Collins' Deistic Hangover
by BilboIn his book, The Language Of God, Francis Collins offers some theological objections to Intelligent Design. One of them is the following:
"Furthermore, ID portrays the Almighty as a clumsy Creator, having to intervene at regular intervals to fix the inadequacies of His own initial plan for generating the complexity of life. For a believer who stands in awe of the almost unimaginable intelligence and creative genius of God, this is a very unsatisfactory image."
First, ID doesn't claim that God is the designer. Although most ID proponents believe that God is the designer, they think the evidence is insufficient to show this.
Second, and more importantly, Collins' objection is similar to the objection of Deists, who thought that God could wind up the universe like a watch and let it tick away on its own. If God needed to intervene to keep the watch going, it would mean that the universe was not well-designed. This might make sense if the universe is run by deterministic laws. In that case, then God or the uberphysicist might be able to set up the initial conditions at the Big Bang, just as one sets up a line of dominoes, so that with a "push" everything else falls predictably afterwards. But then the events that occur after the Big Bang have been designed, just as surely as the pattern of the falling dominoes was designed. So Collins' objection would fail. The "initial plan" could include many of the events in evolutionary history, from the origin of life, to the Cambrian explosion, to whatever recent events resulted in homo sapiens.
But since Quantum Mechanics came on the scene, we have no guarantee that the initial events of the Big Bang can determine any of the future events in the universe. And if they can't, then can they guarantee that there will even be life? Most ID proponents think the evidence is against this. But this isn't a problem for us, since we have no indication that God's "initial plan" was for the universe to create life on its own. It could be that God meant for the universe first to prepare the ingredients and place for additional creative works, much like a master chef will first prepare her kitchen with all the ingredients and utensils needed to prepare a great feast.
For Collins' argument to succeed he needs to show that life will likely result from the initial conditions of our universe. And neither he nor any other critic has supplied that evidence, yet.
September 20th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
You're pretty much noticing the same thing, but that's how I'd put it as: Intervention does not necessarily imply failure on the part of a creator. Saying 'Oh, well God intended X to happen according to Y type of causes. This failed, so God went "oops" and intervened directly to cause X.' is not obvious. It's a case Collins has to at least try to make, at least if he wants to be persuasive. And I've never really seen this case made – it just gets thrown out there.
That said, I think Collins' overall contribution to the greater debate has been positive. I'm still keeping an eye on Biologos, which I think has some great potential.
Comment by nullasalus — September 20, 2009 @ 7:18 pm
September 21st, 2009 at 3:42 am
There you go. there are no guarantees. We only know we are here, the rest is guesswork! Glad to see you pointing out that realists are not determinists.
Against what?
I love the analogy, Bilbo! God as Masterchef! That thought has set me up for the day!
Comment by Alan Fox — September 21, 2009 @ 3:42 am
September 21st, 2009 at 8:56 am
Collins:
ID doesn't say anything about intervention.
ID doesn't say anything about the designer.
ID is not about complexity.
Was Collins trying to erect as many strawman arguments as possible in one sentence?
Comment by ID guy — September 21, 2009 @ 8:56 am
September 21st, 2009 at 11:27 am
That criticism from Collins comes from a section of The Language of God headed "Theological Objections to ID". I agree it is a lousy theological objection to ID. The preceding section of Collins’s book is "Scientific Objections to ID". There he is on much firmer ground. And there he should have stopped.
Comment by David Heddle — September 21, 2009 @ 11:27 am
September 21st, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Glad you like my analogy to the Master Chef, Alan.
Overall, I really like Collins' book. I haven't looked at Biologos, much. I'll have to peak in more often.
We agree about the theological objections. I'm not sure his scientific objections are much better, but I'll have to re-read them.
Comment by Bilbo — September 21, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
September 21st, 2009 at 5:00 pm
There are scientific objections to ID?
Perhaps scientists who object to ID…
Comment by ID guy — September 21, 2009 @ 5:00 pm
September 21st, 2009 at 6:11 pm
ID Guy,
And let's not forget those scientists who are conservative, biblical-inerrancy affirming Christians, Baptists even, who are also arm-chair theologians, and object to ID.
