More Intelligent Design Creationism
by machtI've argued before that Intelligent Design Creationism could be a legitimate term even though creationism is not equivalent to intelligent design. Here is an article that highlights some of the problems that creationists have with ID. The article focuses on young earth creationism but you can find old earth creationists who have problems with ID, too.
So it is pretty clear that ID isn't just a repackaged creationism, since creationists do have problems with ID and you can also find IDists who have problems with creationism (see here for example). So catch phrases like "ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo" is just dishonest sloganeering. There are major differences between the two, just as there are similarities. This brings us back to the question of how are they different. In answering this, it is helpful to remember the distinction between ID the idea and ID the movement.
As I point out in this post, ID the idea is rooted in natural theology while creationism is rooted in a literal reading of the Bible. ID the movement is a social/political movement that has ties to both creationism and ID. The ID movement seems to be comprised largely of Christians who have ties to creationism but at the same time want to argue in a way that could be persuasive to those who don't hold the same views about the book of Genesis and in a way that won't be struck down in courts.
It is very possible to be interested in ID the idea without caring about ID the movement or creationism at all. Similarly one could be interested in all of them or any other combination of the three. This suggests that the relationship between ID and creationism is much more complex than the cries of "They're the same thing!" or "No they aren't!" would lead you to believe. I imagine, though, that anti-IDists giving up the "ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo" slogan is about as difficult as it was for Gatorade to give up the "Be like Mike" slogan. Both had done a lot of positive PR work for their brands and both were based on a lot of wishful thinking.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:10 pm
I think you've made a good stab at sorting out the differences. However, here is how I formulate it:
Creationism is a theory of _origins_.
Intelligent Design is a theory of _causation_.
Both have movements behind them, and they overlap to a certain extent for the fact that Creationism requires the causal theories of Intelligent Design.
Intelligent Design claims that, contrary to the claims of some scientists, that intelligent causation is of a different kind of causation than material or chance causes. It is not just a combination of material causes — it is its own kind of cause, and has its own kind of effects. It is not tied to a specific view of origins, precisely because it is not a view of origins. It negates specific views of origins based on causal insufficiency. However, _any_ study of mind as a separate (but interdependent) phenomena from matter qualifies as Intelligent Design, even if it has nothing at all to do with origins.
Creationism claims that, contrary to the claims of most scientists, that the fossil record is the result of a worldwide flood not very long ago (note that the issue over the length of creation itself is fairly irrelevant compared to this point — if this view of Creation is correct, it leaves no reason to believe in an old earth or evolution). It is a view of history which judges the Bible to be historically reliable.
I think _that_ is the fundamental difference between the two. They interrelate, but they are actually talking about very different things. People get very confused when speaking about Intelligent Design, because they mistakenly view it as a theory of origins.
Comment by johnnyb — April 25, 2006 @ 11:10 pm
April 25th, 2006 at 11:24 pm
Thanks, Macht, for linking to that earlier discussion of ID and the IDM. There seem to be several unresolved issues that relate to the topic of this thread. In particular, can those at Telic Thoughts distance themselves entirely from the IDM, while accepting that those in the IDM were the persons who formulated the concepts which TT-IDists are working with/considering in their assumptions about science, life and hunches about origins and processes? Isn't distancing oneself from the IDM actually another tactic of distancing from creationism or creation science?
We have to remember that 'design revolution' is the name given by the current leader of the IDM, in promoting a 'scientific paradigm shift,' akin to the turn to chaos theory which he experienced in his college days. Darwin is out, Johnson, Behe and Dembski are supposedly in (the process of being 'in').
You wrote:
This is an interesting quotation. First, I don't see how the IDM can have 'ties' to ID - they coined the term. Creationism was coined and formulated by others. I am not equating IDism with creationism, though it be noted that a vast majority of those who 'believe in' ID also 'believe in' creation/Creation.
Second, you're likely right that a main thrust of the IDM is trying to be persuasive - one of its guiding communication principles. The chants of 'revolution' reflect this and the public relations machine that the IDM has created is impressive, if not noteworthy for its contributions to science. Courts are not usually places where science is done, i.e. where paradigm shifts are won or lost, or where scientists are convinced of the usefullness of a new theory/hypothesis/hunch/colloborative formulation.
Third, it is not clear how 'not caring about the IDM at all' is an honest possibility. Mike Gene quotes M. Behe in his ID 101 - Behe is in the IDM, but Mike G. is not. I don't think most people toying with notions of ID are removed enough temporally to 'forget its founders'. If you could give an example of how Telic Thoughts, other than arguing against ID-creationism, or ID=belief in Designer, has contributed something 'theoretical' or 'methodological' to what the IDM had already produced, that would be helpful.
If I may add, perhaps another question related to this thread is to ask how ID, even if considered aside from the IDM, differs from the traditional 'argument from design'? Macht relates ID to 'natural theology,' but then I still wonder why the topic of 'theology' in general is given no place of priority at TT's. Goal, purpose and meaning fit well in theological discourse also.
