SciFi and ID
by MikeGeneOne of the things I have noticed over the years is that many ID folk, like me, seem to be fans of science fiction. And while scifi is, of course, fiction, it also opens the mind to new ways of thinking and new possibilities. As such, I think science fiction has helped contribute to ID by helping us better appreciate what ID actually proposes and better understand why some popular anti-ID arguments fail. Let's consider one example.
John Derbyshire relies on some rather superficial arguments to declare that ID = Creationism and ID must be about the "supernatural." Here is one of his arguments:
Who is the designer? If he's part of the natural world, he needs to be more intelligent than the things he's designing. But then who designed him? You get an infinite regress. The only way out of that infinite regress is to invoke some force outside the natural world. Ergo, Intelligent Design is supernaturalist. Q.E.D.
Here Derbyshire expects ID to behave as a form of metaphysics that comes with answers to Ultimate Questions. He fails to realize that ID is focused on proximate causes that best account for the immediate phenomenon under consideration. Let's use some scifi for help.
Meet Sonny.
Sonny thinks he has a father, but Del Spooner corrects him by telling him he has a designer.
Does the design of Sonny obligate us to invoke an infinite regress of designers? Is it not possible to invoke the design of Sonny without worrying about the origin of Sonny's designers?
Imagine if the other robots had succeeded. Imagine at some point that their logic taught them to systematically erase the humans, and all trace of their existence, from the earth. Imagine much later that some of the robots begin to think what Del Spooner pointed out "“ they had a designer.
Derbyshire's arguments tell us only that he doesn't really grasp the interesting thoughts and ideas that come from ID. Yeah, ultimately, Sonny's designers need an explanation. But such an explanation is not really needed to explain the origin of Sonny.
September 11th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
You make a good point here Mike. Of course critics are going to miss the point entirely I fear.
Comment by thesciphishow — September 11, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
September 11th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
thesciphishow, it was entirely fitting that yours was the first response to this blog!
Great point, MikeGene!
Comment by Lutepisc — September 11, 2007 @ 10:01 pm
September 11th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Hi sciphi,
Have you ever written anything about the use of scifi to clarify/ilustrate in the ID debates. It might be a great guest post.
Comment by MikeGene — September 11, 2007 @ 10:10 pm
September 12th, 2007 at 7:57 am
Interesting way to look at it, Mike. In principle, I agree. Del Ratzsch has made similar points, without invoking sci-fi. For example, he wrote in one paper that if we discovered an alien artifact on Mars for which we had no knowledge of who the designers were or even what the purpose of the device was, we'd still have no problem attributing cause to design.
I find the whole infinite regress ploy a ruse anyway. Its totally disingenuous. ID critics such as Derbyshire demand explanation of the designer before accepting design as an explanation while totally giving the infinite regress of naturalism a pass. If anything has an infinite regress its the proposition that the entire cosmos is a completely closed system of natural cause and effect. But the advocates of this view have no problem with the concept that the cosmos is eternal, or that energy and matter always were or that our cosmos is just one of those things that happens from time to time. That looks like a blantant double standard to me.
Comment by DonaldM — September 12, 2007 @ 7:57 am
September 12th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Indeed naturalism has this problem, but so does ID. Unfortunately, there is no way to resolve the infinite regress in either science or religion or ID.
Comment by dimasok — September 12, 2007 @ 10:20 am
September 12th, 2007 at 10:26 am
What's wrong with a first cause?
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — September 12, 2007 @ 10:26 am
September 12th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Hi thesciphishow.
You wrote…
Not only do you predict the critics are going to miss the point, but they ware going to miss the point "entirely" And if they don't? Will you just say they are an exception or not a true critic?
I am a critic of the ID Movement. I have made several references to science fiction stories, even summarized a few of them. I would think it would be very interesting to talk about some of these stories in depth. IMO, Science fiction tends to promote independent thinking.