Comment by David Heddle — September 21, 2009 @ 6:11 pm
September 21st, 2009 at 7:49 pm
I understand why religious people object to ID.
What are the alleged scientific objections to ID?
Comment by ID guy — September 21, 2009 @ 7:49 pm
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:14 pm
I'll try to get to Collins' scientific objections, soon. So let's not try to go there in this thread.
Comment by Bilbo — September 22, 2009 @ 12:14 pm
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:04 pm
You're forgetting that this is a theological argument. The point is precisely that ID proponents should not believe that God is the designer identified by ID, since God is infalliable and (this part of the argument goes) the designer makes mistakes that need correction.
For all I know, Collins is just making a purely Deist argument here, or he may have something else in mind. But perhaps his point is that a grand plan should have provisions for making adjustments on the sly rather that in a way that reveals the meddling.
Maybe, but this doesn't sound anything like what the Bible describes. So while you might feel this is a plausible scenario for an arbitrary designer, it is decidedly unlike Christianity's description of God and Creation.
Collins isn't making a scientific argument here. Initial conditions and probability are irrelevant when one is discussing deities.
You seem to try to dodge Collins's points with the standard ID play of saying that the designer is not necessarily God. But you yourself point out that many IDers do, in fact, believe that the designer is God. Collins's theological arguments are grounded in such beliefs, and underscore some serious issues about whether such beliefs are really consistent with ID.
Comment by don provan — September 22, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
September 23rd, 2009 at 10:46 am
No, I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that even if God is not the designer, this does not falsify ID.
Yes, this argument goes if there are deterministic laws that govern all events in the universe. But then God wouldn't need to intervene in such a universe in order to design life. He would merely need to set up the initial constants correctly. But the outcome would still be just as much designed, even though God has not intervened. Collins seems to think that ID insists that God intervened in the universe. It doesn't insist on that. It only insists that life was designed, one way or the other.
Perhaps. But if that is his argument, he should say so. And he should also explain how the designer could have done it "on the sly."
Excuse me? If we're using the Bible to argue against ID, then certainly ID is closer to a Biblical interpretation that Theistic Evolution is.
If we reject deterministic laws, and accept an indeterministic universe, then Collins needs to show that God could have set up the initial conditions so that life would be a probable outcome. Otherwise, his argument fails. God could have perfectly created a universe, but since it is indeterministic, God would still need to intervene to create life. God isn't a "clumsy Creator." God is merely doing what needs to be done.
Again, I'm merely pointing out that ID could still be true, even if Collins' argument is correct.
I think I've shown why his argument doesn't underscore any serious issues for IDists who believe that God is the designer.
Comment by Bilbo — September 23, 2009 @ 10:46 am
September 23rd, 2009 at 12:18 pm
I think we have different ideas about what a theological argument entails. From what I see, he isn't trying to falsify ID — that would be a scientific argument — he's just pointing out that ID is inconsistent with Christian theology. That doesn't mean ID doesn't support the existence of an intelligent designer, just that ID doesn't support the Christian God as being that intelligent designer.
This is a pretty thin hair you're splitting. The way I see it, God created nature to accomplish His goal. By "intervention", I mean something that isn't consistent with nature. I see no significant difference whether that unnatural event was hands on or "front loaded".
ID doesn't merely insist life was designed: ID also insists that we can tell life was designed.
Of course, I was suggesting that you may have misunderstood what he said, but if you don't want to deal with the idea because he didn't say it or didn't say it clearly enough, that's up to you.
By "on the sly" I just meant "so it looks natural," as opposed to something like flagella that Behe can tell are not natural.
I wasn't talking about ID, I was responding to the scenario you presented which, as I interpreted it, was that the intelligent designer created the universe first, and only after looked at what she had created and pondered what to do with it.
In a theological argument, Collins can simply assume God could have set up the initial conditions that way. Or he can assume God could actively participate but make his manipulations appear probable. God is omnipotent: Collins doesn't have to show anything about what He can do.
Again, the clumsiness for me isn't what He does, but the fact that He shows Himself while doing it.
