Scientific Orthodoxies
by BilboThanks to Olegt, I can now refer readers to what I consider to be an excellent essay by Michael Behe, at the same place that Stephen Barr published his.
Some of my favorite passages:
… Reading the old Encyclopedia entry reminded me of G.K. Chesterton's observations in Orthodoxy that “The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle.” Unlike materialists, Christians can serenely evaluate the physical evidence. If the universe unfolded completely through the regularities of God's laws, fine. If it unfolded mostly by law but also by irregularities or special actions of some sort, that's fine too.
Unfortunately, there's a large obstacle in the path of Christians who want to exercise their freedom to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Christians may have more freedom than materialists in deciding on the best explanation for nature, but overwhelmingly it is materialists—or practical materialists—who tell Christians the story of nature. So information about the way the universe works almost invariably passes through a rigid materialistic filter before it reaches the general public. …
As a postdoctoral associate at the National Institutes of Health in the early 1980s, I shared a lab with a woman named Joanne, a fellow postdoc and a serious Catholic. One slow afternoon she and I were gabbing about the Big Questions, including the origin of life. “What would be needed to get the first cell?” she asked. “You'd need a membrane for sure,” I said. “And metabolism.” “Can't do without a genetic code,” she added, “and proteins.” We stopped, stared at each other, and both shouted, “Naaaaahh!” Then we laughed and got back to work. Even though we quickly realized that there were brick walls everywhere one looked, our only reaction was to chuckle. What we didn't do was to question seriously whether the unfolding of physical laws could adequately explain the very start of life. I guess we vaguely thought that even if we didn't know, somebody else must. Or, even if no one knew, somebody would figure it out soon. Or eventually. There we were, two young, well-educated Catholic scientists, as free as the wind to come to our own conclusions, and we punted.
I hate to imagine what Chesterton would say about such fine specimens of free Christian thinking as Joanne and me. Yet a practical problem arises from a Christian's freedom to find “a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development” in nature: In a scientific culture dominated by materialism, social pressure will push Christians to concede whatever is possible to concede as “inevitable.” At first, the concession might simply be irenic, to avoid conflict with materialists in areas that are cloudy and are thought to be unimportant. But as science progresses and claims more questions as legitimate fields of inquiry, the habit of not making waves can become dangerous, as the precedent of conceding the interpretation of material reality to materialists becomes firmly established. In the end, the ability of a Christian to see the hand of God in nature—not in some gauzy, emotional sense, but as a deduction from the physical data—is finally considered illegitimate. One day it was just the evolution of species that was unapproachable. The next day, the origin of life and the universe. Today even the origin of the mind falls under the materialist program.
February 15th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
And more:
Comment by Bilbo — February 15, 2010 @ 2:47 pm
February 15th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Good job, Bilbo.
You could also refer them to his books where he has told the same stories and drawn the same conclusions.
Comment by Pez — February 15, 2010 @ 3:50 pm
February 15th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Sorry, Pez, but I don't know anywhere in his books that he goes into as much explicit detail on the problem of scientific materialist orthodoxy as he does in this essay.
Comment by Bilbo — February 15, 2010 @ 4:10 pm
February 15th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
You are probably right about the explicit details, Bilbo.
Here's a link you might like which I have shared with most of the "it's not peer reviewed" crowd at one time or another. It illustrates the practical consequences of Behe's coming up against this orthodoxy.
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/m...
This point sums it up well, from one editor rejecting Behe's participation:
Inevitable. Let that sink in. That presupposes not only what science will find out, but (because it is inevitable) what IS.
Comment by Pez — February 15, 2010 @ 5:21 pm
February 15th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
I am wondering how far the writer of this letter would be willing to extend his, “if it is possible it’s inevitable,” logic? How about the question whether life exists else where in the universe? It must exist because, “if it is possible it’s inevitable.” (Why bother to even look?) How about things that physicists consider purely hypothetical, or even far out, like wormholes, parallel universes or time travel? They must be real because, “if it is possible they exist, it’s inevitable they exist.” But why stop there? How about unicorns, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster. All these kind of things are logically possible. Does it inevitably follow that they do exist because they could exist?
Is that what passes for scientific reasoning these days? Of course, maybe this type of reasoning is allowed if we are considering something involving Darwinian evolution. If that is the case, someone needs to explain to me why that is. I am not a scientist, so I am not privy to an insiders way of thinking. Please, fill me in.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 15, 2010 @ 8:43 pm
February 15th, 2010 at 9:10 pm
On the contrary, "inevitability" in nature shows goal-directedness and intentionality and is in no way a concession to materialism. In fact it is just the opposite – it is one of Aquinas' proofs of God. This is a common misconception amongst ID proponents (I know… I was under the same misconception).
The ID position that inevitability in nature somehow bolsters materialism is the actual concession here. This is why ID argues from a point of weakness. It has already conceded to the materialist that anything within the power of nature somehow negates design – when in fact the very opposite is true. If there was no design, nature would be completely random. There would be no repeatable phenomena, nothing would tend towards any end. No predictions could be made. Not only would life not exist, but nothing apart from random matter would exist. The fact that matter arranges itself into all manner of things (including rocks) shows design.
ID proponents need to embrace intentionality in nature and quit with the appeals to arguments about complexity and information.
Comment by Daniel Smith — February 15, 2010 @ 9:10 pm
February 16th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
What am I – a thread killer?
Lately, once I post in a thread all conversation ceases.
I'm going to get a complex of some sort if this continues!
Comment by Daniel Smith — February 16, 2010 @ 12:57 pm
February 16th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Hi Daniel,
Yes, it's been argued that the very fact that nature is orderly and predictable proves, or shows, or suggests that nature was designed. And many philosophers and historians of science think that modern science owes its birth to the firm, widespread belief that nature was created by an all-powerful, rational, and benevolent God. So yes, I think there is something to what you say.
And so theistic evolutionists would argue that we already have evidence of design without appealing to fine-tuned universe arguments or to origin of life arguments, etc. And I think there is something to what they say. Behe's point in his essay is that since Christians are not materialists, we need not and should not limit ourselves to only materialistic answers if it looks like a non-materialistic answer is called for.
Comment by Bilbo — February 16, 2010 @ 4:19 pm
February 16th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Hi Daniel,
Why should ID proponents dispense with attempting to understand nature because of your theological point of view?
On Barr, and you:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2...
Comment by Pez — February 16, 2010 @ 4:56 pm
February 16th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
Daniel Smith:
Two problems I can see as an outsider. First, this approach implies making peace with the materialists. Conservative Christian culture, which seems to be a significant driving force of ID in the US, believes itself at war with the powers of darkness, and it might well abandon any view that is not properly antagonistic towards the enemy.
Second, embracing intentionality in nature abandons hope of reaching the delicious goal of finally, in Behe's words, "seeing the hand of God in nature- not in some gauzy emotional sense, but as a deduction from the physical data", and then rubbing the atheist's nose in it.
I would be interested to hear if any insiders or ID proponents disagree.
Comment by woodchuck64 — February 16, 2010 @ 5:28 pm
February 16th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Daniel Smith:
Consider this quote from Richard Dawkins’ official website:
The article goes on to argue that yes, science has made God unnecessary to even explain morality.
Or, consider the well known quote by Cornell University professor Will Provine, who tells us that science teaches us that:
Both quotes are claiming the same thing, that science has made belief in “God” unnecessary.
But is such a claim something that can be, let alone has been proven scientifically? How could you prove their claims is unwarranted unless you criticized the underlying scientific claims?
I don’t see how, from your position, you would counter the materialist/naturalist claims.
Of course, maybe that your point is, we can’t, and/or we shouldn’t.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 16, 2010 @ 7:52 pm
February 16th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
Who said that? Not me!
As far as trying to understand nature – that is to be encouraged as nature is the empirical evidence of God and the study of nature is like looking directly into the mind of God.
I don't see how anyone can characterize my position as you have.
What ID proponents should dispense with is conceding non-design to materialists (which is what they are doing when they say X is not irreducibly complex so it does not require design, but Y is, so it does), because that viewpoint is completely bankrupt. It is a position of weakness.
Comment by Daniel Smith — February 16, 2010 @ 8:24 pm
February 16th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
It does not in any way imply that. My position is the exact opposite of a materialists. How can there be peace between two views that are diametrically opposed?
Intentionality in nature "rubs the atheists nose in it" already – and from a far more powerful empirical standpoint than the common ID line. Again, I don't see the logic of that argument.
Comment by Daniel Smith — February 16, 2010 @ 8:29 pm
February 16th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
But is the Christian free to believe that the universe is a spotless machine without spiritualism or miracle? It strikes me that the Christian is every bit as limited as the materialist, but simply with the required beliefs going in the opposite direction.
