Gonzalez responds
by KrauzeBelow the fold is Guillermo Gonzalez' response to the recent petition against intelligent design, published in the Iowa State Daily.
- August 26, 2005
LETTER: Don't restrict the direction of research
Academic disputes go back at least to the ancient Greeks. Scholars have debated the geometry and dynamics of the solar system, the nature of matter, the possibility of extraterrestrial life, the history of life on Earth and the origin of the universe.
Often the debates are rancorous, and sometimes the side that holds the reigns of political power ruthlessly suppresses opposing views (Lysenko comes to mind here). As a result, scientific advancement slows.
Many of the "big questions" have yet to be answered to everyone's satisfaction. One of the biggest of these is: "Does the universe exhibit objective evidence of design?" This is the question posed by Intelligent Design theorists.
Logically, the answer to this question could be either "yes" or "no;" we can only find out by looking. And the people who do the looking are called scientists.
It is beyond the scope of Intelligent Design to uniquely identify the designer.
Intelligent Design is not premised on a prior belief in the supernatural, but neither does it exclude such agents as priori, as would a materialist.
By elevating the status and broadening the scope of a useful working hypothesis in science called methodological naturalism, the materialist artificially restricts what we can discover about the universe.
What if the universe does not conform to the materialist's expectations?
Despite claims to the contrary, methodological naturalism is neither grounded in the origins of modern science nor consistent with the principle of free scientific inquiry.
For example, Isaac Newton had no trouble offering a design argument, based on scientific evidence, in his greatest scientific publication, Principia.
Methodological naturalism is a philosophical assumption that some want to impose on science.
And that philosophical assumption is itself disputed by philosophers, including prominent philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga at Notre Dame, Rob Koons and J. Budziszewski at the University of Texas and Del Ratzsch at Calvin College.
The petition recently circulated around campus by Hector Avalos et al. is an attempt to silence talk of Intelligent Design in science by definitional fiat. It is too late for this power grab.
The genie is already out of the bottle — there are prominent scientists around the world engaged in Intelligent Design research in their disciplines. Science does not progress by imposing doctrinal edicts, but by following the evidence of nature wherever it happens to lead.
Guillermo Gonzalez
Assistant Professor of Astronomy
Department of Physics and Astronomy
August 30th, 2005 at 5:43 pm
An excellent response by Gonzales. I guess Avalos' attempt backfired. The best PR for ID it could get!
Anyway, what is interesting is that many established scientists from other fields get involved: engineering, physics etc. Just as chemists would rightly object to molecular mechanisms that are chemically impossible, physicists and engineers are entitled to give their comments on the molecular scenario's presented. Some of the best of them seem to say to evolutionists: "what you are proposing is not realistic". The logical response of a scientist, would be to investigate the claim, as Gonzalez concisely points out.
With the advent of molecular biology we have seen a lot of chemists invading the biological research scene. Maybe, the second wave will be from physicists and engineers.
Comment by AdR — August 30, 2005 @ 5:43 pm
August 30th, 2005 at 5:51 pm
This last paragraph is great, Avalos and his group are being exposed as dogmatic Darwinists looking to prevent design from even being considered in science. This is especially true seeing as Avalos is an atheist religion professor who obviously is speaking outside his realm of expertise.
Comment by jasonng — August 30, 2005 @ 5:51 pm
August 30th, 2005 at 9:29 pm
[...] is through this messages, yeah! More on this story: http://telicthoughts.com/?p=24... http://telicthoughts.com/?p=24... http://telicthoughts.com/?p=24... Atheistic and materialistic evolutionists alr [...]
Pingback by Teleological » Don’t Let Evil Avalos’ Bashings Against Gonzalez — August 30, 2005 @ 9:29 pm
August 31st, 2005 at 12:09 am
This short response from Guillermo Gonzalez is precise and perfect, and I need not give a critique here. Instead, I have printed it and will frame it on my office wall. Bravo!
Comment by Stuart Harris — August 31, 2005 @ 12:09 am
August 31st, 2005 at 9:20 am
Gonzalez is a good astronomer with an extremely hazy conception of just what science is. Not too surprising, since he's a working scientist and not a philosopher of science. If you stay well away from the cliffs, you don't need to know exactly where they are. But now that Gonzalez has joined the ID contingent, he's dancing very close to the edge, badly needs to know where the cliff is located to keep from falling over it and he has no clue.