Oh. Sorry. I agree. I was thinking that Collins was simply pointing out why Christians shouldn't consider ID to be support for Christianity, not that his theological arguments proved ID wrong.
You seem to be arguing that his points are wrong, while they strike me as very reasonable. Whether they convince you that there are any serious issues is another matter which I will leave up to you.
Comment by don provan — September 23, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
September 23rd, 2009 at 4:39 pm
I could be mistaken, but I think that when Collins thinks "ID" he's thinking "Designed by God."
If I set up a string of dominoes in a certain pattern, so that when I push the first one, the rest fall in exactly the sequence that I intended them to fall, then I designed that sequence. Someone observing that sequence could infer that I designed it, even though I have not intervened at every fall of a dominoe. If we apply that analogy to the Big Bang, if God were able to set up the initial conditions so that every subsequent event happened precisely as He wanted, then He designed those subsequent events, even though He didn't intervene at each particular event. If some of those events led to the creation of life, then God designed life, even though God did not intervene directly at the time.
Agreed.
But I don't think this is what Collins' argument is all about. I think Collins is saying that God should have been able to create the universe so that He didn't need to intervene at all, even on the sly. If God did need to intervene on the sly, then He is still a "clumsy Creator," just a sly one.
Other than the "pondered what to do with it" part, this is what the Biblical story presents: First God creates the non-living universe. Then God creates living things. That would fit in nicely with an ID view, where God designed both the universe and life.
Collins argument is that a perfect God wouldn't need to intervene in the universe. This follows if one of the following is true: The physical laws are deterministic, allowing God to set up the initial conditions so that life will inevitably appear. Or the physical laws are indeterministic, but God is able to set up the initial conditions so that life will probably appear. But is it possible to set up indeterministic physical laws so that life will probably appear? I don't know. If it's possible, then God could do it. If it isn't possible, then no, not even an omnipotent God could do it.
I think the clumsiness for Collins is that God would need to intervene at all, slyly or not.
I think his theological objections fail. When I get a chance I'll post his scientific objections.
Comment by Bilbo — September 23, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
September 24th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Then I'm not sure why you bring him up.
If you're going to dismiss anything Collins says because he's a deist, I'm not sure why you blogged on anything specific he said.
That was my point. I was presenting a non-deist argument which isn't really significantly different and leads to a similar conclusion: if ID requires a clumsy creator for any reason, that's inconsistent with Christianity. I concede that I'm not an expert on Collins's opinions, I'm just poking around in arguments of a similar nature which do not depend on deism. If you don't find that useful, I'll stop.
A string of dominoes would not look natural.
I'll leave you to argue your theological position with other theologians. The basic point is that Christianity seems inconsistent with God being limited to the ingredients on hand, even if She provided the ingredients Herself.
I think you're underscoring the basic difference between ID and Christianity. The Christian view is that God created Man. These ID ideas you're presenting, such as the idea that the goal was some vague life instead of specifically humans, or that God could have conceivably left the result up to chance, are in sharp contrast to Christianity's position that Man was the specific goal.
If by "fail" you mean "fail to convince me," that's fine. If instead you mean they are illogical or inconsistent, I'm not seeing it.
I find this one of the most interesting problems with ID. ID proponents regularly deflect arguments by saying the intelligent designer doesn't have to be God, and then ignore the fact that all those deflected arguments add up to a conclusion that the intelligent designer cannot be God.
Comment by don provan — September 24, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
September 24th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Two reasons: I believe that God is at least one of the designers. And to point out that Theistic Evolutionists' objection to ID is largely driven by theological considerations, which prevents them from considering whether ID is true, in and of itself. But also notice that I put this thread under "Religion."
Since Deism is heretical to Christianity, and since Collins is a Christian, I'm trying to point out that Collins is being theologically inconsistent. In other words, I'm turning the tables on Collins. Again, just something that people interested in "religion" would find interesting.
I agree. However, I fail to see how ID requires a clumsy creator.
