Del Ratzsch Interview
by machtHere is an interview with philospher of science Del Ratzsch. He is one of the few people who writes on design issues that generally gets praise from both sides of the debate. There's a lot of good stuff in the interview, with topics ranging from the high level of emotional involvement in the debate to "gaps" to methodological naturalism. I particularly liked his thoughts on some of the possible payoffs of design theory and also the distinction he made between causal histories and intentional histories.
Feel free to talk about what you agree/disagree with in the comments.
August 21st, 2006 at 7:08 pm
"There have been times in my own life when I desperately wanted to avoid having to admit that the (of course) sleazeballs and gross incompetents on the other side of some issue from me might be right on some key point. Who wants to give people like that a chance to say "I told you so" In such situations there has always been the temptation both to accept 'refutations' of the opposition uncritically - even gleefully - and to dismiss opposition arguments without really staring them in the eyeballs, feeling virtuously superior all the while. And the more deeply one is committed to views in the area, the stronger the temptation."
What an insightful description of the foibles of human nature. Scientists in white coats are not immune. Oh, I could tell you stories.
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 21, 2006 @ 7:08 pm
August 21st, 2006 at 11:08 pm
Del Ratzsch is, in my opinion, the sharpest, clearest thinker in the entire ID/Evo debate. Both sides would do well to read all of Del's books and articles. I wish there were more, because Del has such wise insight and his arguments are, well, solid and crisp. His book, Nature, Design and Science makes a virtually irrefutable case that there is no in principal reason why supernatural considerations or design considerations are scientifically out of bounds.
I would encourage anyone involved in the debate to read at least this one book. Del's arguments sweep away the dust and fluff that so often clouds the real issues.
Comment by DonaldM — August 21, 2006 @ 11:08 pm
August 22nd, 2006 at 9:33 am
I saw that ever Mark Perakh was raving about his book at Amazon.
Comment by Doug — August 22, 2006 @ 9:33 am
August 22nd, 2006 at 1:54 pm
Yes, I too appreciate Del Ratzsch, Calvin College Philosophy of Science Professor. The Natural Sciences in Christian Perspective, Science and It's Limits. A clear-headed thinker.
Touche. Compare this with Mike Gene-ID which 'doesn't care about implications for science, philosophy and theology discourse.' Ratzsch is concerned with issues about science, faith, philosophy and human nature.
Could this be an accurate description of the crew (except for Joy and Steve P.) Telic Thoughts? Ratzsch even-handedly admits that the so-called Big Tent of i+d has not yet made its case. At the same time, the strongest arguments for i+d stand on a theistic foundation.
Perhaps philosophy of science and theology should be given more acknowledgement as a discipline that provides well-thought out answers on issues related to creation, evolution, i+d and teleology than some people give it credit for?
When and if Ratzsch publishes his book on evolution of religion, then we'll be almost ready, perhaps really ready (give him the early odds, heavy favorite) to go toe to toe. My non-evolutionary perspective against his evolutionary view of religion will perhaps cause quite a ruckus. Face off TBA…location - not on a blog.
Arago
Comment by g arago — August 22, 2006 @ 1:54 pm
August 23rd, 2006 at 6:38 pm
I read about half of Nature, Design, and Science, then lost the book. My one objection was that he thought that believing that the origin of life (OOL) was intelligently designed, meant that the designer had to be supernatural, and therefore, in order to believe in the ID of the OOL, we had to establish that the supernatural can be included in science. It seems to me that inferences to intelligent design can be logically prior to inferences to the designer being supernatural, so one can talk about ID without necessarily talking about the supernatural.
Comment by Bilbo — August 23, 2006 @ 6:38 pm
August 23rd, 2006 at 6:57 pm
Well said Bilbo. The identity issue is a red herring.
Comment by Bradford — August 23, 2006 @ 6:57 pm
August 23rd, 2006 at 7:40 pm
Well, most of his book is spent exploring whether the idea of supernatural design has a place in science but I don't recall him claiming that the designer has to be supernatural.