And Christians are immune to such cluelessness? Behe seems to approach the issue with the presupposition that his vision is not narrow. How is that justified?
Comment by don provan — February 16, 2010 @ 8:29 pm
February 16th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
People like Dawkins and Provine like to spout statements like that while not even realizing that there would be no science if there was no intentionality in nature. If things did not tend towards an end, no experiment would provide repeatable results. Everything would be random and the results they think they hang their hats on wouldn't even exist. Of course they also don't take into account that their own rational(?) minds are unexplainable via materialistic mechanisms. I don't see why we need to accept their claims as anything even remotely approaching "scientific".
What underlying scientific claim? Nothing they claim has any basis in science, it is all flawed deductive reasoning based on their materialistic interpretation of scientific data and thus can be proven false by sound deductive reasoning – based on the same data interpreted correctly.
My position is that their positions are provably false – not like an appeal to best explanation (as the ID argument goes) – but rather by sound logic firmly based on empirical science and sound reasoning.
For instance I'll quote from my posts in the On Building a Cell thread:
Do you see how ALL OF NATURE repudiates the atheist/materialist claims? It's not just life and certain "unevolvable" features. We need to stop limiting ourselves to those arguments.
On the contrary we can and we should. We must do this from the position of strength however – arguing from intentionality in nature and how that makes the atheist's claims absurd – rather than arguing from the far weaker position that only those things which are sufficiently complex require a designer (and then not even God).
Comment by Daniel Smith — February 16, 2010 @ 8:56 pm
February 16th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Except the Christian has the advantage of his beliefs being in agreement with observed nature while the materialist's beliefs are in conflict with nature at every turn.
This is why most materialists won't take the time to flesh out their views and follow them to their logical end. (Of course most Christians don't do that either, but – when they do – their beliefs turn out to be reasonable whereas the materialist's disintegrate into a sea of absurdity).
Comment by Daniel Smith — February 16, 2010 @ 9:04 pm
February 16th, 2010 at 9:20 pm
You are clueless about the narrowness of your vision of reality
Comment by don provan — February 16, 2010 @ 9:20 pm
February 16th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Daniel Smith:
Well, it would have to be a unilateral declaration of war on your part because I don't see any real conflict. We might agree that nature has significant goal-directedness, but science would not be able to detect a director beyond the laws of the universe itself. Without being able to see clearly beyond the boundaries of this universe, I see no reason to be dogmatic for or against an intelligent designer. However, that still puts me in the a-theist camp.
Maybe I'm not getting what you mean by inevitability in nature.
Comment by woodchuck64 — February 16, 2010 @ 10:49 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 12:51 am
The underlying scientific claim is that natural selection, acting alone on random variation, can accounts for all evolutionary change and diversity. Since that is a scientific claim it can be upheld or refuted scientifically. I would argue that those who make such a claim cannot and have not ever been able to back up such a claim. BTW one doesn’t need to be an ID’ist to challenge such a claim. A science that does not permit challenges or criticism is not science; it is ideology.
Indeed, in the quote I provided above we see some people believe that Darwinian evolution is the basis for an all encompassing world view.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 17, 2010 @ 12:51 am
February 17th, 2010 at 1:26 am
Hi Daniel,
I thought you said that .. sorry.
I agree. And ID proponents think that the empirical evidence demonstrates complexity and information.
I guess I misread this, then:
—
But that's not what they do. Witness Behe's books and the link I provided above.
Comment by Pez — February 17, 2010 @ 1:26 am
February 17th, 2010 at 9:32 am
Random variation and selection can generate complex adaptation, but there are many other mechanisms involved in evolutionary history, everything from continental drift to speciation events to ecological interactions to simple happenstance. History is like that and doesn't simplify to a formula on a t-shirt.
Comment by Zachriel — February 17, 2010 @ 9:32 am
February 17th, 2010 at 9:33 am
Do you have any examples?
Comment by ID guy — February 17, 2010 @ 9:33 am
February 17th, 2010 at 10:00 am
You've shown that you don't know how random or phylogeny are used in biology, nor have you been able to follow an argument through its steps, so such a discussion would not be productive.
Comment by Zachriel — February 17, 2010 @ 10:00 am
February 17th, 2010 at 10:04 am
Nice projection Zach.
So you don't have any examples and think that your false accusations and bald assertions are good enough.
Got it.
Thanks.
Comment by ID guy — February 17, 2010 @ 10:04 am
February 17th, 2010 at 10:05 am
BTW Zach I will debate you one on one about biology.
The same challenge as for nested hierarchies- 20, 000 each winner takes all and loser also pays all expenses.
Comment by ID guy — February 17, 2010 @ 10:05 am
February 17th, 2010 at 10:15 am
Again, the problem is that you don't understand the basic terminology, so words don't have the same meanings for you as they do in science. So if someone says mutations are random (with respect to fitness), you insist it means something other than it does. And even when corrected on the intention of the statement, you refuse to follow a simple definition and argument. That prevents any more in depth discussion about teleology or anything for that matter. (But it does bring back fond memories of the Ballyvourney Jig.)
What is amazing is that the ID Neighhood continues to allow ID guy to be the voice for ID without challenge.
Comment by Zachriel — February 17, 2010 @ 10:15 am
February 17th, 2010 at 10:20 am
I am sick of your false accusations.
"Random" in CONTEXT refers to blind, undirected chemical processes.
That you refuse to understand that reflects poorly on you, not me.
Also you have been caught lying several times and you refuse to correct your lies.
Now I understand why you refuse to debate me in a public forum- you wouldn't stand a chance.
Comment by ID guy — February 17, 2010 @ 10:20 am
February 17th, 2010 at 10:25 am
ID guy wrote:
Joe, why not up the ante and debate Allen MacNeill?
Comment by olegt — February 17, 2010 @ 10:25 am
February 17th, 2010 at 10:31 am
What do you mean by "directed?"
Comment by Zachriel — February 17, 2010 @ 10:31 am
February 17th, 2010 at 10:37 am
"Random" in CONTEXT refers to blind, undirected chemical processes.
Again the problem is that you don't understand the terminology.
And that is because you have your head so far up your you-know-what you don't even understand the debate.
Comment by ID guy — February 17, 2010 @ 10:37 am
February 17th, 2010 at 10:40 am
BTW Zach I will debate you one on one about biology.
The same challenge as for nested hierarchies- 20, 000 each winner takes all and loser also pays all expenses.
I take that as a sign that you would lose if we were to debate.
Thanks.
Also until Allen MacNeill shows he understands what is being debated- he has never done so and even thinks that Creation = the fixity of species- there isn't anything to debate.
However if Allen has to support the claims of blind, undirected chemical processes the best he could hope for in a debate is a draw.
Comment by ID guy — February 17, 2010 @ 10:40 am
February 17th, 2010 at 10:45 am
Joe,
I don't debate sixth-graders, particularly those whose only claim to fame is name calling. Neither do I seriously entertain the idea that MacNeill will debate you. It's just incongruous and therefore funny.
Comment by olegt — February 17, 2010 @ 10:45 am
February 17th, 2010 at 10:50 am
trollegt,
Sixth graders would wipe the floor with you.
And you are the one engaging in name calling.
As I said before everyone who disgrees with you is either a crank or a crackpot- that is according to you.
You don't have any other "arguments" just name-calling.
IOW trolleg you are just a little baby who wants a bottle and no one will give you one…
Comment by ID guy — February 17, 2010 @ 10:50 am
February 17th, 2010 at 10:51 am
trolleg,
If I really bother you that much I can drive to Johns Hopkins and we can sort it out…
Comment by ID guy — February 17, 2010 @ 10:51 am
February 17th, 2010 at 10:53 am
How many times, after repeated corrections, do ID proponents intend to keep deliberately repeating this absolute falsehood?
Comment by KC — February 17, 2010 @ 10:53 am
February 17th, 2010 at 10:55 am
KC,
Why don't you explain this alleged "falsehood"?
Comment by ID guy — February 17, 2010 @ 10:55 am
February 17th, 2010 at 10:58 am
O, come on over, Joe, I'm in fine physical shape.
Comment by olegt — February 17, 2010 @ 10:58 am
February 17th, 2010 at 11:33 am
Do you really think there is an underlying scientific claim by evolutionary biologists that "natural selection, acting alone on random variation, can accounts for all evolutionary change and diversity" ?