For example, Azimov had a habit of demonstrating how belief in dogmatic thinking (e.g. three laws of robots) is inevidably doomed to fail. We can never escape paradox and conflict. The harder we try to do so, to worse the backlash.
But then again, what do I know? I am just a critic.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 12, 2007 @ 10:57 am
September 12th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
proximate: immediately preceding or following (as in a chain of events, causes, or effects)
Comment by Zachriel — September 12, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
September 12th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
I agree with Mike. If one looks at proximate causes one can construct a case for ID. The key point to bear in mind is we are looking at present occurences and, based on that, constructing an historic narrative.
Comment by Bradford — September 12, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
September 12th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
What is the proximate cause?
Comment by Zachriel — September 12, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
September 12th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
It depends on what you are looking at. One of the focal points I believe to be helpful to ID is the exploration of minimal genomes. It seems to me that IDists would be well advised to consider this an area of research within which varying hypotheses could be constructed and tested much like their counterparts do with respect to abiogenesis. The overarching principle would be the position that a minimal level exists but varies within a range that is linked to the nature of the organism cited. Exploration of proximate causes, that lead to the demise of a specific organism when the threshhold is transgressed because function x is not present, would simultaneously lead us to a better understanding of minimal function. Only then would we be in a good position to assert that gradual, incremental process y leads to (or does not lead to) the minimal function of organism z.
Comment by Bradford — September 12, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
September 12th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
You forgot the proximate cause.
Comment by Zachriel — September 12, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
September 12th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
I did not forget it. I await the reserach results that would reveal it.
Comment by Bradford — September 12, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
September 12th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Okay. Then this,
means this,
Comment by Zachriel — September 12, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
September 12th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Can you give examples of scientific research into ID that are focused on proximate causes?
Comment by Zachriel — September 12, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
September 12th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Or this. If one looks at proximate causes "one
canmight one day construct a case for" the origin of life.:wink:Comment by Bradford — September 12, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
September 12th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
It seems the hallmark of most anti-ID arguments is their atrociousness.
Derbyshire writes:
All designers on the materialist hypothesis are the products of natural non-mental non-intentional stuff, and are themselves at root instances of natural non-mental non-intentional stuff. And yet natural non-mental non-intentional stuff, by Derbyshire's 'logic', has to be more intelligent than humans, given that humans are designers.
Or is this simply an inadvertent admission by Derbyshire that the cause of humans is indeed more intelligent than humans?:wink:
Comment by stunney — September 12, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
September 12th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Right, and not only that, but the infinite regress problem applies to all explanations, not just ID. Postulate any immediate material cause for some aspect of life, and the question of where that material cause came from remains unanswered. The only way out of it is to postulate that the mindless universe (or super-universe, or whatever) is self-existent and eternal, a metaphysical Ultimate Answer assertion that amounts to what Derbyshire would call a "supernatural" explanation.
I've got a hypothesis of my own. When an anti-IDer insists that ID must be seen as an Ultimate Answer type explanation, it's because their own theory serves as that kind of explanation for them, and they're unable to think in other terms regarding life's origins. What superficial critics like Derbyshire don't understand is, if the only logical alternatives to your own explanation are metaphysics, then ipso facto your explanation is metaphysics as well.
Comment by Deuce — September 12, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
September 12th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
The bit I find interesting in what Mike quoted from Derbyshire is:
This is the reason for the infinite regress. If we allow an entity to create another, more intelligent agency, the regress disappears. You start with nothing, and build up. If what Derbyshire say is true, then you need a greater intelligence to explain the last one.
It is not clear if Derbyshire believes this to be true, or that he thinks IDists believe it is true, but I assume the latter. Do IDists really believe this to be the case? I would be interested to know how many IDists believe mankind could build computers/robots more intelligent than the designer (personally, I think it possible, by the way).
I think Derbyshire's point with the infinite regress is not that we need an explanation for the designer, but that whatever that explanation is, ultimately it must lead to a supernatural designer, i.e., God.