Arago
Comment by g arago — April 25, 2006 @ 11:24 pm
April 26th, 2006 at 8:46 am
Sorry Macht. Your underlying logic is wrong. There are Old Earth Creationists and Young Earth Creationists that can't stand each other. The rhetoric gets to the point where they claim each other are going to hell. (YECs tend to be the harsher towards OECs. After all, no one theology says you go to hell for being too conservative). But just because creationists have "problems" with ID does not by definition make ID something different.
Wanting to discuss the book of Genesis another way is fine. It is not however science.
and in a way that won't be struck down in courts.
Too late. That is, if you're talking about a science course.
Now, the last time I checked, freedom of religion still permits one to say whatever they wish about the book of Genesis, to whomever they wish, just not on the taxpayer's dime.
Comment by Ocellated — April 26, 2006 @ 8:46 am
April 26th, 2006 at 11:11 am
If anyone cannot understand that ID and Creationism are two separate entities, and are not dependent on each other, then, if I was on a board voting for tenure, and they were being voted on, I'd have to vote against them. I mean, conflating the two is worse than thinking the Earth is flat, because the former depends only on muddled logic and comprehension.
Comment by Douglas — April 26, 2006 @ 11:11 am
April 27th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
So, was it creationism or ID when Nancy Pearcey published the same basic text in Of Pandas and People and the Bible-Science Newsletter?
Comment by Nick Matzke — April 27, 2006 @ 8:21 pm
April 27th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
I point out that a good argument could be made that even Darwin and his contemporaries understood the difference between the hypothesis of special creation and the concept of intelligent design.
Rosenhouse praises Discovery Institute Fellow John Angus Campbell
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 27, 2006 @ 8:41 pm
April 27th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
IDers are not going to reject or repudiate creationism, in any of its forms, because that is what most of them believe. No problem for me: Creation has always been and always will be the proper subject of scientific investigation.
I mean, what in the world (literally) do scientists think they've been investigating all this time?! LOL
Comment by Rock — April 27, 2006 @ 9:15 pm
April 27th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Hi, Sal:
I'd say his correspondence with Asa Gray more or less demonstrates that beyond any doubt.
Comment by Deuce — April 27, 2006 @ 10:17 pm
April 27th, 2006 at 11:34 pm
Nick,
Allow myself to quote … myself:
That a group of IDists are also creationists does not in any way establish the equivalency of ID and creationism. A simple Venn diagram can show that this is true.
I'd still like to see you respond to Hugo, BTW.
Comment by macht — April 27, 2006 @ 11:34 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 12:51 am
But if the people who established and promoted "intelligent design" as a term use the exact same definitions/sentences/arguments/articles, but call it creationism at some times and places, and "intelligent design" at other times and places, this does establish the equivalency. It's impossible to get any more equivalent than that.
Regarding Hugo, I started to write a reply to his answers to my questions, but then I realized that, although he produced a lot of text, he didn't really answer any of the questions. What he did answer he was misunderstanding. I'm not sure it is worth attempting to sort it all out.
Comment by Nick Matzke — April 28, 2006 @ 12:51 am
April 28th, 2006 at 1:28 am
No, it establishes that there are IDists who are also creationists.
That's laughable. He answered all of them. And quite brilliantly, I might add. It's easy to understand why you have no reply.
Comment by macht — April 28, 2006 @ 1:28 am
April 28th, 2006 at 3:59 am
So, does Hugo agree, or disagree, with Ron Numbers's essay. You tell me.
Comment by Nick Matzke — April 28, 2006 @ 3:59 am
April 28th, 2006 at 4:24 am
Let me summarize the questions, since sometimes my posts become to verbiose:
1. Can those at Telic Thoughts distance themselves entirely from the IDM, while at the same time accepting that those in the IDM were the persons who formulated the concepts which TT-IDists are working with/assuming?
2. Isn't distancing oneself from the IDM actually another tactic of distancing from creationism or creation science?
3. How can the IDM have 'ties' with ID - they coined the term?
4. Has trying to be 'persuasive' taken away from the IDM's ability to 'do science' - since the social-political movement of ID in America has gotten ahead of its scientific contribution?
5. How is 'not caring about the IDM at all' an honest or dishonest possibility?
6. How does ID, even if considered for the moment aside from the IDM, differ from the traditional 'argument from design'?
and finally
7. Why is theology given no place of priority, i.e. no seat at the table of discussion at Telic Thoughts, especially after macht acknowledges that 'ID is rooted in natural theology'?
Steve Petermann is a theist, as is Joy and apparently macht - is it just Mike Gene and Krauze who are against inviting theology into discussion?
Arago
Comment by g arago — April 28, 2006 @ 4:24 am
April 28th, 2006 at 4:24 am
It establishes that the term "intelligent design" means divine creation, because that's what the people who coined the term (not just the words occasionally stuck together) and wrote the original ID book said it is, when they weren't obfuscating for legal purposes. If you don't like being associated with these views, you should use a different term than ID. The very reason we're sitting around using the term "intelligent design" instead of "creation science" or "abrupt appearance" or some other euphemism is because "intelligent design" was the term the Pandas authors picked in their relabeling decision in the Pandas book. That is precisely where terms like "intelligent design" and "design proponent" became codified as actual terms.