This is the only explanation for his writing, "Despite claims to the contrary, methodological naturalism is neither grounded in the origins of modern science nor consistent with the principle of free scientific inquiry."
Methodological naturalism is not only "grounded in the origins of modern science", to a very large extent, it IS modern science. The basic concept, learning about the world by examining it by natural means, goes back to the early Greek philosophers. Roger Bacon restated it in the 13th century, at the very beginning of modern science. Far from being, "a philosophical assumption that some want to impose on science," it's been there from the very beginning and is the single most important principle of science.
Gonzalez says that methodological naturalism "artificially restricts what we can discover about the universe." And how, may I ask, is Gonzalez or anybody else going to discover anything about the universe if not by examining it by natural means? What do we use for evidence? Is, "It looks designed to me" the answer? How about vague hunches? Holy writ?
Anybody got an answer here?
Comment by DataDoc — August 31, 2005 @ 9:20 am
August 31st, 2005 at 10:47 am
The problem isn't with means, but with the sorts of allowable explanations. What gives you the impression that Gonzalez didn't plan on continuing to use "natural means," whatever that means?
Comment by ariel — August 31, 2005 @ 10:47 am
August 31st, 2005 at 11:35 am
"By elevating the status and broadening the scope of a useful working hypothesis in science called methodological naturalism, the materialist artificially restricts what we can discover about the universe."
Comment by DataDoc — August 31, 2005 @ 11:35 am
August 31st, 2005 at 11:56 am
Let me amplify that last entry. You can concoct any explanation you wish for any phenomena. I myself am increasingly partial to the Flying Spagetti Monster Theory of Everything. But if you want to remain in science, you have to use natural observations - methodical naturalism - to support your explanation.
That was the point of Avalos' petition and Gonzalez seems to be saying that he's not going to abide by those restrictions. He seems to think that MN was somehow "imposed" on science by person or persons unknown, instead of being the very heart of science from the get-go.
My question is, if not MN, then what kind of evidence is he going to use?
Comment by DataDoc — August 31, 2005 @ 11:56 am
August 31st, 2005 at 12:05 pm
Studying nature through natural law enables us to identify causes for phenomena in nature that are outside of natural law. The Big Bang is a case in point.
Under the assumption of the Big Bang, or any scenario where "a beginning" is invoked for the universe, the universe has a source of origin that is outside of natural law. We thus have a phenomena with no nataral cause. Do we thus reject this scientific fact based on MN? If we took MN to it's logical consequence, we would be rejecting the Big Bang.
We can thus use the study of nature through science to demarcate where the explanations are natural and where they are not.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 31, 2005 @ 12:05 pm
August 31st, 2005 at 12:13 pm
When I saw Gonzalez at the Smithsonian, he was urging research to find more examples of fine tuning.
Congressman John Culberson, who was there, and who sits on the NASA appropriations sub-committee was enthusiastic about the space program and what it could discover about the nature of the universe. I think Culberson is sympathetic to the scientific research Gonzalez is promoting.
The atheist professor of religion, Avalos, is fighting against a very fine professor of astrophysics in Gonzalez. Gonzalez is inspiring students to study science as he is confident the universe is designed to open itself to scientific inquiry.
We showed Gonzalez Privileged Planet at UVa (Paul Gross's school) with 3 professors of astronomy present. They felt the science in the movie was very sound.
The students know the score! No amount of edicts and creeds by atheist professors of religion will stifle what nature was designed to communicate, and it will not ultimately stifle the progress of true science.
Good luck to you Dr. Gonzalez!
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 31, 2005 @ 12:13 pm
August 31st, 2005 at 3:55 pm
Here's another response from Gonzalez, this one in The Des Moines Register:
A Universal Debate
Comment by Pez — August 31, 2005 @ 3:55 pm
August 31st, 2005 at 4:02 pm
One research proposal by Gonzalez is that we are in the best time in the universe's history to make scientific observations. Homo Sapiens appeared at the optimal time in the universe's history.