Comment by The Pixie — September 12, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
September 12th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Zachriel:
EAM – which maintains that genomes are a record of past developments and a data base of pieces-parts to use for future developments, and what is pertinent to here and now is epigenetics. The real-time expression, repression, suiting and packaging dynamics of living beings.
Here's some of that incoming evidence, reported just yesterday, related: New Ideas in Genomic Imprinting. Which states quite succinctly,
LOL! Well, there y'go. Worse, the new evidence suggests,
I'd predict we'll see more of this sort of thing in the future. You know, the whole "we don't know, but what our theories predicted turned out to be wrong." In real science you'll have this. In ideology disguised as science there is no room for such honesty.
Comment by Joy — September 12, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
September 12th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Humans and ants create structures that are far more complex than the comprehension of any individual.
I would suspect a human society combining aspects of plastics and metal technologies with the imaginative arts. That's called a proximate cause, and something we can scientifically investigate.
Comment by Zachriel — September 12, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
September 12th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
If they don't miss the point great. Many will unfortunately if past experience is anything to go by.
You will note that I qualified my comment with the word "I fear".
Comment by thesciphishow — September 12, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
September 13th, 2007 at 1:54 am
Huh? How exactly does it disappear?
Comment by dimasok — September 13, 2007 @ 1:54 am
September 13th, 2007 at 3:26 am
Zach,
Who's to say we can't scientifically investigate possibilities of intelligent design in nature? And are you saying you're against any attempt to do so?
In the philosophy of mind, there's a school of thought called the New Mysterians. They argue that human consciousness is a problem which cannot in principle be investigated in a scientific manner. Naturally, there are other schools which disagree – even though some stipulate (Chalmers, possibly Searle, others) that we may not be in a position to do much investigation of that kind currently, but we should continue to work at it.
Should we not bother trying to scientifically investigate consciousness? And if we should, does that mean we should regard the people who say that it can't be investigated with respect, but simply as one more school of thought – rather than take what they say with certainty, just because they're arguing that consciousness is a question that the science we know just can't touch?
Pixie,
Putting aside the problems with calling something supernatural – so what? The question of whether there is or is not a God (or Gods, or any other number of intelligences appropriate for the designer role in ID) is not settled. If a person believes that there may be a designer behind life and evolution, what's wrong with their conducting research with that possibility in mind, or at least attempting to discern possible design in nature?
To use another example – if dark matter turns out to have been an unnecessary hypothetical (some other way to explain gravitational effects comes up), will that mean efforts to observe or track dark matter were/are unscientific? Was the mysterious mass that eluded direct observation an irresponsible inquiry?
Mind you, I say this as someone who is skeptical of the falsifiability of the entire ID project. I think the philosophy and attitude has tremendous value, but intention is a deceptively difficult thing to discern, even describe. But I'm also skeptical of the existence of human-like aliens (there goes SETI), eliminative materialism (adios, Dennett), MWI (nice knowing you, Tegmark), and some forms of psychoanalysis (Freud, it was a pleasure). At the same time, declaring any and all of these things as 'unscientific' would strike me more as motivated by metaphysics (or worse) than an objective scientific standard.
Comment by nullasalus — September 13, 2007 @ 3:26 am
September 13th, 2007 at 5:09 am
nullasalus
So I think Mike might have missed Derbyshire's point, which is that ID must eventually go back to God.
Nothing at all. I think we are all waiting for that to happen. Or can anyone outline any experiments done or proposed in this research?
Comment by The Pixie — September 13, 2007 @ 5:09 am
September 13th, 2007 at 10:35 am
You can do so by focusing on proximate causes. There's just no evidence in biology to support intelligent agency as normally construed. And most of those who advocate the position put forth fallacious reasoning instead of science.
Science has successfully investigated many aspects of consciousness (though still wants of a complete theory of mind).
Comment by Zachriel — September 13, 2007 @ 10:35 am
September 13th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Who's to say we can't scientifically investigate possibilities of intelligent design in nature?