Comment by Nick Matzke — April 28, 2006 @ 4:24 am
April 28th, 2006 at 5:22 am
Nick Matzke wrote:
And it is not possible, that there could be multiple distinct meanings associated with "intelligent design"
Wikipedia and history of "evolution" (word):
And the term "evolution" means "unroll like a scroll", because that's what the people who coined the term said it is?
Comment by Analyysi — April 28, 2006 @ 5:22 am
April 28th, 2006 at 7:28 am
Analyysi,
Good point. It's been clear to me that Nick Matzke and his co-conspirators have made a huge tactical error in putting so much on the origin of a label.
It'll backfire for them because it really is a silly argument. Not to mention, as you point out, that words can both hold multiple distinct meanings and change meanings over time.
But Nick wants us to disregard these facts and take it on his assertion that the term "intelligent design" means divine creation. Come on Nick, isn't it a bit condescending to tell me what I mean when I use those words? Or are you concerned that no one will understand me properly?
I wonder whether future historians will pick up on the almost comical amateurish rhetoric that the ID critics consistently employ. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a fairly accurate causal story to be told about the motivating role that such poorly thought out nonsense played in bringing people beyond the knee-jerk reactionary, BuzzBox Bots to an agnostic, open minded position on ID.
Comment by bipod — April 28, 2006 @ 7:28 am
April 28th, 2006 at 7:33 am
Nick:
And if we did this, people like you would be the first to spin it as the newly evolved strain of "˜creationism.' Sorry, but I stick with the term ID precisely because it cannot be taught in the public schools.
That's irrelevant. Many of us use the term intelligent design because it more accurately conveys the cause/phenomenon we're thinking about. We were not introduced to it through joining a conspiracy; we were introduced to it through public arguments and concepts.
BTW, check this out:
Hmmm. Does this mean that those who advocate for separation of church and state/schools are communists?
Comment by MikeGene — April 28, 2006 @ 7:33 am
April 28th, 2006 at 8:08 am
There are times when I don't quite understand what this blog is all about. This is one of those times.
I'm sure I've asked this before… anyhoo…
So - is ID on this blog the same as the ID being proposed by the Discovery Institute?
Are Behe's and Dembski's writings relevent to the ID you guys are talking about? All that CSI and IC stuff?
Comment by Odd Digit — April 28, 2006 @ 8:08 am
April 28th, 2006 at 11:41 am
I think it is very obvious from what he wrote that Hugo thinks you misinterpreted Numbers. In other words, his argument wasn't with Numbers but with your interpretation of Numbers. In other other words, why disagree with the guy who is an expert on this subject when you can disagree with the PR guy for the NCSE who doesn't seem to have any training whatsoever in history or philosophy.
But instead of discussing this here, why not bring it over to the comments of his post.
Comment by macht — April 28, 2006 @ 11:41 am
April 28th, 2006 at 11:54 am
Come now, we all know that ID has absolutely no connection to religion…
Comment by derwood — April 28, 2006 @ 11:54 am
April 28th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
Right, you seriously think Hugo agrees with Numbers's conclusion?
If so, my job is done and I've won the argument.
Comment by Nick Matzke — April 28, 2006 @ 2:22 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
Um, the phrase "separation of church and state" goes back to Thomas Jefferson (and probably before), not to 20th century Marxists. The term "evolution" wasn't coined by anyone, it goes all the way back to latin.
However, the conjuctions, "intelligent design", "design proponents", etc., being used systematically as terms, only go back to the drafts of Of Pandas and People, and for the vast majority of people advocating the term it still means special creation, either of whole organisms or of complex bits of organisms. It meant special creation then, it means means special creation now…what's the problem?
Comment by Nick Matzke — April 28, 2006 @ 2:35 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
As to whether Hugo agrees with that statement, you'll have to ask him. I have no problem with it - the rejection of God in scientific explanations does seem to be a characteristic of modern science. That, of course, in no way justifies your horrible misreading of Numbers in thinking that this idea is "ancient" and "that methodological naturalism goes back to Galileo and before." At best Numbers traces this back to the mid-1800's. As I've said, Hugo's posts do an excellent job of showing why you are wrong. You've totally ignored everything Hugo has written and you've misread Numbers horribly and you still come here claiming "I've won the argument." That is laughable, at best.
Comment by macht — April 28, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Nick wrote:
". . . and for the vast majority of people advocating the term it still means special creation, either of whole organisms or of complex bits of organisms."
OK, finally you are willing to admit the Venn diagram. This is progress. Even if one takes the position you take above, a vast overlap is still not equivalence, so let's cut out ridiculous the NCSE talking points about the equivalence between ID and creationism.
Furthermore, if by "vast majority" you are referring to the masses whose ears have recently perked up at the idea of this concept they keep hearing about in the news called "intelligent design," that still has very little relevance to the question of what the principal proponents of intelligent design theory in fact say.
Why the insistence on finding smoke, mirrors and conspiracies? The principal design proponents today are almost universal in stating publicly and without subterfuge that they have a broad range of views on origins and that ID is not creationism in the Biblical sense. Let's give people the benefit of the doubt and take their statments at face value. What happens in your own reactive mind when you hear "intelligent design" is not necessarily what happens in theirs, and it is fruitless to debate if you are unwilling to take what people say at face value.