Comment by macht — August 23, 2006 @ 7:40 pm
August 24th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
He slips it in there surreptiously, just before his discussion on whether the supernatural can be part of science begins, if I remember. I guess I should just break down and buy another copy and finish reading the book. Or maybe go pick up a copy at Calvin College library.
By the way, I heard Del speak at the closing dinner of a weekend seminar on ID, back in 2001, at Calvin College. Quite enjoyable. It was just before his book came out, and he made a few shameless plugs for it, like…"I'd really like to answer that question, but I don't think I could do it justice in so short a time. I attempt a more detailed answer in my forthcoming book…."
Comment by Bilbo — August 24, 2006 @ 5:21 pm
August 25th, 2006 at 7:42 am
This is the most ironically nonsensical statement I've read about i+d theories this year!!
Or was it meant as humour: 'what if there were no hypothetical situations?'
~
As a Christian professor of the philosophy of science, it is should be obvious that Ratzsch is interested in the relationship of science and 'the supernatural.' This makes it difficult for his ideas to be addressed at 'telic thoughts,' regardless of how poignant they are, given the aversion to certain dimensions of the i+d discourse by certain leaders at TTs (c.f. MG's avoiding responses to his recent ID Positions thread, reverting instead to bunnies and animal rights).
Note that one of the great influences on Ratzsch is A. Plantinga, whose ideas about 'theistic science' are indeed pressing the labels of scientific (and religious) sensibility and acceptability. Behe is also membered to the school of Plantinga.
It seems several people at 'telic thoughts blog' happily use the language of Ratzsch, while discarding the foundation upon which his ideas are built. Agnostic IDists - 'builders building in vain' - that sort of thing.
Bilbo's critique of Ratzsch, otoh, is of purely an insider job. Why doesn't Ratzsch think (about the concept duo 'i+d') as 'we' think, i.e. those who present i+d as a 'design revolution' with 'implications for all humane studies' (Behe). [Bilbo apparently still craves the One ring.] Ratzsch simply doesn't think theories of i+d have yet made their case, neither about origins or about processes (specificationism and irreducible complexity-ism aside). Yet Bilbo wonders, 'how could he not fully agree with us, it's just so obvious!' This reasoning is circular and seems inflexible; not productive to cooperative dialogue where i+d theories could actually count as more than an evangelical tool.
So you are near to Calvin (a white city), Bilbo? I enjoy Ratzsch's contribution also. Much more balanced and thoughtful than the leading trio (D,B,M) of i+dists, don't you think? Though perhaps he's not quite as brave against the forces of evolutionary philosophy!
G.A.
Comment by g arago — August 25, 2006 @ 7:42 am
August 26th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Arago, if I remember correctly, Ratzch uncritically asserted that ID, or at least the ID of OOL, implied a supernatural designer, which meant that before we could include this in science, we would have to know that the supernatural could be included in science. I disagree with this position. If I thought Ratzch were open to discussing this with an amateur like me, I would gladly approach him and strike up a conversation. It would be nice to talk with someone in person, for a change, instead of on the internet, in anonymity.
Comment by Bilbo — August 26, 2006 @ 4:48 pm
August 26th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
"The identity issue is a red herring."
Identity is a problem for all sides. Identifying pathways to life, pathways to the evolution of … Evidence can be cited and hypothetical pathways suggested. If you wish to make absolute identity a watershed issue and a prerequisite to plausbility you simply have no way to explain the cause of life from any vantage point.
Comment by Bradford — August 26, 2006 @ 6:06 pm
August 27th, 2006 at 6:08 am
Bilbo, as I said, I don't think Ratzsch says this at all. He says pretty much the opposite a number of times in his chapter on "finite design" (see pages 19-20 especially). In fact, one of the major points of his chapter on finite design is that even if we say that supernatural design is scientifically illegitimate, we still have to allow for the possibility of finite design in science (on pg. 24 he says, "So the theory that aliens did it (initiated life on this planet, say), even if wrong, is still in principle scientific"). He talks about aliens seeding the earth and how that is a scientifically legitimate question. I don't see any place where he claims that if the OOL is designed then the designer has to be supernatural.