Agreed. Yes, if the laws are deterministic, it is possible that God could set up the initial conditions so that life would appear, and it might all look completely natural. However, if we have reason to believe that the appearance of life is very improbable — not something nature is likely to produce on its own, then we might have reason to believe that God set up the initial conditions to design it.
But if She provided the ingredients that She knew She would need to design life, how has that "limited" Her?
Yes, I was trying to simplify it. To be more theologically precise, Collins would need to show that an indeterministic universe could be set up that would probable result in human beings, or at least rational beings of some kind.
Well, at least I tried to make you see it.
But I think I showed that at least this objection against God being the designer failed. Sorry I wasn't able to make you see it that way.
Comment by Bilbo — September 24, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
September 25th, 2009 at 11:55 am
But you are not talking about the God a theist proposes, so why talk about what a theist thinks?
I could see that if you were prepared to discuss it in the context of theism. You are basically reporting his ideas, and then rejecting them simply because he's a theist. You are presenting his argument as drawing a conclusion based on a clear assumption of theism, so the only interesting way to approach the argument is by discussing theism, either by arguing against it — which would be a different topic — or by showing that Collins's conclusion is inconsistent with theism. You are not doing either.
In other words, you don't have to consider probability because the explanation "God" bypasses probability. So when Collins uses the explanation "God", he doesn't have to worry about probability, either.
(The problem with the overall argument, of course, is that you can't actually calculate the probability. We don't judge the dominoes unnatural because the arrangement is unlikely, although it is. We judge the dominoes unnatural because we can see their function. No matter how hard we look, we see no prearranged function in the development of the species.)
No, he really doesn't. Indeterminism doesn't limit omnipotent beings, no matter what you think the impossible probability calculation would tell you.
Why won't you tell me what you mean by "fail"?
Comment by don provan — September 25, 2009 @ 11:55 am
September 25th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
don provan:
There isn't anything to ignore because those deflections can't add up as you say.
So the only thing we ignore as the strawman arguments such as the one you just erected.
The designer made mistakes that need correcting?
Perhaps the mistakes crept in over the eons.
People get confused- when they hear "design" they think "optimal" or "perfect". And then they think it had to remain optimal/ perfect forever.
Comment by ID guy — September 25, 2009 @ 3:51 pm
September 26th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
ID guy,
Here's the very first thing Bilbo said in his counter arguments:
His opening salvo was to deflect arguments by saying the intelligent designer doesn't have to be God. It's not a strawman; you can see for yourself it happening right there in the OP.
It's true that, as you point out, one can also argue that imperfection is not proved. I have no problem with those arguments because I recognize them as simply projecting the religious belief in perfection which leads to erroneously thinking that the burden of proof is on showing imperfection in the designer.
Well, I actually think the problem tends to be that those that come into the conversation with a belief in God think that "design" can mean whatever they want it to mean, depending on what they're arguing. When they want ID to be true, they deny it means "optimal" or "perfect". When they want to use ID to prove God's existence, suddenly the design becomes optimal and perfect, and any evidence to the contrary can be ignored because it doesn't have to "remain optimal/perfect forever." Remarkably, you've manage to go both ways right here in this short, two sentence passage I just quoted.
Comment by don provan — September 26, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
September 28th, 2009 at 9:58 am
I thought I was talking about a theistic God.
I thought I was showing that Collins' argument is based on a deistic view, not a theistic view, which would be a problem for Collins, since he's a theist.
You lost me on this one, Don.
Ah, but that is what the ID debate is all about, isn't it?
If we define "omnipotence" as the ability to do anything that is possible, and if it is impossible to set up an indeterministic system so that a very improbable outcome become probable, then an omnipotent being cannot do it.
I don't remember you're asking. "Fail": doesn't succeed. In the case of argument, isn't sound (either not all the premises are true, or the logic is invalid). In the case of Collins' argument, his premise is either that the universe is governed by deterministic laws, in which case God can design all the events in it, and ID would be true. Or his premise is that the universe is governed by indeterministic laws, but that it is probable that a human-like creature will be produced, in which case he needs to show that such is the case.