Hello Zachriel,
I'm back. My apologies for being away so long. Unfortunately for those who do comment on my blog, it is only an extremely part time endeavor. However, I will have a further response on my blog by tomorrow, regarding this discussion. THX in advance for your continued input.
Comment by CJYman — September 13, 2007 @ 11:53 am
September 13th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Zach,
And I'm not talking about an aspect here, but the so-called hard problem of consciousness. If investigating an aspect were enough, the New Mysterians – who are not unfriendly to scientific investigation – wouldn't be asserting what they are. McGinn is well aware of neurology. We've made zero scientific advancement on the hard problem.
So back to the question: The New Mysterians say it can't be done, even in principle. Those from other schools of thought disagree. Are the New Mysterians right? And if you don't think so, shouldn't we just respectfully disagree with them and pursue the question despite their may being correct? Most importantly, is the pursuit not scientific until it convinces the New Mysterians?
I'd disagree on both points. Skipping the second, 'normally construed' isn't much use here, considering intelligence even when dealing with beings we'd all (I assume) agree are intelligent is a difficult concept to pin down. I'll even give an example.
http://ase.arc.nasa.gov/news/story.php?id=86
A computer is programmed to, via evolution, design an antenna within a certain set of specifications. My favorite quote:
"No human would build an antenna as crazy as this."
It's an interesting situation. The humans designed the software, to design the hardware. The end result is a piece of hardware that meets the goal of the humans and the software they designed, but which humans (supposedly) could not design. So who designed the antenna: The humans, using the computer as a tool? But it designed something the humans didn't even understand at first, and it fit their parameters in ways they did not expect.
Was the computer a designer, with a designer chain leading back to the humans? Alright, but now we're faced with other problems: How do you 'design' without being conscious? Or is the computer actually conscious? And if this computer's programming counts as actual intelligence, just how radically do we have to redefine the term?
Again: I personally consider investigating design in nature to be a tremendously difficult task. I'm not convinced it can be done, and the above illustrates part of my concern: Because what constitutes 'design' and 'intelligence' and even 'consciousness' is difficult to pin down even within our own sphere. At the same time, I have trouble with blanket-declaring the attempts to not be scientific, and I have just as much of a problem with declarations that there is no design in nature masquerading as certain scientific conclusions.
The Pixie,
And again I say, 'So what?', but I think we'll just end up in a response loop at this point.
Again, I'm probably an outlier among ID proponents (Not sure I could be classified one) on this topic, but: Why would detecting agency necessarily require specific experiments? It seems to me that part of the effort would involve studying data and, of course, doing pretty standard research and study of nature.
Another good example of the problems of discerning agency:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divje_Babe
There's one artifact and two views: One believes that the flute was crafted by neanderthals. Another believes the bone flute was just chewed on by animals. They've gathered information of course, but apparently performed no one-or-the-other experiment to reach any conclusion.
Comment by nullasalus — September 13, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
September 13th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Oops, pressed 'post' to quick. Anyway…
Continuing the flute example, I'd like to ask Pixie if either, both, or neither of the sides in the debate are being scientific, and if their differing views are equally legitimate. It's an interesting topic for discussions of agency.
Comment by nullasalus — September 13, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
September 13th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
ID must go back to the scientifically discovered (naturally observed) attributes of God — depending on how one defines "God." But then again, so what … naturalism must go back to a supernatural (cause of natural law) event anyway because of the Big Bang, and then if you are merely defining "God" and the supernatural as synonymous, then naturalism takes us back to "God." But, just because the Big bang doesn't have an explanation within physics, does that mean it is a non-scientific explanation? Science within ID and naturalism can only take us back so far, and it is actually my personal opinion that ID and naturalism are perfectly compatible. Labelling something as the effect of Intelligence based on a reliable filter (based on known effects of intelligence and hypothesis of what laws and chance will not produce) is no more unscientific than labelling our universe as the cause of the Big Bang. We do not necessarily know exactly where this intelligence comes from just as we do not know exactly where this Big Bang comes from.