Comment by macht — August 27, 2006 @ 6:08 am
August 27th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
"The identity issue is a red herring." - Bradford
"Identity is a problem for all sides." - Bradford
So, which is it? A red herring or a problem?
"Identifying pathways to life, pathways to the evolution of "¦ Evidence can be cited and hypothetical pathways suggested."
Bradford, in real science, real scientists find NEW evidence to test their own hypotheses. There's no progress without new evidence.
Comment by Smokey — August 27, 2006 @ 3:28 pm
August 27th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
Remove the context and get a seeming paradox. Identity is a problem for those contending pathways to a cell exist.
"Identifying pathways to life, pathways to the evolution of "¦ Evidence can be cited and hypothetical pathways suggested."
Thanks for the flash. In the case of scientific evidence for the origin of life there is neither much progress or good evidence. If you think differently then bring it.
Comment by Bradford — August 27, 2006 @ 5:58 pm
August 27th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
"Remove the context and get a seeming paradox."
No, it's blatantly contradictory with context, too, because red herrings are irrelevant, while problems are relevant.
"Identity is a problem for those contending pathways to a cell exist."
Identity of what, exactly? And if it's a problem, how could it possibly be a red herring?
"In the case of scientific evidence for the origin of life there is neither much progress or good evidence."
The latter causes the former, just as I pointed out. However, there's no denying that there is SOME evidence being produced, and none of it is being produced by critics of current (mostly past) OOL hypotheses.
If you think that you can produce new evidence that is better than that produced by active scientists, why not bring it?
Comment by Smokey — August 27, 2006 @ 6:34 pm
August 27th, 2006 at 6:51 pm
Those quotes originated from two different posts. The identity of the designer whining is irrelevant. The problem of locating a pathway to life is real.
"In the case of scientific evidence for the origin of life there is neither much progress or good evidence."
The latter causes the former, just as I pointed out. However, there's no denying that there is SOME evidence being produced, and none of it is being produced by critics of current (mostly past) OOL hypotheses.
If you think that you can produce new evidence that is better than that produced by active scientists, why not bring it?
All evidence is produced directly or indirectly as a result of research. The evidence indicates that genetic information does magically appear as a result of prebiotic chemical reactions. There is no basis for a natural selection paradigm until a functional genome exists and no amount of bluff and bluster generates one.
Comment by Bradford — August 27, 2006 @ 6:51 pm
August 27th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
Bradford wrote:
"Those quotes originated from two different posts."
Yes, and they directly contradict each other.
"The identity of the designer whining is irrelevant."
Why?
"The problem of locating a pathway to life is real."
Yes, and real scientists are working on it, but what does it have to do with identity? Why did you write, "Identity is a problem for those contending pathways to a cell exist," if you believe that identity is a red herring?
"All evidence is produced directly or indirectly as a result of research."
Yes, but what does that have to do with the abject failure of any ID proponents to produce any new evidence, other than showing that they aren't doing science?
"The evidence indicates that genetic information does magically appear as a result of prebiotic chemical reactions."
It does? That would be interesting. Where was this evidence published?
"There is no basis for a natural selection paradigm until a functional genome exists and no amount of bluff and bluster generates one."
So what? We know that functional genomes exist (last time I checked, I had one), and MET is about organisms with functional genomes.
What, exactly, is your problem? There is no basis for genetics or genomics until a functional genome exists, either. Does that mean that no one should study genetics or genomics, producing data, hypotheses, theories, and paradigms then, in your opinion?
There's no basis for cell biology until a functional cell exists, either. Should people stop thinking about cell biology, then?
Comment by Smokey — August 27, 2006 @ 11:44 pm
August 28th, 2006 at 1:35 am
Nope.
"The identity of the designer whining is irrelevant."
Why?
Intelligence is inferred not a personality profile.
"The problem of locating a pathway to life is real."
Yes, and real scientists are working on it, but what does it have to do with identity? Why did you write, "Identity is a problem for those contending pathways to a cell exist," if you believe that identity is a red herring?
Identity of the designer is used by your side to deflect attention from substantive issues.