Comment by Bilbo — September 28, 2009 @ 9:58 am
September 28th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
I'm sorry, I had a big brain fault on that last post. For some reason, I repeatedly used "theist" where I meant "deist". If you go back and reread it correcting for that error, does it make any more sense?
So you mean you're saying that he's arguing like a deist, but he's not a deist? OK, I guess that would clear up a lot. I didn't understand that that's the inconsistency you were trying to bring out.
The point is that you seem content to ignore probability when using an active God as an explanation, but still demand that Collins shows events are probable when using a passive God as an explanation.
No, it's not. The ID debate is about whether we see the effects of intelligence in the results. If IDist showed prearranged function that led to the results, they'd be doing science.
It's easy to confuse the difference between using the domino simile for the creation of the species and using it for characteristics in the species themselves. Imagining structures in the species look like dominos is what IDists tend to discuss, and it has its problems which we discuss all the time. But it's different to say that the development of species itself looks like a domino set up for the simple reason that it doesn't: it looks inherently chaotic.
That seems like an odd definition of "omnipotent". Doesn't that make me omnipotent? I have the ability to do anything it is possible for me to do. I think you do, too!
This isn't meant to dismiss your point, but only to point out the basic problem: the definition of "possible". Virtually everything is, at the lowest level, indeterministic, but that doesn't make it impossible for us to achieve our desired outcomes, so it should definitely not be a problem for an omnipotent deity.
And that's before we even consider the possibility that while we think it's indeterministic, an omniscient being might see how it is not.
I continue to think that his claim is not whether ID is true, but whether what ID claims to detect could be God. In the deterministic case, his position is simple: God would have set it up right the first time, so the fact that the intelligent designer had to reach down and tweak flagella into existence means that isn't God.
So, to recap, you are insisting that Collins do probability calculations to confirm the deist explanation, but you feel no similar need to do the same calculations for the ID explanation. I'm not sure why you can't see the problem with that.
Imagine you and Collins at a bowling alley, observing a set of knocked down pins. Collins suggests that someone rolled a ball down the alley to knock the pins down, and you demand he provide a probability calculation to show that it was likely for a ball rolled down the alley to knock down the pins. The alternative explanation — someone knocked the pins down — escapes a similar objection only because it's so entirely vague, we can't even imagine calculating the probability in order to determine whether it's "possible".
Comment by don provan — September 28, 2009 @ 4:52 pm
September 29th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Yeah, I think we're on the same page, now.
You still lost me.
I think that's what Mike Gene is trying to do.
Well, I think some of it looks chaotic, and some of it looks set up. In EoE Behe offers the analogy of a billiards expert who sets up a shot so that, even though we didn't see him actually make the shot, we could tell by the way the balls went in the various pockets, that it was set up. But meanwhile, many of the other balls might bounce around chaotically, with no apparent plan.
I should have been more specific about what I meant. Usually (but not always) when theists say that God is omnipotent, they mean that God is able to do anything that is logically possible. If it's not logically possible, then not even God can do it. I'm not sure that covers all cases of things that God could not do. For example, are square circles logically possible? I'm not sure. But I think that not even God can make one. Likewise, could God create a universe with the laws that this one has — and let's assume that the laws are indeterministic even to God — and somehow make it probable that human-like creatures will arise naturally? It's not clear (to me, at least) that even God could do that.
Well, I think Collins thinks they boil down to the same thing. But I think he thinks ID if false, whether or not God is the designer.
But if God set it up right the first time, then the flagellum was designed at the Big Bang.
No, I think there's a need for both sides to do the calculations.
Okay, it's clear that even if the laws of physics are indeterministic, that it's probable that the pins were knocked down because someone rolled a ball down the alley. Likewise, from what I've been told, it's likely that the formation of stars, galaxies, and planets can be accounted for by the initial conditions and the laws of physics. However, it's not clear that life could arise simply from the initial conditions and the laws of physics. And from the little we know, it's difficult to see how it could have. Perhaps some time in the future we may understand how. But to insist that it must have done so, because a deistic argument says so, seems a little unreasonable to me. Especially when the argument is coming from a theist.
Comment by Bilbo — September 29, 2009 @ 12:14 pm