Comment by Eric Anderson — April 28, 2006 @ 5:01 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 6:23 pm
Isn't that one a laugher! :-> All the way back to Latin!
Then one day it just poofed into existence?!
Obviously not all ID critics agree with Nick Matzke about everything.
Arago
p.s. seven questions above still unanswered by TT's
Comment by g arago — April 28, 2006 @ 6:23 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
Nick:
I guess this means the Marxists are really Jeffersonians in a Cheap Tuxedo.
That's odd. I started using the term "˜design proponent' some time ago when I decided to join the terms "˜design' and "˜proponent' to be more clear on the internet. A nice example of convergent evolution being confused with descent??
Anyway, who first gave us the conjunction "natural selection?"
Well, on this blog, that's not what it means to us.
Comment by MikeGene — April 28, 2006 @ 8:35 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
Psha! The principal design proponents wrote books like The Creation Hypothesis, described their own views as creationist, wrote a creationist textbook and then relabled it "intelligent design" when the Supreme Court ruled against "creation science", and have generally obfuscated the terminology from the beginning, because they have wanted to get their junk science into the public schools from the beginning — as shown by their political lobbying of school boards and legislators, their law review articles and books, and their first book, a textbook for ninth-graders, Of Pandas and People. They have long ago surrendered the benefit of the doubt. Really, are we just supposed to ignore all the evidence in front of us about what this is really about?
Their talk about a "broad range of views" is just more soothing talking points for public consumption. What the ID advocates are actually "broad" on is the age of the earth — because they want to keep the young-earth creationists happy. Almost all of the leading ID advocates don't accept common ancestry, and even Behe has been more squidgy on it lately.
Comment by Nick Matzke — April 28, 2006 @ 8:41 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
The dictionary says it comes from the latin term evolvere, "to unroll." You aren't seriously going to tell me that someone specifically coined the word, are you? It's conceivable but probably unknowable. All I'm saying is that its more likely that the word, well, evolved over the centuries of years like all the other words in every language.
Comment by Nick Matzke — April 28, 2006 @ 8:46 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
Nick:
All of this is irrelevant. If what you say is true, then the creationists went overboard in trying to "get their junk science into the public schools from the beginning." They have cut the umbilical cord that had tied religion/creationism to design and their recent griping at AiG shows they realize ID is now the wayward son.
At some point, you'll have to stop reliving the court room excitement. Otherwise, you'll be standing their in your leisure suit.
Comment by MikeGene — April 28, 2006 @ 8:53 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
Hey, more power to them if they were Jeffersonian on church-state separation. Unfortunately for you the coiners and promoters of the term "intelligent design" were describing a broad set of creationist claims, not some specific doctrine on a narrow issue.
That's fine, I just don't see why anyone else should use it your way. Imagine this series of events:
* One group of bigfoot believers started calling themselves "Pacific Northwest cryptoprimatologists" in order to sound more scientific
* They spread this new term far and wide, claiming they were way different than those old-fashioned and embarrassing bigfoot believers, who by the way the PNW-cryptoprimatologists said were not necessarily right or wrong
* And then it was shown by massive amounts of evidence in books, articles, the media, and courts that yes, all those PNW-cryptoprimatologists actually were just advocating bigfoot and crassly picked a new label for legal reasons
* Finally, some random people on a PNW-cryptoprimatologists blog start protesting how unfair it is that their critics think and say that PNW-cryptoprimatology is basically bigfoot belief.
Why should your average cryptoprimatology critic take this seriously and ignore the massive evidence indicating what PNW-cryptoprimatology means to its inventors, promoters, the media, the courts, and the culture at large?
Comment by Nick Matzke — April 28, 2006 @ 9:08 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 9:24 pm
Nick,
I think we have some confusion here. If I point out that ID is not the same thing as creationism, I am not making a sociological observation about most of the mainstream ID advocates or their followers. The fact remains that while there are many ID creationists, some of us are ID evolutionists. And on this blog, we get to speak about our views, helping to remind people that around here, relying on stereotypes won't get you very far.
Or try it this way. While you obviously take a Wedge-centric position, we don't. It's that simple. Thus, you may "hear" us defending the IDM when we point out that ID does not equal creationism, but we are not talking about the IDM. In reality, we're simply defending our own views in a world obsessed with labels and accusations.
Comment by MikeGene — April 28, 2006 @ 9:24 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
That's ridiculous. That's just the point at which the historical trend was basically complete. The preference for natural causes had been building for hundreds of years. Numbers spends the whole essay tracing it all the way back to the late middle ages. It didn't just appear in the 1800's.
Hugo at various points seems to have endorsed Steve Fuller's view that methodological naturalism was invented by the NAS in the 1980's to block creationism, which is what I was originally complaining about, and which even you now concede would be ludicrous to say. At another point Hugo seems to say that methodological naturalism was invented by the philosopher Quine in the mid-1900's, which you would also have to agree is silly, even if you assert that methodological naturalism poofed into existence in the mid-1800's.