Comment by KC — February 17, 2010 @ 11:33 am
February 17th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
ID-Guy,
Geez-Louise you're a numskull. I'm rather embarrassed for TT that you seem to be holding down the fort.
olegt,
Why do you call him Joe? Is he the "Intelligent Reasoning" Joseph?
Comment by David Heddle — February 17, 2010 @ 12:04 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
David,
Geez Louise I am just trying to get his school-yard bullying off of TT.
All he is doing is taunting me- or can't you see that?
Does your bias run that deep?
All olegt does is call people crackpots and/ or cranks.
Is that acceptable to you?
Or are you the sort of "referee" that only notices the retalations?
Comment by ID guy — February 17, 2010 @ 12:27 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Why don't you explain this alleged "falsehood"?
David the evolution of the "theory" of evolution is noted.
But I would say that the theory still posits that all variation is random- meaning due to blind, undirected chemical processes.
The selection part is a little bit trickier, but saying "natural selction" could be as general as saying there isn't any guidance, no intention, no purpose- and can be used to incorporate all selection processes other than artificial.
But the real problem is that the "theory" of evolution is very vague to begin with.
Comment by ID guy — February 17, 2010 @ 12:35 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Of course, that isn't what I asked. Distraction noted.
More distraction, and inability/refusal to answer the question.
BTW: If you arenlt going to refer to me by the username I employ here, please call me "Dave"
Comment by KC — February 17, 2010 @ 12:43 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
David (Heddle),
Yup, that's him.
Comment by olegt — February 17, 2010 @ 12:48 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
David the evolution of the "theory" of evolution is noted.
But I would say that the theory still posits that all variation is random- meaning due to blind, undirected chemical processes.
You asked:
My answer gets to the heart of the "random variation" part.
So how is it a distraction?
The selection part is a little bit trickier, but saying "natural selction" could be as general as saying there isn't any guidance, no intention, no purpose- and can be used to incorporate all selection processes other than artificial.
Again it gets to the heart of your question so what is the distraction?
Ahhh you just can't deal with the truth.
Comment by ID guy — February 17, 2010 @ 12:50 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
No, you just won't answer the question. Instead, in typical fashion, you jump into a evasive deconstruction. That's cool. Your inability/refusal to answer the question has been noted.
Comment by KC — February 17, 2010 @ 12:56 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
David,
I answered the question.
You just don't like the answer so you have to throw a fit.
Very typical.
Also you are the one refusing to answer the question- remember David?
I asked to to explain the alleged falsehood and you refused.
Instead you try to pawn it off on me.
Very typical.
Comment by ID guy — February 17, 2010 @ 1:00 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
One click to expose David's tactics
Comment by ID guy — February 17, 2010 @ 1:02 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
It was a simple question, a term you keep using, but you refuse to provide a definition. Does the wind have a direction? Is that what you mean?
Comment by Zachriel — February 17, 2010 @ 1:12 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
And after all that , still no answer to a very simple question:
You are well aware (or should be) what evolutionary biologists mean when they say variation is random with regard to fitness, and what they mean by natural selection. Yet you insist on evading answering by whining hiding behind definitionary issues. So let me help you out. Given that evolutionary biologists mean "random with respect to fitness" when they say variation is random, and "differential reproductive success" when they say "Natural Selection", do you really think there is an underlying scientific claim by evolutionary biologists that "natural selection, acting alone on random variation, can accounts for all evolutionary change and diversity"?
You now have no excuses to avoid answering the question.
Comment by KC — February 17, 2010 @ 1:20 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
"Random" in CONTEXT refers to blind, undirected chemical processes.
Geez Louise- are you admitting that you are ignorant of the terminology being used in this debate and yet you feel as if you can chime in anyway?
Comment by ID guy — February 17, 2010 @ 1:35 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Except that "random with respect to fitness" is BS.
It doesn't have any real meaning. And it doesn't get to the heart of the matter- are mutations directed in the same sense that computer programs are directed?
Are they genetic mistakes/ undirected chemical processes?
Also "differential reproductive success" can come about via many ways.
I also believe your take on NS is wrong- sure differential reproduction is part of it but the success has to be via heritable changes.
So what you need to do is 1- brush up on NS and random and 2) ask the person who posted it what he is referring to to make sure you two are talking about the same thing.
What I am saying is there just could be a mix-up with the wording.
That is why I asked you to explain the alleged falsehood.
If you would have done that then we may be able to see the disparity.
Comment by ID guy — February 17, 2010 @ 1:43 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Unsurprisingly, ID Guy retreats behind his traditional definitional, obfuscatory haze. Let's leave him there.
Any other ID proponent care to answer my question regarding JAD's statement?
Comment by KC — February 17, 2010 @ 1:49 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
KC:
Evolutionary biologists do not make that claim. Feel better?
Comment by Bradford — February 17, 2010 @ 1:54 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
The only honest answer:
It depends what day it is and who you ask.
It also depends on what one means by natural selection and random variation.
So it would be best to get clarification for JAD.
And it would be even better if KC just made his point instead of playing twenty questions.
IOW if KC thinks JAD is wrong the proper response would have been to present what evolutionary biologists claim accounts for all evolutionary change and diversity.
Then we could have a discussion.
Comment by ID guy — February 17, 2010 @ 1:55 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Newton composed Principia upon the underlying belief that God ordered the universe in such a way that it could be rationally understood by humans.
What work of scientific genius has been built upon the underlying belief that matter is all there is?
Comment by chunkdz — February 17, 2010 @ 2:18 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Hey ID Guy…could you shut your pie-hole for a minute and maybe stay on topic?
Scientific Orthodoxies? Essay by Michael Behe? Comments? Questions?
Comment by chunkdz — February 17, 2010 @ 2:21 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Yeah chunkdz- it was just me…
Comment by ID guy — February 17, 2010 @ 2:23 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Yeah chunk, it wasn't just ID Guy. Sorry for the OT comment.
Comment by KC — February 17, 2010 @ 2:26 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Here is an interesting comment, by Michael Ruse, in his review of the new book, by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong?
Okay let’s follow that line of thought. There is a lot of cutting-edge research in area’s Darwin didn’t even conceive of– “evo-devo,” “epigenetic,” etc. However, do those new lines of research complement or undermine Darwin’s belief that “natural selection acting on random variation" was the primary creative power in evolution. Behe has pointed out in his book, The Edge of Evolution:
So what the current debate really boils down is two positions: (1) even though Darwin didn’t know about any of these things he was still fundamentally right. Natural selection acting on random variation is still the primary creative power in evolution. Or, (2) Darwin was wrong. Natural selection (which is real) plays only a very minor role in evolution.
What is unscientific about considering #2?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 17, 2010 @ 2:31 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Nothing personal fellas, but Bilbo tends to not police his own blogs and we've been over the "random" issue ad nauseam have we not?
Sorry to single you out ID Guy. You just happened to be talking when I walked into this pissing match.
Comment by chunkdz — February 17, 2010 @ 2:45 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
This is getting creepy. Nothing good can come out of this for either side. Even if it's a joke (and I hope it is), this isn't something to joke about on the net.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — February 17, 2010 @ 2:48 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
I hope what I wrote above clarifies the point I was trying to make yesterday. If you read, Origin of Species, you will see that Darwin relies almost completely on natural selection acting on random variation to explain all evolutionary change. Clearly the theory of evolution has evolved since then. However, has it evolved to such a point that we can now say that Darwin got it wrong. I think there is evidence that it has. So does Behe and even some non-ID'ists.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 17, 2010 @ 2:51 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
JAD,
First of all, natural selection may play more than just a "minor' role, and still not be the "primary" force behind evolutionary change overall. Secondly, there is nothing unscientific about considering #2– in fact, trying to determine where NS lies in between those two extremes is one of the more interesting fields of evolutionary biology. Finally, there is no "underlying scientific claim" from evolutionary biology that natural selection is responsible for all evolutionary change or even for diversity. For example, consider the process of allopatric speciation– there is no intrinsic requirement that NS be responsible for all of the divergence between the populations, yet allopatric speciation is believed to be one of the major processes by which new species come about.
Comment by KC — February 17, 2010 @ 2:58 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
chunkdz- understood and my apologies- but I love pissing matches
As for the pie-hole thingy- well that doesn't really work with the internet.
Well maybe- I understand that evolutionists have to mouth the words as they type
Comment by ID guy — February 17, 2010 @ 3:17 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
Mr Sal- olegt has been taunting me and taunting me and calling everyone who disgrees with him either a crank or a crackpot (or both)
He puts words in my mouth, misrepresents ID and does nothing to support his claims.
He acts like a child throwing a tantrum. He needs a spanking.
Or perhaps he would just care to smarten up a bit.