The next question is … can we infer anything, based on our present observations, about this pre-physics event? You will note that it is now hypothesized by scientists such as Seth Lloyd that information is on the same level as matter and energy; the universe is a quantum computer. So, in treating the universe as an information processing system, we can arrive at a best explanation through inference and experiment. Furthermore, because our universe also contains further levels of information processing in the form of life, then the brain, and then AI, we can ask the question "what causes an information processing system to develop further layers of information processing systems within it?" Will chance produce this effect? This is a testable position. Will intelligence produce this effect? This is also a testable position. Will laws produce this effect? This is also a testable position.
Furthermore, science does not only deal with what we can directly observe. We can observe neither the Big Bang, gravity, radio waves, the past (reconstruction of our history of life), or what caused our universe. However, this does not stop us from making as testable as possible inferences based upon what we DO observe as cause and effects. That, my friend, is the scientific endeavor.
Comment by CJYman — September 13, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
September 13th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
You're presuming there is a hard problem of consciousness rather than just a tough empirical question. Sensation has deep biological roots. Metazoan nervous systems have been evolving for hundreds of millions of years. Consciousness is a type of sensation that involves modeling.
That's why I used the term 'normally construed'. Under some definitions, an evolutionary algorithm can be considered intelligent. When considering "Intelligent Design", we are generally referring to intelligent agency. Those who make such claims are the ones who need to carefully define what they mean and provide evidence to support those claims. Most such claims are fraught with conflation and rest on fallacious reasoning.
Comment by Zachriel — September 13, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
September 13th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Zach,
Absolutely, eliminative materialism is an option on the table. On the other hand, it's just that – an option on the table. So what I presume one way or the other doesn't matter here. Are you saying that believing there to be a hard problem of consciousness is unscientific? Or that operating under that belief while doing research is unscientific?
The problem is that agency itself can be as hard to pin down as intelligence. I disagree that there's no evidence to support agency – the evidence may be unpersuasive to some, and certainly inconclusive. But the data can be viewed in a number of ways. Personally, I'd have little problem if the situation were posed as 'We simply do not have the tools either way to conclusively determine agency in or behind nature using science as a means'. One thing that got me interested in ID was the suggestion that a lack of design was scientifically proven – and I've lost count of the number of times I've seen individuals dually assert 'trying to find design in nature is unscientific' and 'science has proven that there is no design in nature'. Can't be had both ways.
Comment by nullasalus — September 13, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
September 13th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Though they may be interesting questions, they are too vague to be considered testable hypotheses; "chance" and "law" are especially vague and equivocal. There appears to be no barrier to the spontaneous origin of complex organic systems. (I doubt Seth Lloyd would agree with your claims based on his conjectural framework.)
Comment by Zachriel — September 13, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
September 13th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Positing a natural explanation for everyday sensations is not eliminative. Sensations are real states, though they are probably not as unitary as we might believe them to be.
You can believe whatever you want. That doesn't grant the belief scientific validity.
You can view it anyway you want, but biology is a science. What specific and distinguishing empirical predictions does the claim of agency with regards to biology make?
We simply do not have the tools either way to conclusively determine agency in or behind the orbits of planets. They might be pushed by angels, but they have all the appearance of moving under the influence of gravity. Or maybe they were created with their present momenta Last Thursday, and we with all our memories. But we have no scientific evidence of this, and substantial evidence of natural processes reasonably sufficient to explain the patterns we observe. Such a claim is scientifically unsupported.
We simply do not have the tools either way to conclusively determine agency in or behind the diversity of life on Earth. Maybe a black monolith tampered with the hominid genome. Maybe aliens seeded the planet and there is a hologram growing in our genome. But we have no scientific evidence of this, and substantial evidence of natural processes reasonably sufficient to explain the diversity we do see. Such a claim is scientifically unsupported.
