins finds acceptable.
———————————————————————————————–
I have no money in the game. That's why I can be impartial and point out a logical problem in the foresight argument no matter which case is thereby deflated.
———————————————————————————————-
From my impartial position, I understand why Christians are offended by Dawkins, but I don't see anything he does as impinging academic freedom or being uncivil.
———————————————————————————————-
Yes, I'm impartial, which is why I made no such claim.
Comment by Bradford — August 4, 2009 @ 11:39 am
August 4th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Okay then.
Comment by Zachriel — August 4, 2009 @ 11:55 am
August 4th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Me. I do it all the time. It started as a little game I was playing because the people around here always simply assert bias and appear incapable of demonstrating it. But it's been a year or two, and no one's ever been able to come up with any reason to show I'm biased other than the fact that I disagree with them.
Of course, I don't really think I'm entirely free of personal prejudice or view-point bias, but I have discovered through this experiment that I'm impartial for all practical purposes in the context of ID discussions.
And, yes, I'm arrogant enough to claim I'm pretty dang close even in absolute terms. There are plenty of things I'm ignorant of, but very little I'm unfair about.
Oh, look! Bradford's provided a list of my greatest hits, so you can see what I mean. I didn't realize he was tracking me. I'm honored.
Comment by don provan — August 4, 2009 @ 12:04 pm
August 4th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Don:
There you go.
Not sure about that, Don. It's a culture war! You're either with 'em or against 'em.
Actually, Pixie made the point to TomG that it is up to others to point out bias, as we may not recognize or admit our own unconscious prejudice. My own cultural bias has been highlighted many times since living in France and more so on an extended visit to Morocco. Travel broadens the mind, I think. What percentage of US citizens have a passport?
Comment by Alan Fox — August 4, 2009 @ 12:21 pm
August 4th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
As Dan has already said he will not accept a scientific answer, what would be the point?
Also, I don't know in detail what regulatory complexes are or how they work. There is a vast literature on the subject, however, and if Dan was genuinely curious about the topic, I am sure we could find information. What I suspect cannot be done is to provide a scientific explanation that will make any impression on Dan.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 4, 2009 @ 12:29 pm
August 4th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
If you had actually read the threads at AtBC you'd know that I was the one citing sources most of the time and very rarely did those "science buffs" want to talk about the subjects I brought up. They preferred to do what you do: engage in ad hominem attacks, accusations and condescension.
Translation: "I have no clue how to answer Daniel's question so I'll refer him to the "vast literature" that I'm sure will back up my position, (though I've never read it myself). Meanwhile I'll make a few insulting comments about his character, that should show that I'm the 'scientific one'."
This is starting to remind me of AtBC.
What you don't seem to want to consider Alan, is that I might just be reading relevant literature every day and educating myself on the subject and that it's for that reason that I'm making the arguments I make.
Alan, how about this: How about thinking about the question and then attempting an answer?
You have the balls to accuse me of being unwilling to accept a scientific answer while at the same time refusing to provide one. If you don't know enough about it Alan, there is a vast literature on the subject, and if you are genuinely curious, I am sure you could find some information that will help you.
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 4, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
August 4th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
I originally was interested in illuminating the universal assumption of all IDers that anyone that disagrees with them can only do so because of bias, i.e., the idea that it's a culture war and not well reasoned disagreement. After all this time, I don't think a single IDer has gotten the point and made any effort to show why it must be my bias as opposed to their own bias that causes us to disagree. From time to time, I've explained why I think they're biased and not me so they could see how it would be done, but the only responses I get are "No, you."
The question is whether you can impartially recognize the effects of your cultural bias on your evaluation of other cultures. It's one thing to be repulsed by what you're served for dinner, or be insulted by what you consider rude behavior, but it's quite another thing to feel there's a problem if they treat women like slaves.
Comment by don provan — August 4, 2009 @ 8:19 pm
August 4th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Lol! This from the guy who just referred to popular mainstream scientists Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Jerry Coyne, and Sean Caroll as a "fringe" group.
Comment by chunkdz — August 4, 2009 @ 8:22 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 8:09 am
Moroccan cuisine is far from repulsive although it can get a little repetitive once you have permed every combination of cous-cous and tajine with goat, chicken, fish and vegetables. It was indeed the endemic misogyny I found hard to take, along with the graft and corruption at every level of society. You might appreciate the lack of taxation and a social security network, being a libertarian, but I found the resultant levels of poverty and deprivation quite shocking.
P S
Berber breakfast of mint tea with flat bread and amlou (a spread made from honey and argan nut extract) is "to die for".
Comment by Alan Fox — August 5, 2009 @ 8:09 am
August 5th, 2009 at 8:24 am
Why would I not want to consider this, Dan? Have you in fact been studying the scientific literature every day? What are you reading currently? Your argument appears to be "I am not persuaded by evolutionary theories and because they don't convince me that confirms my religious beliefs". Correct me if I'm wrong.
I already said I am not familiar with the concept of regulatory compexes. There is a vast amount of scientific work that I am not familiar with. What is it about regulatory complexes that makes you single them out as a topic for special attention?
Comment by Alan Fox — August 5, 2009 @ 8:24 am
August 5th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Well Alan, I don't believe it is possible to have a productive debate with you – given your predisposition towards me. But I'll let you know that I have been reading a biochemistry textbook every day and have also read several papers dealing with the evolution of metabolic cycles. All of this began during my discussions over at AtBC – which you claimed to have read. I don't see any point in continuing this discussion with you until you learn to judge an argument on its merits as opposed to rejecting it out of hand based on your opinion of the person presenting it.
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 5, 2009 @ 2:46 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
We've all admitted our bias don. You're the only hold out.
Comment by Daniel Smith — August 5, 2009 @ 2:48 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
You haven't admitted all your biases. For example, you don't even recognize the bias you have which triggers the "all people that disagree with me are biased" response.
Comment by don provan — August 5, 2009 @ 6:42 pm