Comment by ID guy — February 17, 2010 @ 3:19 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Comment by chunkdz — February 17, 2010 @ 3:26 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
That's the reason why I allow you more latitude than others in my threads. The offenses (personal insults) are running both ways. Nevertheless Salvador makes a good point. There are common sense limits to behavioral excesses. BTW if I see someone turn the other cheek to insults I'll ban the insulting party.
Comment by Bradford — February 17, 2010 @ 3:46 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Very good. If that is your position, there is no fundamental point of disagreement between us. However, I have personally become more skeptical, through my reading, about the importance of natural selection in evolutionary change. I would argue there is no evidence that it plays anything other than a minor role. That is what we have been debating for several threads, and some of us have been challenging those who think that NS does play major role to back up their claim with some evidence. I don’t believe in accepting scientific claims by faith. We're still waiting.
But I was looking at the claim from an historical perspective. As I wrote above, “If you read, Origin of Species, you will see that Darwin relies almost completely on natural selection acting on random variation to explain all evolutionary change. Clearly the theory of evolution has evolved since then.” Notice that slightly rephrased what I had said earlier I added the words “almost completely.” From what I remember from my reading of Darwin he relied pretty heavily on NS + RV to explain evolutionary diversity and change. I not claiming that it is impossible that he didn’t consider other things, I am just not aware that he did.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 17, 2010 @ 4:04 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Uh, yes, I plead guilty to not policing my threads very well. As far as I can tell, this all went off-track when JAD misunderstood Daniel Smith's point, and responded by offering a generalized statement about random mutation and natural selection explaining everything, which Zach then responded to, even though that wasn't JAD's main point. Then ID Guy jumped in, then Olegt, then….
So where do I start deleting?
How about: ID Guy, thou shalt not call Olegt, "Trolegt" or any other deragotory name, or thou shalt be banned from my threads here in after. And Olegt, thou shalt not keep referring to ID Guy's "true" identity.
And I give permission to the other moderators to ban either one of them from threads if either of them violates my commandments.
Comment by Bilbo — February 17, 2010 @ 4:36 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Oh yeah, one more commandment. Since this thread is not about what constitutes current evolutionary theory, all of ye shalt refrain from talking about it here in out.
Comment by Bilbo — February 17, 2010 @ 4:37 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
With all due respect, Bilbo, doesn't current evolutionary theory represent a "scientific orthodoxy" to many?
Comment by KC — February 17, 2010 @ 4:44 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
.
Comment by Pez — February 17, 2010 @ 5:09 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Yup.
Except the great Carl Woese is less charitable than our own Bilbo.
Maybe "Quasi-scientific Orthodoxies" would have been a better title….
Comment by chunkdz — February 17, 2010 @ 5:17 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 5:50 pm
An entertaining thread, regardless of who is right or wrong. I got my 3d glasses on here…
Comment by computerist — February 17, 2010 @ 5:50 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Chunk, unfortunately, Woese's complaints are pretty hollow– based on the first quote you cited, he is apparently completely unaware of how pluralistic the architects of the Modern Synthesis were, especially regarding the role NS played in the process. For a good account of this, I suggest Steven Orzack's paper on the evolution of the Modern Synthesis:
Orzack S (1981). The Modern Synthesis is partly Wright. Paleobiology 7(1): 128-134
Comment by KC — February 17, 2010 @ 6:10 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Christians believe in miracles. If they appeal to natural law, they have to use a definition distinct from its scientific meaning, or claim miracle transcends natural law without violating it. In either case, God's Law is an equivocation on scientific regularities.
Nor do materialists have to believe the universe is comprised of regularities. A materialist can certainly believe the universe is chaotic or senseless, based in randomness, or of a whole.
Comment by Zachriel — February 17, 2010 @ 6:41 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Lol!
I'd recommend you read Gould's response to Orzack.
Particularly the part where he acknowledges that pluralism marked the first decade or so, but that the NDS quickly hardened around natural selection, for some not very scientific reasons.
Comment by chunkdz — February 17, 2010 @ 6:49 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
What is the scientific meaning of natural law, Zach?
Comment by Bilbo — February 17, 2010 @ 6:56 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
Yes, KC, current evolutionary theory constitutes a scientific orthodoxy to many. Try to draw line between the content of it and the question of whether it is treated as beyond question. Admittedly not easy to do. The lord thy moderator shall surely try to be fair. But do not tempt him, for surely he wilt not hold him guiltless who temptest him in vain.
Comment by Bilbo — February 17, 2010 @ 7:09 pm
February 17th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
A law in science is a generalization of empirical phenomena, usually expressed as a quantitative relationship. It can also refer to the body of individual laws, (roughly) the clockwork universe. {In a different sense, natural law can refer to universal dictums of the moral world.} Referring back to the original statement:
"Regularities of God's laws" signifies a reference to scientific regularities or laws, the clockwork universe. But Christians, as a body, believe in miracles, including physical miracles. So, no. They don't believe the universe unfolded completely through the "regularities of God's laws." That would be Deism. Unless you redefine regularities to be not always so regular, of course.
Comment by Zachriel — February 17, 2010 @ 7:12 pm
February 18th, 2010 at 12:59 am
Right, Christians don't believe all of history unfolded through natural law, but many of them believe that all of natural history unfolded through natural laws. Behe's point is that they are not required by their religious tenets to believe that.
But now let's return to your statement "God' Law is an equivocation on scientific regularities." I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
BTW, did I get too Charlton Heston on everybody?
Comment by Bilbo — February 18, 2010 @ 12:59 am
February 18th, 2010 at 9:35 am
Let's return to the original statement.
Notice it concerns "physical evidence." It seems to mean physical laws commonly referred to as the clockwork universe (modified by modern discoveries, of course). But miracles are direct interventions in the regular course of these physical laws.
We can simply define God's laws to include miracles, but then what is the term "regularities" doing in there? There is a clear implication and that implication leads to the equivocation. Please tell us what you think "regularities of God's laws" mean in this context.
Comment by Zachriel — February 18, 2010 @ 9:35 am
February 18th, 2010 at 9:54 am
Let's not forget the other equivocation. Materialists do not necessarily believe the universe is comprised of regularities. A materialist can certainly believe the universe is chaotic or senseless, based in randomness, or of a whole.
Comment by Zachriel — February 18, 2010 @ 9:54 am
February 18th, 2010 at 10:22 am
Bilbo, don't worry. You're a cool moderator.
Comment by KC — February 18, 2010 @ 10:22 am
February 18th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
I think it means the same thing that scientists mean: how nature regularly behaves. When we come across some phenomenon that doesn't behave that way, the Christian (or supernaturalist) can ask the question, have we found something about nature that we don't understand yet? Or has God acted in a special way here?
Right. And many philosophers and historians think that until a firm, widespread belief in an all-powerful, rational, and benevolent God took hold of civilisation, that was the general view of nature — senseless or chaotic.
But even if the historians are mistaken, the materialist is left with the question, how do we know that the universe isn't chaotic and senseless? Just because we think we understand how it has and is acting, doesn't mean that it will always act this way.
Comment by Bilbo — February 18, 2010 @ 12:32 pm
February 18th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
It would appear that you hold the minority view.
Comment by Bilbo — February 18, 2010 @ 12:34 pm
February 18th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
I disagree. I appreciate your posts and the time you put in. It can be time consuming and you're not quite being paid top dollar.
Comment by Bradford — February 18, 2010 @ 1:13 pm
February 18th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Exactly. Preconceptions every bit as debilitating as the materialist's. The impartial position is that something not understood is simply not understood, not evidence of either innate randomness or a guiding hand.
Why do you say only materislists are left with that question? I'll tell you why: because you think Christians have an answer and are clueless about the narrowness of your vision of reality.
Comment by don provan — February 18, 2010 @ 3:18 pm
February 18th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Observation.
That's true for Christians, as for all observers.
Comment by Zachriel — February 18, 2010 @ 6:45 pm
February 18th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Newton composed Principia upon the underlying belief that God ordered the universe in such a way that it could be rationally understood by humans.
What work of scientific genius has been built upon the underlying belief that matter is all there is?