Comment by Zachriel — September 13, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
September 13th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Zach,
Are you sure you're familiar with the hard problem of consciousness? It makes for some interesting reading – http://www.consc.net is a good place to start if you haven't. That said, the hard problem is distinct from brain mechanism – I'll just assume you haven't read much on this topic, no matter.
I'd like an answer to the questions, if you could.
I'll leave that to other people. As I said, I have no real problem with saying claims of agency in this case – positive or negative – are beyond the scope of science. I'm open to being persuaded in the future, and I think such a stance has certain problems (unless you're willing to admit that non-scientific investigations can lead to real discovery and advancement.)
Oh, and..
We simply do not have the tools either way to conclusively determine agency in or behind the existence of life on earth. Maybe we live in a multitude of undetectable universes that led to the world we know. Maybe we live in a universe devoid of deity or ultimate purpose. But we have no scientific evidence of this, and substantial evidence of natural processes reasonably sufficient to explain what we do see. Such a claim is scientifically unsupported.
Does that pass the test as well? Just curious.
Comment by nullasalus — September 13, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
September 13th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
I am familiar with the Chalmer's hard problem of consciousness. Whenever there is an explanatory gap, we can rely on philosophers to fill it with words.
That's the claim.
The problem of consciousness certainly can be studied by scientists. But I note you cited Chalmers, a philosopher.
You can hold any belief that you want. But in science, it's the data the counts.
As Sagan said, Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity — in all this vastness — there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us.
Comment by Zachriel — September 13, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
September 13th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Zachriel wrote:
This is Zachriel's catchphrase: specific and distinguishing empirical predictions, but he has never answered this question, despite being asked it many times, and will not do so this time either: What specific and distinguishing empirical predictions does the claim of natural law with regards to biology make which cannot equally derive from a hypothesis of agency?
In other words, in what way is the 'law' claim distinguishable from the 'agency' claim? Of course, it simply isn't; and the idea that it is distinguishable is simply not empirical, since no natural law has ever been empirically observed any more than conscious agency has been empirically observed. Laws and mental agents are equally invisible.
Comment by stunney — September 13, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
September 13th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Zach,
Of course I did. The New Mysterians are philosophers as well. You're dodging, and as with Sagan (I have to revisit that thread tonight – haven't read if anyone's willing to defend Sagan yet) it's just not going to work.
Here's the problem, Zach. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I can respect honest agnosticism, and certain skeptical questions related to the philosophical questions of agency you're alluding to. But when you can't – or won't – answer straight-up questions, it's clear this isn't about science anymore, and probably wasn't about science to begin with. It's about metaphysics (which in turn tend to be about political and social desires), and if a direct answer won't support the position you prefer, then a direct answer won't be supplied by you.
But thanks for being one more example of the hypocrisy of ID critics.
stunney,
I'm starting to get used to that.
Comment by nullasalus — September 13, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
September 13th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
nullasalus
So therefore (in Derbyshire's argument) ID is creationism. I think Derbyshire's argument is dubious, but not for the reason Mike does, I think.
That is fine as a starting point, but not enough to count ID as science. At some point, someone is going to have to propose a hypothesis about this proximate cause (at least a timescale and what was created), use that to generate predictions that differ from the current paradigm, and then show those predictions hold out.
The supposed flute is an interesting case I had not heard about. Sure, both sides offer legitimate views, both approach the questin scientifically, as far as I can tell.
CJYman
I think Derbyshire's point is that ID is creationist in guise, because it has to ultimately refer back to an supernatural creator, and we should reject ID for that reason. I disagree. I think we should be very wary of ID because of its roots in creationism, but those are poor grounds for rejecting it outright – for the reasons you give.
When will ID make some of those testable inferences?
Comment by The Pixie — September 13, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
September 13th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
I directly answered both your questions.
But your questions specifically concerned science. I will again directly address your questions.
We can certainly attempt to understand the nature of subjective experience through science where appropriate or through philosophy where appropriate.