Comment by Nick Matzke — April 28, 2006 @ 9:31 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 10:24 pm
Nick, your discomfort with how some folks use "intelligent design" is shared by many. I will cite a personal example, as I know you were also in attendance: I found the message of one of the speakers at the closing session of the 2004 Biola ID conference to be disturbing, as it appeared to be an effort by that speaker to use ID as an evangelical tool. However, (just to be consistent and use the same example) virtually all of the other lectures I attended at that conference focused exclusively on objective, data-based, scientific evidence. Your mind is so made up and your brush so broad that you seem to be incapable of accepting the notion that while some folks may see intelligent design as an evangelical tool, intelligent design is not equivalent to creationism and others are interested for purely scientific or intellectual reasons. In fact, it is precisely because intelligent design does not get into metaphysical assumptions that some who are inclined toward evangelical purposes are disenchanted.
Let's try this on a purely logical basis: First, let's assume that every proponent of ID were a creationist, would that mean that ID must logically be equivalent to creationism? Second, is it the case that every proponent of evolution is an atheist? These are both softball questions and a "no" on either one proves my point.
Look, I know you guys get paid to sell this stuff, but the ID = creationism nonsense wears a bit thin. Smells a bit like deception in a cheap tuxedo.
Comment by Eric Anderson — April 28, 2006 @ 10:24 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 10:46 pm
I'm not sure how many times this has to be said, but I imagine you are still going to ignore this point: The "preference for natural causes" is not methodological naturalism.
You are further illustrating your inability to read by suggesting that Hugo said Quine invented MN. But, yes, I do think it would be silly if somebody said that Quine invented MN.
And, no, I never said MN poofed into existence in the mid-1800's. Again, you show you can't read. What I said is that the rejection of God does seem to be a characteristic of modern science but there is absolutely no indication that there has been some type of rule like all the anti-ID people seem to think there is. That rule did develop around the 1980's.
Comment by macht — April 28, 2006 @ 10:46 pm
April 29th, 2006 at 1:02 am
That speaker was John Mark Reynolds. He's not just some guy, he's a core member of the ID movement. In fact, he's on the faculty there at Biola — Biola comes from "Bible Institute of Los Angeles", you may recall — and is on the Master of Arts program in Science and Religion (MASR).
In fact, it was the Master of Arts program in Science and Religion (MASR) that sponsored that whole conference:
I believe Biola's MASR is the only graduate program in the U.S. that formally incorporates intelligent design. Here's what Biola says about it:
But what if you don't have the science background for the MASR program? Never fear. From their FAQ:
How surprising that the science and religion program overlaps with the apologetics program. You continue,
Apologetics is what intelligent design is all about. That's the whole point of its existence. Just read Phillip Johnson's books. The 2004 Biola conference was held in honor of Phillip Johnson, you may recall.
You must have missed Friday Plenary Session I by Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe, and Plenary Session II by Fuz Rana of Reasons to Believe. Or the on-stage dancing by Fred Heeren. Or the various sessions on how Darwin led to Hitler, the talk on secretion systems previously given at the International Creation Conference, the talks by Jerry Bergman (YEC), Nancy Pearcey (YEC), Paul Nelson (YEC), JP Moreland (professional apologist), the speaker at the Johnson festschrift, Thomas Woodward (professional apologist, longtime IDer, and manager of apologetics.org), the opening speech by professional apologist Lee Strobel, promoting his apologetics book The Case for a Creator…need I go on?
Open your eyes, man! You are free to believe whatever you want, but you can't expect indignant denials of the creationist and apologetics purposes of ID to be convincing when the very ID "science" conference that you cite as evidence was sponsored by an apologetics program at a bible college, opened and closed by explicit apologetics, held in honor of Phillip Johnson (who has repeatedly stated that the main point of ID is to bring God into science), and was dominated by apologetics and creationists throughout the meeting. Have you ever been to a real scientific meeting? They're a little different.
Comment by Nick Matzke — April 29, 2006 @ 1:02 am
April 29th, 2006 at 1:14 am
I went back and looked at what Hugo said about Quine, I totally misremembered it and withdraw the claim.
Comment by Nick Matzke — April 29, 2006 @ 1:14 am
April 29th, 2006 at 1:36 am
Sigh. Re-reading Hugo yet again, it's unclear to me if he thinks methodological naturalism existed before the 20th century, or he thinks it is derived from "naturalism", which he thinks Quine and others only developed "in any depth" in the 20th century. The latter was my initial impression which I then oversimplified above. If that is what he thinks, it still seems to be contradicted by Numbers.
Comment by Nick Matzke — April 29, 2006 @ 1:36 am
April 29th, 2006 at 1:53 am
Again, I can't believe I'm repeating this but a "preference for natural causes" is NOT methodological naturalism. This seems to be the entire reason why you continue to misread Numbers and Hugo. The subject of that sentence is "preference for natural causes" and NOT "methodological naturalism." I don't understand why this is so difficult.
BTW, Hugo pretty clearly states his position here: "We can say - with considerably more likelihood - that these "ground rules" are only a few decades old and designed to "impose thought control on what sort of person is eligible to do science"."