Comment by chunkdz — February 18, 2010 @ 6:46 pm
February 18th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
That reply is an example of historical revisionism by Gould, just like his and Eldredge's invention of "phyletic gradualism" and how they tried pinning it on Darwin. Gould tries to pin 'hardening' on Dobzhansky, especially in his 1951 edition of Genetics and the Origin of Species. I have that edition, and read it many years ago. Gould must have been reading a different book (or didn't read it completely). Reading only the chapter on selection might give one the idea that Dobzhansky was hardening his views around natural selection, especially when he discusses Gause and the idea that no two genotypes could have the same adaptive value, leading one to think Dobzhansky feels that neutral variation isn't possible. But one really has to read the whole book, because later on, in the chapter on race formation, we find this:
Dobzhansky goes on to give a detailed discussion of adapatively neutral traits in human populations, and points out they their changes in frequency may be almost entirely to genetic drift. This is hardly the point of view of an adaptationist. He contines with a discussion of how genetic drift is present in all finite populations, and that changes in the frequency of alleles for many genes "may often be controlled by interaction of genetic drift and natural selection. This is especially true for genes so close to adaptive neutrality that they are subject to only small or intermittent selective pressures." Dobzhansky and Wright took that idea further a few years later in a classic paper that experimentally showed the interaction occurring in Drosophila populations. Wright also showed the power of genetic drift in a paper with Kerr around that time as well. But that isn't the end of it. Dobzhansky also talks about Wright's idea of role genetic drift plays in populations subdivided into what we now call demes:
Not the words and ideas of a hidebound, hardened adaptationist. Gould's historical pronouncements need to taken with a grain of salt.
Comment by KC — February 18, 2010 @ 6:50 pm
February 18th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
Making it impossible for him to consider the possibility that the order had some other source.
Dawkins's work on the ideas of selfish genes and memes.
Comment by don provan — February 18, 2010 @ 7:40 pm
February 18th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
It is incoherent for a materialist to believe the universe is comprised of regularities. What causes regularities? Matter? How can matter cause regularities? There has to be something outside of matter in order for there to be regularities in nature. That something we call God.
Comment by Daniel Smith — February 18, 2010 @ 8:58 pm
February 18th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
How does matter cause a gene to be "selfish"? How does matter cause anything? Remember, you answer must be couched in terms consistent with the statement "matter is all there is".
Good luck.
Comment by Daniel Smith — February 18, 2010 @ 9:04 pm
February 18th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
As most materialists have no problem finding their keys where they left them, that is clearly false. Oddly enough, Behe argues that materialists can only find regularity in nature, and can't consider miracles.
You do understand "selfishness" is an analogy?
Comment by Zachriel — February 18, 2010 @ 9:47 pm
February 18th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
Perhaps he would have considered another source had one been evident.
His ideas about genes are interesting, perhaps, I'll even grant, 'ingenious'. But they do not rely upon the tenets of materialism.
The only part of the book which relies profoundly upon materialism that I remember is the part where he argues that the idea of God is a meme. This falls more into the arena of evo-psych, a decidedly unfruitfull avenue of research you must agree, no?
But maybe history will look back on Dawkins as an evo-psych genius someday, should his ideas ever gain a purchase on reality.
Comment by chunkdz — February 18, 2010 @ 10:15 pm
February 19th, 2010 at 8:19 am
A clarification has been requested. Most materialists have no problem finding their keys where they left them—unless they have children.
Comment by Zachriel — February 19, 2010 @ 8:19 am
February 19th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
I'm not arguing from Behe's position, I'm arguing from mine. The fact that regularities exist in nature is not the issue. The issue is how – from a "matter is all there is" viewpoint – would a materialist explain that fact?
Comment by Daniel Smith — February 19, 2010 @ 1:00 pm
February 19th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
I put Don and Zach's comments together, so I can respond once. The Christian (and Jew and Muslim) believe that the universe was created by an all-powerful, rational, and benevolent God. If the universe acts differently tomorrow from how it has always acted, then they believe that there will be a rational reason for it acting so. And since we are created in God's image, and God is benevolent, there is grounds for believing that we will eventually figure out why the universe is acting differently.
On the other hand, someone who believes that at the very heart of things is randomness and senselessness, upon finding out that the universe is acting differently, can only surmise that this is yet another indication of it. Why look for a reason?
Comment by Bilbo — February 19, 2010 @ 1:39 pm
February 19th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
You're splitting hairs. Newton's work doesn't rely on God, either, only on order.
Comment by don provan — February 19, 2010 @ 2:45 pm
February 19th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
This question demonstrates a narrowness of vision.
Comment by don provan — February 19, 2010 @ 2:52 pm
February 19th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Then you've just made the case for "methodological theism".
Comment by chunkdz — February 19, 2010 @ 4:54 pm
February 19th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
We should be careful not to read too much into what Gould referred to as "hardening". You seem to think that Gould meant it to mean that Dobhzansky felt "neutral variation wasn't possible", or that he was a "hardened adaptationist".
My read of Gould's words is not quite so dogmatic. Rather than an accusation of an all or nothing adaptationist attitude, Gould is merely commenting upon the shift in emphasis over the first 10 to 15 years, at which point the narrower version was adopted. I would avoid being so uncharitable as to think Gould was accusing Dobhzansky of ignoring all evidence of neutral variation in small populations. At worst, he says that Dobhzansky
So let's cut Gould a little slack and not read more of his statements than is really there. He was merely pointing out a clear shift in emphasis between the 1937 and 1951 editions. Calling Gould a revisionist because of this is a very, very strong accusation and should include stronger evidence than this.
At any rate, the objections enumerated by Woese do not include any directed at Dobhzansky. Do you have any direct refutation of Woese's words that we can examine?
Comment by chunkdz — February 19, 2010 @ 5:45 pm
February 19th, 2010 at 6:23 pm
chunk, Woese doesn't give (in his quote at least), any specific examples of what he has accused molecular biologists of doing. Does your source mention any?
Asking for direct refutation of a completely general and unspecific charge is ridiculous.
Comment by KC — February 19, 2010 @ 6:23 pm
February 19th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
KC,
Here's the commentary.
It's more about what molecular biologists didn't do because of dogmatism.
I dunno about that. Sometimes they are the easiest to refute.
Comment by chunkdz — February 19, 2010 @ 7:00 pm
February 19th, 2010 at 7:19 pm
Don't just sit there, Don! Broaden my vision!
Comment by Bilbo — February 19, 2010 @ 7:19 pm
February 19th, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Explain how matter creates 'order' don.
Is 'order' a material substance?
If not, then how does 'order' exist – given that "matter is all there is"?
While you're at it maybe you can bother yourself to answer my previous questions asked of (and avoided by) you…
Comment by Daniel Smith — February 19, 2010 @ 8:37 pm
February 19th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
I wasn't aware I was making a case for anything. I was just presenting an example of a "work of scientific genius has been built upon the underlying belief that matter is all there is".
Comment by don provan — February 19, 2010 @ 10:08 pm
February 19th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
Explain how God creates 'order', Daniel.
Comment by don provan — February 19, 2010 @ 10:09 pm
February 19th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
DP
Of course you weren’t DP. That’s why it’s called self deception.
The point is the rest of the world, those who are not in denial knew exactly what you were doing.
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 19, 2010 @ 10:23 pm
February 19th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
The same way you do DP, by the act of his will. (Gen 1:1).
Or are you denying that a sentient being can create?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 19, 2010 @ 10:29 pm
February 19th, 2010 at 10:44 pm
Okay.
Actually, this was your previous position.
Just because a materialist may not have an explanation doesn't make the position incoherent. Nor is supposing an ultimate cause that "just is" a more supportable position than saying the universe "just is."
Comment by Zachriel — February 19, 2010 @ 10:44 pm
February 19th, 2010 at 10:55 pm
If it's a miracle, there's no reason to make any association with physical laws. So if lightning hits the church steeple, maybe God is angry because the congregation isn't praying hard enough.
If someone believes the world is senseless, they may not bother to look for any explanation. Of course, most materialists don't hold this view. Indeed, materialism is frequently associated with scientism, the belief that everything can be reduced to scientific principles.
Comment by Zachriel — February 19, 2010 @ 10:55 pm
February 20th, 2010 at 7:50 am
Zach, I don’t have time for an extended discussion but I want to once again quickly point out the gross error in this statement.
The “who made God?” dodge is both sophomoric and ill-conceived. The theist does not have to explain the existence of God because God (if he exists) exists necessarily by definition.
This is in stark contrast to the universe which according to science came in to existence contingently at the Big Bang thus proving it was not nessary.
Contingent effects must have causes necessary beings not so much.
logic 101
I’m sure know you this therefore your comments must be seen for what they are yet another pretentious attempt at word games
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 20, 2010 @ 7:50 am
February 20th, 2010 at 10:09 am
That wasn't the argument.
You are defining God as uncaused. He "just is." That isn't an argument for His existence, though, and no more supported than just saying the universe "just is."