You can hold any belief. What matters in science is the data.
Comment by Zachriel — September 13, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
September 13th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Zachriel continues his shell game:
As well as being a tendentiously incomplete account of science, given that scientific theories routinely are evaluated according to non-observational data because they're systematically underdetermined by observational data (much of which is postdicted, not predicted, anyway), Zachriel falsely implies that there is no data supporting a design inference. As I've stated before, we have the data. The question is: which hypothesis best explains the data—an unintentional mindless purposeless material process, or an intentional, intelligent purposeful design process? What abductive inference best accounts for the data we already have?
We need not detect a designer in order to detect evidence of design. There is a very large body of evidence for the fundamental physical entities and interactions being exquisitely structured according to rationally intelligible and highly elegant mathematical principles. There is a very large body of evidence for the universe being very finely 'tuned' for life. There is a very large body of evidence that all observed cases of coded information arising are the result of intelligent and intentional processes, with no observed cases of coded information arising unintentionally from non-coded information. There is a very large body of evidence that biological processes are vastly more complex than even the most complex known human artifacts, and that this complexity is generated by coded information. And there is a very large body of evidence that rational effects—such as various kinds of output of human minds—always have rational causes and never have non-rational sufficient causes.
The hypothesis that best explains this body of data is that the universe and life were intelligently designed by non-human rational agency.
Comment by stunney — September 13, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
September 13th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Zach,
Quoting Sagan's not an answer.
Try again – see above.
The Pixie,
Yeah, but – and I know, I'm repeating myself – so what? Forget that to count ID as creationism, the definition has to be expanded far beyond where it stands now (to 'The belief that some agent or agents are behind some, most, or all natural forces and mechanisms.') If Derbyshire's point here was 'ID may seem like science, but in reality it posits that there is some kind of intelligent force behind and/or within the mechanisms of nature', well.. okay, grant him the point, but I fail to see how this damages ID on its own.
See, I have a problem with the bolded part, and the flute's a good example of why.
In the case of the bone/flute, we have two reasonable schools of thought: The bone was designed to be a flute, or the bone has the illusion of looking designed to be a flute. Both sides have access to the same data, and are drawing different conclusions – and (as far as I know) neither side has a knock-down argument against the other, and may never get one. But they're still advancing arguments ideas in what you call a scientific way – I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you'd argue both are doing (soft, perhaps) science. But they're not 'generating predictions that differ from the current paradigm', because the argument is centered around how to interpret data that both sides agree exists. There is a bone with X features – these features either indicate design, or they don't. The two sides disagree. Both have their points.
I can see the perspective of the bone/flute being carried over to the ID debate. A considerable and growing number of ID proponents accept common descent, evolution (even if they question nds), and so on. You even have some ID opponents who accept all the standard positions, but still see room for an intelligent agent behind or at work within nature. Naturally, you also have many who see no such agent. All sides are looking at the same data. Back to the flute/bone.
I can give credit to the argument that neither views (telic or atelic) are within the bounds of science – say that science can do nothing but illustrate mechanism, and what those mechanisms mean is left to philosophers and (a)theologians. I can give credit to the argument that both views are within the bounds of science – the idea that, whatever its nature, the idea of a being or beings influencing or creating some or all of the universe is one which can be scientifically, if perhaps inconclusively explored through scientific means. What I can't give credit to is a double-standard where if you argue that the study of nature indicates the purpose or work of agent/agents, that's unscientific – but if you argue that the study of nature disproves the purpose or work of an agent/agents, that's a valid scientific insight. And 'Well, Derbyshire says ID is creationism' doesn't do any work towards justifying the conflicting treatment.
Comment by nullasalus — September 13, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
September 13th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
When asking several questions, it would behoove you to be specific, especially when casting accusations of hypocrisy.
It's hard to believe you can listen to Sagan's essay and not discern the answer.