Comment by macht — April 29, 2006 @ 1:53 am
April 29th, 2006 at 1:54 am
By "this sentence" I mean the one where he talks about Quine.
Comment by macht — April 29, 2006 @ 1:54 am
April 29th, 2006 at 3:36 am
Well, again, let's go back to what Numbers says:
This statement directly contradicts your, and apparently Hugo's, assertion that the methodological naturalism "rule" is of recent origin. Game over, unless you rebut Numbers.
As for the distinction between "preference" and "rule", I just don't see a huge difference there. Pretty much everyone who thinks that science works with natural causes agrees that there is some point — resurrection of the dead on camera, or talking pulsars or something — at which point direct physical observations would make it reasonable to invoke supernatural causes in science, and methodological naturalism would be tossed. The same could be said for e.g. conservation of mass/energy.
What methodological naturalism is actually used for is to discourage people from invoking supernatural intervention every time the going gets a bit tough, or worse yet (and more commonly the case, e.g. with the vast majority of ID claims), when the claimant in question simply hasn't bothered to do the reading or research one would have to do to even begin to have an informed opinion on the matter. Even more problematic still is the case when a scientist has an explanation for something, and someone comes along and claims "Well, God might have done it that way through supernatural action!" For many reasons, for hundreds of years there have been a lot of people who go around and make these sorts of mistakes willy-nilly — sometimes they even accuse scientists of being atheists or biased for not agreeing. Again and again, invocation of supernatural intervention proved to be a bad strategy for studying nature, and gradually the principle of reliance on natural causes was formalized as part of what it means to be doing science. According to Numbers this process was completed in the 1800's.
This all seems pretty pedestrian and uncontroversial, and I don't see why it is that Fuller and his defenders attempt to re-write history to pretend that this is something new. I suspect it is mostly just instinctive contrarianism against the dogmatic establishment, but that's just a guess.
Comment by Nick Matzke — April 29, 2006 @ 3:36 am
April 29th, 2006 at 7:53 am
Nick Matzke wrote:
It is said that 80% of all scholarly English words are derived from Latin. The terms "intelligent" and "design" are derived from Latin, also. Even thought the term "evolution" has roots in Latin, it was coined (or adopted) into English.
John D. Bacon:
Comment by Analyysi — April 29, 2006 @ 7:53 am
April 29th, 2006 at 10:41 am
NIck,
So what? What about all the "scientists" nowadays who claim that science and evolutionary theory have disproven the activity and existence of God? What about the claim by a noted scientist/evolutionist that Evolution finally allowed him to be "an intellectually fulfilled atheist" So what that science can have religious and metaphysical implications? If atheists can appropriate the scientific evidence, and color it with their evolutionary theory, in order to find "intellectual fulfillment" in their metaphysical worldview, then why are you braying so loudly about Creationists when they take the same approach, but from a different direction? I don't hear you going around claiming that evolutionary theory is tantamount to atheism, do I?
Comment by Douglas — April 29, 2006 @ 10:41 am
April 29th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Nick,
You do realize that you aren't a methodological naturalist, don't you? MN is supposed to be a rule telling us what is allowed to be science and what isn't.
I agree with you that most people believe that there are times when it would be "reasonable to invoke supernatural causes in science." That's why MN is so stupid! Nobody accepts it, nobody has until a few decades ago! And even then it is only accepted by people who want to win court cases over creationists. And now I come to realize that even you don't accept it (except, perhaps, when you have a court case to win).
From the Dover case:
Now, I could go grab anybook that supports the idea of MN and it will tell you that MN is a rule for science, that science won't work if you start introducing the supernatural, that science doesn't have anything to say about things like miracles, that introducing the supernatural will undermine science, that it restricts science solely to natural processes, that it asks us to act like the natural is all there is, that it is part of the definition of science and so on and so forth. In fact, most people who accept MN - given their definitions of MN - if they ran across a video tape of a resurrection or a talking pulsar or whatever, would NOT include that as science (if, indeed, they thought it was supernatural).
Seriously, Nick, if MN isn't a rule then why go to all the trouble of establishing it in court as something that is essential to science. If scientists really would allow the supernatural into science under certain circumstances then why didn't all your expert witnesses make that caveat while on the stand? You'd think that if they were experts they would know there could be exceptions and you'd think that if they had any integrity they would they wouldn't want to mislead anybody while they were on the stand. But your expert witnesses don't believe that MN is just a preference for natural causes, do they Nick? They think it is part and parcel of what science is, don't they? They are, of course, completely wrong - and I think you realize this (as do most people once the court case is closed) - and you are trying to save face now. And one wonders why people like Fuller would suggest that MN was made up in the 80's to help fight battle creationists in court? Man, what is he thinking?!?!?!
But I'm glad to hear that you aren't really a methodological naturalist and I assume you'll stop trying to defend it (until the next court case, of course - I understand you have a job to do).