"All evidence is produced directly or indirectly as a result of research."
Yes, but what does that have to do with the abject failure of any ID proponents to produce any new evidence, other than showing that they aren't doing science?
The evidence is not the bone of contention; it is interpretations of it.
"The evidence indicates that genetic information does magically appear as a result of prebiotic chemical reactions."
It does? That would be interesting. Where was this evidence published?
I must have missed the study on magical apparitions or other de novo generation of functional genomes where no genomic templates exist.
"There is no basis for a natural selection paradigm until a functional genome exists and no amount of bluff and bluster generates one."
So what? We know that functional genomes exist (last time I checked, I had one), and MET is about organisms with functional genomes.
What do you mean so what? You attribute the initial functional genome to unknown, unspecified pathways and call that what- abiogenesis?
What, exactly, is your problem? There is no basis for genetics or genomics until a functional genome exists, either. Does that mean that no one should study genetics or genomics, producing data, hypotheses, theories, and paradigms then, in your opinion?
This is not about studies or data but it is about a conclusion lacking the empirical support needed to assert a non-telic result.
Comment by Bradford — August 28, 2006 @ 1:35 am
August 28th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Bradford wrote:
"Intelligence is inferred not a personality profile."
Why would that make identity a red herring? You're not making any sense at all.
"Identity of the designer is used by your side to deflect attention from substantive issues."
What could be more substantive than the abject failure of all ID advocates to produce any new data?
"The evidence is not the bone of contention; it is interpretations of it."
In real science, the job is to produce new data that directly test one's interpretation. That's why ID isn't real science.
Moreover, the existing evidence is a big bone of contention, because ID promoters ignore most of it.
"I must have missed the study on magical apparitions or other de novo generation of functional genomes where no genomic templates exist."
Then why did you claim that there is evidence that it "does magically appear"
"What do you mean so what?"
Exactly what it says. Your objection is irrelevant.
"You attribute the initial functional genome to unknown, unspecified pathways and call that what- abiogenesis?"
No, I am pointing out that lack of OOL data is not a prerequisite for studying evolution.
"This is not about studies or data but it is about a conclusion lacking the empirical support needed to assert a non-telic result."
No one's asserting non-telism. Everyone who looks at all the evidence, and particularly those who produce new evidence, can see that telism is not needed to explain the evidence.
There's a big difference, but I suspect that you can't see it. If you're the one asserting telism, it's up to you to produce NEW evidence that is predicted to exist by your hypothesis.
There's a reason why Mike Behe no longer works in the lab, Bradford.
Comment by Smokey — August 28, 2006 @ 12:05 pm
August 28th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
"Identity of the designer is used by your side to deflect attention from substantive issues."
What could be more substantive than the abject failure of all ID advocates to produce any new data?
You don't know the views of each and every researcher.
"The evidence is not the bone of contention; it is interpretations of it."
Moreover, the existing evidence is a big bone of contention, because ID promoters ignore most of it.
It is your side that either ignores OOL related data or makes absurd extrapolations based on it.
"You attribute the initial functional genome to unknown, unspecified pathways and call that what- abiogenesis?"
No, I am pointing out that lack of OOL data is not a prerequisite for studying evolution.
Since I never made the claim that it was you're attacking a strawman.
There's a big difference, but I suspect that you can't see it. If you're the one asserting telism, it's up to you to produce NEW evidence that is predicted to exist by your hypothesis.
The existing evidence does just fine.
Comment by Bradford — August 28, 2006 @ 2:26 pm
August 28th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Bradford wrote:
"Intelligence is inferred not a personality profile."
Smokey replied:
"Why would that make identity a red herring? You're not making any sense at all."
Smokey,
why don't you address his points and not make cop-out comments like "you're not making any sense at all". He is making sense. If it eludes your ability to understand then maybe you should shake off your biases before reading it.
Comment by Doug — August 28, 2006 @ 2:59 pm
August 28th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Well, Macht, now I'll have to get another copy of Ratzch's book and re-read it. Could my memory be that distorted?
Comment by Bilbo — August 28, 2006 @ 6:01 pm