That is subject to scientific inquiry. I do believe we live in a special time. The moon is receding. We live at a time it is optimal to use the moon for scientific inquiry.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 31, 2005 @ 4:02 pm
August 31st, 2005 at 4:56 pm
Some opponents of ID repeatedly and falsely assert that ID is just a handwaving argument. ID is the science of trying to prove instances of intelligent design through a logical examination of the universe. It's exactly the same as when a scientists looks at a stone and examines its pattern of fractures to determine if it was a tool made and used by ancient people. Some ID opponents ignore this fact because it gives them an an easy way to discredit ID in order to achieve their political objectives.
This is true. Gonzalez is right.
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesig...
All observable phenomena are natural phenomena. If God can be observed, God is a natural phenomena. However ID does not assert God is the designer.
Many ID opponents don't deny ID is possible, they deny investigating it is science. Science is the search for truth.
http://dictionary.reference.co...*
All observable phenomena are natural phenomena. If God can be observed, God is a natural phenomena.
Opponents repeatedly and falsely assert that ID is just a handwaving argument. ID is the science of trying to prove intelligent design through a logical examination of the universe. It's exactly the same as when a scientists looks at a stone and examines its pattern of fractures to determine if it was a tool made and used by ancient people. ID opponents ignore this fact because it gives them an an easy way to discredit ID in order to achieve their political objectives.
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesig...
If someone appropriately credentialed sincerely wants to try to prove the flying spagetti theory they should go for it. Gonzalez is not simply asserting ID he is trying to prove it by analyzing empirical data.
If you want to know how he thinks he can prove it ask him, let him answer, and listen to his answer, don't gag him or bully him into keeping quiet.
Comment by herrkartoffelkopf — August 31, 2005 @ 4:56 pm
September 1st, 2005 at 1:54 am
Well, I see a lot of hand waving, but nobody has tried to answer my question. Gonzalez says that methodological naturalism isn't enough. If we're not going to restrict ourselves to examining the universe by natural means, what else ARE we going to use for evidence? Personal communication with God? Hunches? Feelings?
Comment by DataDoc — September 1, 2005 @ 1:54 am
September 1st, 2005 at 4:56 am
Salvador:
But Gonzalez says that studying natural phenomena "artificially restricts what we can discover about the universe." My question is: What other data is he going to use? Can you answer that Salvador?
If those same three professors read Paley's "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature", they would undoubtedly find the science in that book to be very sound (at least for Paley's time) too. The problem is not Gonzalez's scientific data, its the conclusions he draws from it AND the fact that he says that science is not enough, it "unduly restricts" what we can know. What extra-scientific data is he going to use?
Do I have to remind you that you're a Young Earth Creationist and that you believe the universe is only a few thousand years old? If your beliefs are true, it would be very hard for us to appear at any other time because there's only been about 6-10K years! In real life, the universe is about 14 billion years old and it's taken most of that time for conditions supporting intelligent life to (pardon the expression) evolve. It took billions of years for the first generation of stars to cook up elements heavier than the hydrogen, helium and lithium that formed in the Big Bang, then billions more for the exploded remnants of those stars to form the second generation of stars and planets and then for life to develop and evolve on those planets. But that process has nothing to do with intelligence.
herrkartoffelkopf
Give Gonzalez credit for being the only man in ID that I can think of who is trying to find such indicators. Others, such as Dembski, Behe and Wells are looking for magic bullets that will disprove evolution, and failing badly. (See "Searching Large Spaces".) Unfortunately, Gonzalez can't come up with anything more than Paleyesqe holding up of selected facts from legitimate science and saying that they look designed to him.
I have a question for you all. How many of you have actually read Avalos's petition? Also, have any of you seen the statement published by the LeHigh Department of Biological Sciences concerning Behe? And, of course, what kind of extra-scientific data is Gonzalez going to use?
Comment by DataDoc — September 1, 2005 @ 4:56 am
September 6th, 2005 at 5:04 am
Still asking the questions. Have any of you actually read Avalos's petition? How about LeHigh University's statement? I know Mike posted part of it here.
And, most importantly, what kind of extra-scientific data is Gonzalez going to use?
Comment by DataDoc — September 6, 2005 @ 5:04 am