Comment by macht — April 29, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
April 29th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
Matzke sniffs:
So what? Even it did mean 'special creation' (which it doesn't), so what? The only issue here is what is the evidence of nature telling us about how living things came to be? We're all looking at the same data, but reaching very different conclusions. The entire problem you have with the ID concept isn't about science, but about philosophy. And for once, just once, I'd like to see you or any of your NCSE cohorts admit that. You don't reject ID on scientific grounds, but on philosophical grounds. But neither you nor any of your fellow anti-IDists ever seem to be able to provide the philosophical argument to back that up. Why is that?
Regardless of its etymology, ID raises serious issues and questions about the structure and origin of biological systems. Why can't you just focus on that instead playing at word games about where the term ID might have come from? WHO CARES???!!!
I'm far more interested in your telling me how you know [i]scientifically[/i] that the properties of biological systems are such that the apparent design we observe in them can not be actual design, even in principle? Do you have a [i]scientific[/i] answer to that question, Nick, or are you just going to continue to play games with the term ID?
Comment by DonaldM — April 29, 2006 @ 7:30 pm
April 30th, 2006 at 6:38 am
The fear of a Creator is strong in this one. Can you imagine how embarassed they'd all be at the NCSE if, all of a sudden, they found a cell which had "Made by Yahweh" inscribed on it somehow? (Of course, they'd probably just say that some child prodigy geneticist had played some sort of high-tech prank.)
Comment by Douglas — April 30, 2006 @ 6:38 am
May 1st, 2006 at 12:24 am
Analyysi quoted,
I believe Bonnet's definition of "evolution" was referring to the process of development in embryology. The Oxford English Dictionary notes earlier uses for the more generic "unrolling" definition:
The etymology bit, as far as I understand it, seems to say that "evolution" actually was a Latin word for unrolling.
For what it's worth, the OED only traces the evolution-of-species definition back to Lyell in 1835:
…although I thought this sense of "evolution" went back further than Lyell.
Comment by Nick Matzke — May 1, 2006 @ 12:24 am
May 1st, 2006 at 1:20 am
Now you are just being absurd. Under your logic, it would be "stupid" to state that one of the rules of being a plumber involves physically fixing pipes, simply because it is conceivable that a plumber's prayers might one day magically work and miraculously fix pipes instead.
Under your logic, it would be "stupid" for a judge to rule that homeopathy (wherein solutions are diluted down to pure water, leaving 0 molecules of the original active ingredient) is not legitimate medicine, just because it's conceivable that miracles might occur such that homeopathic treatments are biochemically active despite being pure water.
You have taken your definitional hair-splitting beyond the point of absurdity.
Sorry, this is directly contradicted by Numbers: he says that by the mid-1800's "supernatural explanations had no place in the practice of science." So at least he thinks it was pretty much a rule (in the common-sense way I am using it, not in the absurd way you are) way back then.
Because via definitional games, ID is attempting to gain the credibility conferred by the label "science." It's the exact same gambit employed by "creation science." It is part of a phenomenon known as "pseudoscience", which is widely recognized to be a problem except by a few naive philosophers who think that we should adopt an "anything goes" policy and declare astrology, homeopathy, and every other bit of quackery "science." Fortunately, this suggestion is ludicrous to anyone with common sense, as Behe found out in court to his chagrin.
It is impossible to mention every conceivable situation in a limited amount of time. The "what if we saw the Pope resurrect somebody on camera" situation was not the kind of thing being discussed at the trial: instead, actual situations from the present day and the history of science were the live topics. The actual situations being discussed were things like, "what if we don't understand every last detail of evolution?" or "what if we have a natural explanation, but someone says 'God could have done it that way through divine action'?". These latter types of arguments are the kind of thing that is actually found in creationism/intelligent design, and the kind of thing that led to the adoption of methodological naturalism in the first place, hundreds of years ago.
They think it is part and parcel of what science is, just like they think physically fixing pipes is part and parcel of what plumbing is. The bare possibility of prayer miraculously fixing pipes does not impeach our everyday definition of plumbing, and the bare possibility of an undeniable miracle being caught on camera does not impeach our everyday definition of science. Get real.
Since you're accusing me of not being a methodological naturalist, it's only fair for me to accuse you of being one. In the midst of your own denial of methodological naturalism on your blog, you write,
So, you don't think science should refer to supernatural causes, and yet you vehemently deny the appropriateness of methodological naturalism. I won't pretend I understand this position, but hey dude, whatever works for you…
(PS: Your statement in that post that methodological naturalism is closely tied to philosophical naturalism is also contradicted by Numbers, he goes out of his way to debunk that claim.)
Comment by Nick Matzke — May 1, 2006 @ 1:20 am
May 1st, 2006 at 1:30 am
Among other things,
1. It means that ID isn't a new argument, it is just an old argument that was long ago refuted. It's not new science, it's old pseudoscience revived by superficial changes in terminology.
2. It means that everyone who has called ID "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" was exactly correct, thus confirming the accuracy of our cynical instincts.
3. It means that district court judges don't have to invent a whole new jurisprudence to assess the constitutionality of ID; instead, they can be very conservative, note that ID is identical to the definition of creation-science offered by the creationists in the Edwards v. Aguillard case, and conclude, rightly, that the U.S. Supreme Court has already made this decision for them, back in 1987.