The singularity of the Big Bang is a Gap in scientific knowledge. It doesn't mean the Big Bang wasn't caused. Causation may not even be relevant when dealing with the emergence, the symmetry breaking of space-time. So, 1) Big Bang Singularity is contingent, and we just don't know the cause; or 2) Contingency may not be well-defined before the emergence of space-time from the primordial quantum flux.
He says as he makes a word argument based on the definition of "contingent" which entails his very conclusion. {The difference between us is that we don't see you as consciously playing word games—just confused.}
Comment by Zachriel — February 20, 2010 @ 10:09 am
February 20th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man, referring to your opponent's arguments as "sophomoric" or a "pretentious attempt at word games," is the sort of practice that induces flame wars. Luckily, Zachriel isn't the sort of person to take the bait. I'll let it go this time, but next time I'll probably just ban you from my thread.
True, introducing an all-powerful agent makes things complicated. The problem is even more complicated because lightning isn't the sort of thing one can make reliable predictions about — like when it will strike and where. So we have a naturally occurring phenomenon that remains unpredictable.
But theists aren't in a total bind. They can ask questions, such as, "Other than the fact that lightning has hit the steeple, do we have any other reason for thinking that God did this because we didn't pray hard enough? Or could it just be that God sends his rain (and lightning) on both the just and the unjust?"
Right, which I think is Daniel Smith's point. There isn't just matter. There are also the principles that matter obeys. Which suggests that there is something more than just matter.
Comment by Bilbo — February 20, 2010 @ 4:41 pm
February 20th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
The point is that if a theist can actually construct a hypothesis to test for a Divine Act, then there is nothing to prevent non-theists from also testing that hypothesis. What happens in actuality is equivocation on what it means to make a testable hypothesis (or some other such term).
Comment by Zachriel — February 20, 2010 @ 7:09 pm
February 20th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
hey Bilbo.
Sorry about the tone but you need to understand that Zach and I have a history that includes a week long discussion that ended with Zach admitting (not to me )that he did not really hold the position that he was defending.
As far as I’m concerned life is to short for such games. It left me with a bad taste in my mouth. As a result I try not to engage Zach in dialogue if I can help it.
That being said how would you describe an "argument" from a smart guy like Zach in which he asks for an explanation for a necessary being?
You and I both know he is smarter than that.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 20, 2010 @ 7:28 pm
February 20th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
actually it is an argument with a long history as you well know .
But I’m not making the argument right now. I’m only pointing out that if God exists he requires no explanation by definition. This rule goes for any necessary thing. That is what necessary means!!!!!!!
This is in stark contrast to the universe which is not necessary but contingent.
Now if you wish to redefine the universe as necessary your argument is not with me but with modern Cosmology and Webster. I wish you luck.
Until you succeed in doing so you will find yourself on the wrong side of logic.
Words have meanings.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 20, 2010 @ 7:45 pm
February 20th, 2010 at 11:00 pm
That's fine. But you interjected incorrectly that the argument raised was "who made God?" Then you said "The theist does not have to explain the existence of God because God (if he exists) exists necessarily by definition." No one has to explain anything, but that leaves it as a presupposition that has no more support than "just is," precisely the statement you took issue with.
You are under no obligation. Please take your other complaints off board.
Comment by Zachriel — February 20, 2010 @ 11:00 pm
February 20th, 2010 at 11:36 pm
Actually to presuppose that a contingent entity “just is” is logically incoherent and therefore can have no support in a rational discussion.
On the other hand to presuppose a necessary entity “just is” is merely to use the English language correctly and therefore requires no support.
Notice none of this is to argue that said necessary being actually exists. It’s
only to insist that words have meanings.
How very gracious of you. You being the judge of what is required and all.
Sheesh
Or not
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 20, 2010 @ 11:36 pm
February 21st, 2010 at 12:07 am
The Cosmos may be a necessary entity. Or it could be contingent, but of unknown provenance. Or contingency may not properly apply to events before the origin of space-time. Or something we haven't considered yet.
(Saying something "just is" is not inherently incoherent. For instance, we might say "planets just are" as a presupposition to a study of their mechanical interactions. That doesn't mean planets don't have a cause. It may simply mean their existence is well-established regardless of their cause.)
You have defined God as a necessary entity, but that doesn't constitute an argument for His existence.
That's fine. You have defined how you use the word. Consequently, we will simply restate.
Or not.
Comment by Zachriel — February 21, 2010 @ 12:07 am
February 21st, 2010 at 3:52 pm
I'm not sure I completely understand you. Suppose that instead of lightning, the steeple had been hit by a broken power line, causing the same amount of damage. But now we also know that somebody was working on the power line at the time. How do we determine whether he broke it and dropped it on the steeple on purpose, or on accident? Without additional external evidence (e.g., hate mail, threatening to destroy the church), how do we test either hypothesis?
Comment by Bilbo — February 21, 2010 @ 3:52 pm
February 21st, 2010 at 4:07 pm
We collect evidence. We try to establish opportunity, motive, method, etc. There is an implied link of causation between the event, the cause and the perpetrator. But you're right, we can't always know for sure.
Comment by Zachriel — February 21, 2010 @ 4:07 pm
February 21st, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Perhaps we should make explicit that the alleged perpetrator has characteristics. Humans have motives, passions, faults; and individual humans have individual characteristics. So we investigate those aspects as well. That's because we are drawing a link between the event, the cause, and the perpetrator. The characteristics of each of these are interconnected.
Comment by Zachriel — February 21, 2010 @ 4:27 pm
February 21st, 2010 at 6:08 pm
Yes, we try to collect evidence of opportunity, motive, and method, but we can't always know for sure. And I think we have the same problem with God. I think the overall Biblical view is that good and bad things happen, regardless of peoples' moral or religious standing. So unless we have some strong evidence to the contrary (e.g.,someone gives a prophetic warning before the lightning hits), it seems safe to rule out special acts of God, regardless of what insurance companies say.
Comment by Bilbo — February 21, 2010 @ 6:08 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Thomas Aquinas offered five logical proofs of God's existence – each one based on empirical evidence. These are proofs – not theories or hypotheses. They are reasoned just as mathematical proofs are – IOW, if all the conditions are true, the conclusion is proven.
Nobody is "supposing" anything here except you. You are supposing that God is a supposition when in reality your position is just that.
Tell me – why should anyone suppose materialism to be true when it offers no explanations for anything?
Comment by Daniel Smith — February 22, 2010 @ 1:00 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:22 pm
All such proofs are fallacious.
You may want to ask that question of a materialist.
Comment by Zachriel — February 22, 2010 @ 1:22 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 3:42 pm
How so?
Comment by Daniel Smith — February 22, 2010 @ 3:42 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:18 pm
That's a broad sweeping claim that (if true) wipes away centuries of thought going back to Plato and Aristotle. I'm curious Zach, whether you can defend such a grandiose claim (or if you're just supposin' again). I guess I'll know by whether or not you respond to this…
Comment by Daniel Smith — February 22, 2010 @ 8:18 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:32 pm
This is what is at issue.
If a proof is based on empirical evidence, then even if the reasoning is valid, it can't be considered a logical proof of God's existence because it depends on the empirical evidence.
That's right. "If all the conditions are true," but you just said the conditions include empirical evidence, and empirical evidence is always subject to doubt, hence it does not meet the original claim of a logical proof of God's existence. Perhaps you mean it's evidence or support for God's existence, but not proof.
Comment by Zachriel — February 22, 2010 @ 8:32 pm
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Let's examine this a bit…
Aquinas' first proof is the proof from motion (or change – as the latin term encompasses both). The empirical evidence is simply that some things are observed to move (or change). So, yes, you are technically correct that if the empirical evidence is not correct – i.e. nothing really moves or changes – then this proof is invalid. However, if the condition is true, and things really do move or change, then the proof is correct.
I think we're in agreement here.
Comment by Daniel Smith — February 23, 2010 @ 1:01 pm
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:58 pm
I dunno, chunk. That commentary by Woese and Goldenfield seemed high on hyperbole and very low on specific substance.
I can't comment much on W&G's litany of sins the microbiologists have committed, other than to note W&G's dismissal of the prokaryote hypothesis:
What I find interesting about the above statement is its dogmatic certainty. What little I do know about the subject, however, suggests to me the issue is hardly settled: biologists such as Ford Doolittle amd WB Whitman, for example, have recently made vigorous cases for the prokaryote concept. But I have no particular dog in that fight.