Comment by Nick Matzke — May 1, 2006 @ 1:30 am
May 1st, 2006 at 1:58 am
Actually, I've worked much more on that side of the question than the philosophy of science side, both for the trial and elsewhere. The typical ID arguments are basically just bogus objections to evolution, coupled with a very weak analogy to human design. So most of the work is in looking at the objections to evolution. My experience has been that the IDers essentially never understand the first thing about the topics they blather about. Instead, you basically have a collection of wild assertions and half-baked talking points.
One example of how we deconstructed Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument during the trial is written up here (follow the links therein).
Comment by Nick Matzke — May 1, 2006 @ 1:58 am
May 1st, 2006 at 12:35 pm
I'm done with Matzke (there is another reply here if you want to read it) but I just want to point out one more example of his inability to read. I quite clearly say what I mean by MN at the beginning of my post:
By "I could be wrong, after all" I mean that I could be wrong about the position that Matzke quoted above where I say science shouldn't refer to supernatural causes. This is exactly why I'm not a methodological naturalist - because I realize I could be wrong. I'm not going to impose a rule that is based on my own weird philosophical biases just so I can call those other people quacks.
Comment by macht — May 1, 2006 @ 12:35 pm
May 1st, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Matzke pontificates:
1. So what and who cares?
2. Same as #1 with addition that neither you nor any of your anti-ID cohorts have ever actually established the claim, unless, of course, including misrepresentations and straw-man arguments consititute establishment of an argument.
3. I wasn't aware that courts decide what is or is not science. Is your ability to make a credible argument to support how you wish to define science so bad that you need to rely on a poorly informed court to do it for you? That's a great philosophy of science you've got there, Nick… the Philosophy of Science according to a Judge. Wow!
Matzke continues to preach with:
All of this might be intersting, Nick, if it had anything at all do with the question I asked you. So, just in case you missed it, here it is again:
Would you care to take another stab at answering the actual question, or do you want to continue your usual diversionary tactics, otherwise known as red herrings.
Comment by DonaldM — May 1, 2006 @ 12:54 pm
May 1st, 2006 at 3:17 pm
It seems rather clear that cosmological ID and biological ID ought to distance from one another, as the former inarguably points to a transcendent "D"esigner, while the latter does not incontrovertibly require it.
David Heddle and other reasonable theists agree, but the Discovery Institute appears to want to distance itself from the notion that Cosmo ID requires a God or God-like "D"esigner:
1) fine-tuning requires the "T"uner be outside the present universe
2) it requires a "basic skill set" which would encompass something approaching omnipotence and omniscience
3) if the "T"uner doesn't live in this universe, that supports the multiverse hypothesis, something which immediately shoots the anthropic principle in the foot
4) if the "T"uner doesn't live in the material universe, why is the DI on record outspokenly against "materialism and its cultural legacies"
5) if the "T"uner doesn't live in this universe, and the argument is that this universe's physical constants must've been designed to harbor life, is the same true for the "T"uner? is this not an infinite regress?
Comment by tomfool — May 1, 2006 @ 3:17 pm
May 1st, 2006 at 6:50 pm
Another alternative could be to say "I'm methodical in my science, and I'm a natural scientist." That would seem to alleviate the methodological confusion and at the same time verify that one studies 'natural' things and not 'social' or 'cultural' or 'mathematical' things.
Comment by g arago — May 1, 2006 @ 6:50 pm
May 1st, 2006 at 8:34 pm
Nick,
If you really can't discern the fundamental difference between ID and Creationism, then your scientific judgment itself is suspect. The former is a much simpler exercise than most of the exercises the latter involves.
Comment by Douglas — May 1, 2006 @ 8:34 pm
May 1st, 2006 at 9:00 pm
I would put it this way:
the relationship between creationism and Intelligent Design is the same as the relationship between a square and a rectangle: all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. All creationists are IDers, all IDers are NOT creationists……either by self-identification or by metaphysical assumptions.
Comment by len — May 1, 2006 @ 9:00 pm
May 1st, 2006 at 10:01 pm
Hi, len, the relationship you just sketched is the one I used to take between ID and creationism (ie, that creationism is a subset of ID), but now I think that, if you look closely, it turns out that they don't even share that much in common.
The defining premise of ID is that intentional action (design) can be rationally inferred from its effects on intended states of affairs (that is, designed objects or events). The defining premise of creationism is that God created the world as described in the book of Genesis (particularly a literal, 24-hour days reading of it). As I see it, neither of these concepts entails the other. An IDer, of course, does not need to believe in Genesis at all. On the flipside, while a creationist will believe that life was designed, I don't think the view necessarily entails that the design of biological structures can be rationally inferred from the structures themselves. So you can have an IDist that's not a creationist, and a creationist that's not an IDist.
Comment by Deuce — May 1, 2006 @ 10:01 pm
May 1st, 2006 at 10:20 pm
Deuce,
Yes, but you forgot one of the most important similarities they share: according to most ID-critics, they'd both be IDiots.
Comment by Douglas — May 1, 2006 @ 10:20 pm