As for the molecular biologists, I found W&G's criticism hollow and unconvincing. They state the following:
W&G go on to say that nobody caught on to that last point:
Frankly, I was surprised at seeing such a blatantly wrong statement from someone as distinguished as Woese. Crick was talking about the adaptors in 1958. As early as 1961, Monod was describing the problem of the origin of translation as one of the most important in biology in his book Chance and Necessity. And from there, many workers began looking for an evolutionary explanation of the origin of translation: Eigen, Tyagi, King, Danchi, and Yarus, to name just the ones I happen to know about. To accuse any of these biologists as treating translation as an "historical accident" as opposed to the product of an evolutionary process is ridiculous.
W&G's problem with the modern synthesis is actually hard to pin down, despite the fact when it is expressed in some ridiculously hyperbolic statements like this:
Gould and Lewontin's Spandrels paper, Sewall Wright's shifting-balance theory, and Motoo Kimura's Neutral Theory, to name a few, falsify that.
Apparently W&G feel the failure of the modern synthesis was its reluctance to recognize the importance of HGT, most notably the after the early discovery of bacterial conjugation. What W&G do not do, is actually document what it was about the modern synthesis prevented it, and—incredibly—they utterly fail to back up this breathlessly giddy accusation from their opening paragraph:
Considering how much W&G get wrong and dogmatically assert as fact without convincing documentation, I’m afraid their commentary is underwhelming.
Comment by KC — February 23, 2010 @ 2:58 pm
February 24th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
Let's remember that Woese has traditionally argued for a holistic approach as opposed to the reducto-materialist approach that led to the gap-filler assumption that all the critters that didn't have nuclei must have had a common ancestor.
I'm sure I know less than you about what Doolittle and Whitman are proposing but I don't think Woese would object IF they argued under a holistic programme. It is materialistic assumptions which get his goat.
Frankly, given the mileage that he's gotten from the holistic approach I don't have a problem with his cocksure stance. He's earned it and defended it. And I also don't disagree with your objection either. C'est la guerre.
Keep in mind that it's just a brief commentary. In many ways it just summarizes views that he's aired elsewhere in more detail.
I don't get the impression that Woese is claiming to be a lone voice in the wilderness. Any scientist who took a holistic approach to understanding how translation came about would not be part of the problem. Whether the views of guys like Monod or Yarus are mainstream or not may be arguable but I think we can give Woese the benefit of the doubt and not simply attach the most uncharitable descriptors to him.
How do any of these papers challenge natural selection?
Woese has been vocal about this elsewhere. The discovery that DNA was ubiquitous in biology led reducto-materialists to assume common descent from a single ancestor, and a tree of life with a single trunk at it's base.
A holistic approach, however, did not rely on such assumptions and once again proved more fruitful. Woese: "It is not a matter of whether your data are consistent with a tree, but whether tree topology is a useful way to represent your data. Ordinarily it is, of course, but the universal tree is no ordinary tree, and its root no ordinary root (61). Under conditions of extreme HGT, there is no (organismal) "tree." Evolution is basically reticulate."
I get the impression that you were looking for a Doctoral Thesis when Woese and Goldenfeld were simply writing a short commentary on a broad subject. As such I can't really fault you for feeling underwhelmed.
I tend to give guys of this status the benefit of the doubt. Yes, taken literally it might appear that W+G were claiming that not a single scientist had ever taken the holistic approach to evolution. This may be a great "gotcha" moment in a debate, but that view is akin to saying that Woese is a brilliant researcher and historian but he's also so stupid and lazy that he hasn't read the relevant literature. Where such a conundrum pops up, critical thinking demands more evidence before we begin tossing out confrontational words like "high on hyperbole", "dogmatic certainty", "hollow and unconvincing", "ridiculous", "ridiculously hyperbolic", "breathlessly giddy", etc.
Come on, the guy's a legend. You seem ready to exile him to crankdom based on a single commentary. Why not give his arguments fair hearing in context? I think he's at least earned that.
Comment by chunkdz — February 24, 2010 @ 7:34 pm
February 24th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
Bilbo,
Only you can broaden your vision. If you're really interested in trying, though, then I'll explain that I made that comment because your question — "Why look for a reason?" — suggested to me an inability to see someone's point of view if they don't agree with your basic assumptions. I'm no mind reader, so I don't know exactly why you can't follow, but what you seemed to be saying was that someone that doesn't "believe that the universe was created by an all-powerful, rational, and benevolent God" must, as the only possible alternative — "On the other hand" — believe "that at the very heart of things is randomness and senselessness". So I'm guessing your vision is obstructed by a very fundamental belief that God is the cause of all order.
To see past this, try not to think of the issue being your belief in God;. That might trigger more occlusion from an adversion to atheism. Instead, try to understand that order can be detected and investigated independently of any consideration of the order's cause. In other words, someone can recognize and appreciate order, and want to learn more about it, no matter how silly their understanding of Who put the order there.
Does that help you see why someone that didn't believe in God might still want to look for a explanation for anomalies?
Comment by don provan — February 24, 2010 @ 7:56 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 8:12 pm
That's definitely true. I just wonder how "someone can recognize and appreciate order, and want to learn more about it" while not seeking a rational explanation for its cause. I guess you'd just have to ignore those nagging questions huh?
Comment by Daniel Smith — February 25, 2010 @ 8:12 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
That's right. Understanding order and being able to predict future events based on it doesn't require knowing or caring about the cause of the order. I don't know why you consider such question naggging. They are simply irrelevant.
Comment by don provan — February 25, 2010 @ 9:15 pm
February 26th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Science doesn't require knowing or caring about the cause of the order it observes – that's correct. However, once you begin to make claims about God based on science, (such as "no God required"), the cause of that order suddenly becomes extremely relevant.
Comment by Daniel Smith — February 26, 2010 @ 1:05 pm
February 27th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Hi chunk,
What non-materialistic assumptions did Woese make in his decision to use, and his approach to sequencing, the rRNA genes?
No, I was simply expecting that they actually try and give some support for outrageous statements like this:
“
The reason I expect this is, I’m pretty familiar with the writings of many of the architects of the modern synthesis, enough to know they didn’t all agree on everything (Fisher and Wright, for example). They certainly weren’t all reducto-materialists, either. Consider Dobzhansky’s comment in The Genetics of the Evolutionary Process (which, FAPP, is the 4th edition of Genetics and the Origin of Species, and published in 1970):
.
Or this quote from George Gaylord Simpson:
Simpson GG (1964). Organisms and molecules in evolution. Science 146: 1535-1538.
Let’s not forget G Ledyard Stebbins who contributed much-needed knowledge and wisdom from the botanical world:
Stebbins GL (1974). Building bridges between evolutionary disciplines. Taxon 23(1): 11-20.
Not to mention Ernst Mayr:
Mayr E (1988). Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: observations of an evolutionist Harvard University Press.
Sewall Wright wasn’t much of a reductionist, either. Mayr quotes him in the above book as saying:
So I have to wonder what it is about the modern synthesis and its proponents that prompted W&G to make such an outrageous statement.
I’m not saying he’s a crank. I’m actually an admirer of his work. However, I don't see how what he did conflicts much with the modern synthesis, frankly, and don't see much justification for the more hyperbolic aspects of the commentary. Care to supply the missing pieces?
Comment by KC — February 27, 2010 @ 1:48 pm
February 27th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Yes, once you start considering the cause of that order, then the cause of that order does become relevant.
Comment by don provan — February 27, 2010 @ 5:57 pm
February 27th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
How can they be irrelevant when asking how something came to be the way it is- is one of the 3 basic questions that science asks?
Comment by ID guy — February 27, 2010 @ 8:29 pm
February 28th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
I suppose I should have said that the fact that we cannot answer those questions is irrelevant.
Comment by don provan — February 28, 2010 @ 2:35 pm
February 28th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Thanks for the eyeroll don. I feel the same way when I hear materialists claim A) that the cause cannot be determined, but B) it can't be God.
But we can and have answered those questions don. Only materialists, (because of an a priori commitment to 'matter' as the only possible cause), believe that they can't be answered .
Comment by Daniel Smith — February 28, 2010 @ 3:35 pm
February 28th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
I say we can. But first we have to want to.
Comment by ID guy — February 28, 2010 @ 4:21 pm
March 1st, 2010 at 6:18 pm
My mistake, again. I meant that it was irrelevant that we haven't answered them. I did not mean to imply it was impossible. Sorry for the confusion.
Comment by don provan — March 1, 2010 @ 6:18 pm
March 1st, 2010 at 6:23 pm
Many people think they have answered the questions about origins, including materialists and Christians. As an impartial observer, I recognize that the matter is not settled.
Comment by don provan — March 1, 2010 @ 6:23 pm
March 1st, 2010 at 6:34 pm
Really? You feel the same way? That it's such an obvious statement that it's silly to say it? That's how I felt about you saying that if one was going to discuss God, then God was relevant.
Comment by don provan — March 1, 2010 @ 6:34 pm
March 1st, 2010 at 8:21 pm
The question is about the origin of order in the universe. Tell me Don, how does the materialist answer that question?
No Don, I said that the question of the origin of order in the universe is relevant if one is going to make claims about God based on science.
Based on your equivalent use of the terms "God" and "origin of order in the universe"; I see that you -like me- have concluded that God is the originator of order in the universe!
Comment by Daniel Smith — March 1, 2010 @ 8:21 pm
March 1st, 2010 at 9:56 pm
In a way that an impartial observer can see is as good as the way the Christian answers it. The fact that you can't even imagine a material explanation is a good example of the original observation, which was that limit vision isn't a problem somehow exclusively experienced by materialists.
Right. You said that the question of origin was relevant if the scientist discussed an origin such as God. Duh.
Comment by don provan — March 1, 2010 @ 9:56 pm
March 2nd, 2010 at 9:57 am
Which is?
No don, the fact that you can't imagine an explanation is an example of the bankruptcy of the materialist's claim to reason.
Nice try though.
Comment by Daniel Smith — March 2, 2010 @ 9:57 am
March 2nd, 2010 at 9:57 pm
Hi KC,
Woese didn't have a problem with the methodological variety of reductionism. In fact he endorsed it as such in A New Biology for a New Century
KC wrote:
Nowhere do I see Woese claiming that the framers of the modern synthesis were staunch reductionists. The claim seems more to be that the best that these great minds could seem to come up with at the time was a metaphysically tinged reductionist explanation that wasn't an explanation at all, and which was subsequently and inexplicably adopted as doctrine.
And I doubt that Woese was surprised to find that 20 years after the Modern Synthesis, it's framers were beginning to find the reductionist approach inadequate.
Then look no further than Ernst Mayr who dogmatically clung to the reductionist programme (at least where Woese's work was concerned) until he died. Woese commented,
KC wrote:
I like him too.
What part of the modern synthesis predicted HGT? What part of the modern synthesis guessed that most of the important and enduring evolution happened before the Darwinian threshold was even realized?
Perhaps if you or I had endured the insults and hostility that Woese has endured we would think differently. Being smeared by Nobel laureates (Luria), disinvited to conferences, and having your funding frozen despite doing some of the most important research in history seems the REAL hyperbole to me.
But Woese does not come off as bitter to me. I get the impression that he is less zealous for his own reputation than he is for the purity and advancement of science.
You know, you piqued my interest by mentioning Doolittle so I read up a little on him and another guy named Gupta who are challenging the archeal domain. Should these guys succeed, (and they well may) in overturning the third domain, I really can't imagine that Woese would be entirely displeased because it will have been on the basis of a holistic approach. Ronald Reagan once said something apropos along the lines of "It's amazing what you can accomplish when you don't care who gets the credit". I imagine Woese's proudest accomplishment will be the institution of "a new biology for a new century", free from reducto-material constraints.
Comment by chunkdz — March 2, 2010 @ 9:57 pm
March 3rd, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Both think the answer is "it just happen", but they cite different causes.
What makes you think I can't imagine your explanation or any other explanation?
Comment by don provan — March 3, 2010 @ 2:16 pm
March 4th, 2010 at 6:31 am
Hi chunk,
A partial reply to your last comment:
It might help to actually read what Mayr (see reference at the end of this post) said before giving Woese the benefit of the doubt on this. For example,
Mayr isn't doing what Woese complains he is doing. Morphology is one of the legs of his argument, genetics another. And, as he points out, Woese bases his domain argument entirely on the sequences taken from the rRNA genes. One of Woese's colleagues and supporters, Norman Pace, has argued for three domains using Woese's criteria as well. Doolittle critiques Paces argument by noting:
He also says (as Mayr did):
In other words, Pace and Woese's arguments for the third domain are rooted in the tree derived from the ribosomal RNA genes, yet trees from many other genes contradict it. Woese wants the Archea to be considered a sister taxon to the Eukarya, but Doolittle notes, "Eukarya are sisters to Archea only when the majority of the usable data are discarded".
At this point I have to ask, just what is so "holistic" about Woese's approach in arguing for a third domain? Also, how is Mayr being non-holistic, dogmatic and reductionist when he points to not only morphological differences but genetic ones as well? Is Doolittle being non-holistic and dogmatic by making a very similar argument?
Woese replied to Mayr,, but the bottom line is, Woese feels he and Mayr differ in their approach to classification. Essentially, Woese takes the cladist view and Mayr doesn't. Frankly, I don't see how fundamentally disagreeing with Woese about the cladistic view of taxonomy necessarily relegates Mayr to the "non-holistic", dogmatic, reductionist camp. Consider Woese's remark:
But we know (from the above) that the "univeral phylogenetic tree" Woese is referring to is the one derived from only a few genes (the ribosomal RNA genes), and which is contradicted by many others. Now who is starting to sound a tad dogmatic? Relying only on ribosomal genes, "ribo-essentialism", as Doolitle calls it, has problems of its own:
So I have to ask the question, given the above: what makes Mayr so dogmatic, reductionist, and non-holistic over the issue of the third domain? It looks more to me like honest scientific disagreement over a still-controversial issue.
References:
Doolittle WF (2009). Eradicating typological thinking in prokaryotic systematics and evolution. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol LXXIV : 1-9
Mayr E (1998). Two empires or three? PNAS 95: 9720-9723
Woese C R (1998). Default taxonomy: Ernst Mayr’s view of the microbial world. PNAS 95: 11043-11046
Comment by KC — March 4, 2010 @ 6:31 am
March 5th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Don,
"God created, directs and sustains the universe" is different from "it just happen".
I believe you can imagine mine. You've yet to give me any reason to believe you can imagine another.
Comment by Daniel Smith — March 5, 2010 @ 8:44 pm
March 5th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
No, it really, really isn't. This is a perfect example of the narrowness of your vision.
And the fact that you can't imagine imagining any other explanation is a second example.
Comment by don provan — March 5, 2010 @ 8:53 pm
March 6th, 2010 at 10:12 am
OK Don, I get it. You have no explanation to offer, you accuse those who do of narrow-mindedness, and you have to get in the last word.
I await your parting shot…
Comment by Daniel Smith — March 6, 2010 @ 10:12 am
March 6th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Hi chunk,
To continue:
Yet neither you nor anything of Woese's you have quoted actually articulates this "metaphysically tinged reductionist" explanation.
That assumes they were reductionist in the first place. What makes you think Dobzhansky, Wright, Simpson, Stebbins and Mayr were of a metaphysically reductionist mindset at all? Nothing you have presented even suggests it. .
Could you please articulate why the modern synthesis had to predict this before there was any evidence for it? Besides, HGT is just another kind of transfer of genes between organisms. It's a limited form of hybridization. Does the modern synthesis disallow hybridization? Does it ignore the subject altogether? No, it doesn't. Further, as any undergraduate student of population genetics knows, hybridization and introgression reduce the differences between populations. High levels will erase differences and prevent differentiation. So, if we posit high levels of hybridization (via HGT, or any other method) the modern synthesis (which is based on the principles of population genetics) will predict the prevention of the firm establishment of distinctive lineages. That is exactly what Woese thinks was going on in the early stages of life.
This doesn't change the fact that Woese and Goldenfield are engaging in some extreme hyperbole of their own, which was my original point.
I agree. But you wouldn't know that from the language in the commentary. From what I understand, however, Woese has already begun to soften his advocacy of the third domain. There is a 2005 book edited by Jan Sapp called Microbobial Phylogeny and Evolution: Concepts and Controversies in which Woese is said to suggest the sister taxonomic relationship between the Archea and Eukarya (i.e, that Archea is the third domain) may be incorrect after all. But I haven't read the book myself.
.
Comment by KC — March 6, 2010 @ 12:30 pm
March 6th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Don's point seems to be that he can out imagine you so he must be right.
Comment by Bradford — March 6, 2010 @ 2:44 pm
March 6th, 2010 at 8:37 pm
The problem is he can't even do that!
He (probably) thinks my explanation is imagined yet I am able to present it in some detail and make logical defense of it.
His imaginary explanation has yet to materialize.
Comment by Daniel Smith — March 6, 2010 @ 8:37 pm
March 6th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
Imagine that!
Comment by Bradford — March 6, 2010 @ 8:50 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't understand that you actually wanted me to describe one of the millions of explanations I can imagine. OK, here you go: "Matter and energy created, directs and sustains the universe."
Comment by don provan — March 9, 2010 @ 9:42 pm