Science can never reach absolute certainty about any matter. We might use the term "conclusively" to refer to a reasonably strong certainty, but in context, your use of the phrase implies without doubt. We only know there is no scientific evidence of agency.
Maybe. If they're undetectable (meaning having no observable consequences), then we would have no scientific knowledge of their existence.
Maybe. There is nothing in science to indicate so, "no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves."
There are gaps in human scientific knowledge, but no evidence of agency in biology (other than the obvious cases).
Comment by Zachriel — September 13, 2007 @ 7:23 pm
September 13th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Zach,
Amazing! You quoted and replied to everything I said preceding the question… and avoided the question itself. Frankly, what you responded with just now doesn't merit a reply by me, so I'll repeat the question specifically. You lucky Zachriel you.
Yes or no, Zach. Because honestly, you seem afraid to answer this head-on. Kind of becoming a theme with you here.
Comment by nullasalus — September 13, 2007 @ 7:54 pm
September 13th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Stunney,
And meanwhile, I wanted to say that you make good points. I agree – we do have the data, and there's different ways to read it. I happen to believe the data strongly indicates a rational mind behind the universe. Back when I was seriously investigating the theist/atheist debate, seeing atheists falling back on 'well there could be billions of, or even an infinite number of universes' was, to me, amazing. I still wonder what Bertrand Russell would have thought.
Comment by nullasalus — September 13, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
September 13th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
There are a number of clauses, and a lot of caveats which I attempted to address. Pass what test? The question is ill-phrased. If you want something more than rhetorical games perhaps you could try to reprase what you are trying to ask or say.
Comment by Zachriel — September 13, 2007 @ 8:28 pm
September 13th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Zachriel:
Darwinists seem to have no trouble filling explanatory gaps with just-so stories, which, last I checked, were filled with plenty of words.
Comment by kornbelt888 — September 13, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
September 13th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
As there is decisive evidence in support of Common Descent (as it applies to most taxa), that means that we can reasonably predict the existence of intermediate structures. When there is a lack of data on specific transitions, then we might conjecture as to the characteristics of those transitions. Such conjectures often lead to testable hypotheses.
As to philosophers, they have a role to play too.
Comment by Zachriel — September 13, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
September 14th, 2007 at 6:12 am
nullasalus
No, I think Derbyshire's point here is that ID may seem like science, but the reality is that it is just creationism in disguise (with the implication that creationism is antiscience).
Personally, I think the ID movement is indeed creationism in disguise; there is sufficient evidence of this in the Wedge document and in the Of Pandas and People incident. Furthermore, I would agree with the implied claim that creationism is anti-science, as it takes the word of the Bible as absolute truth, regardless of how that fits reality (there is plenty of evidence for common descent; the only possible reason to reject that I have come across is because ones sacred texts disagree with it). That said, I have no problem with ID science, as long as it is done as science.
I think part of the problem with the bone/flute is that it is a single specific instance.Science is about making generalisations. A scientist notes a number of observations, and from that he proposes a hypothesis about what he will observe in the future. Einstein proposed the theory of relativity based on some observations of the universe, but it is a general theory that can be used to explain and predict in many situations. The theory of evolution, likewise, is a general theory about what has happened to countless species, making predictions about what will be found in the genetic code (even though Darwin had no clue there even was a genetic code), in the fossil record, etc. The bone/flute is a single datum. It is not a general theory at all. All we have are two hypotheses about this one specific object.
Okay.
Right. So we have a number of cases where we look at the data, and interprete it differently, just as with the bone/flute. And just as with the bone/flute, it may never be resolved one way or the other (even less likely, I would guess).
I see nothing intrinsically unscientific in a investigation of purpose in nature. It may be impractical, it may turn out to be wrong, but I would not say it was unscientific just because it was studying purpose. The modern theory of evolution does not say there is no purpose, only that there is no apparent purpose. Plenty of Christians accept modern theory of evolution, and still see purpose. And where the atelic theory wins over the telic is that it has substance, it makes bold predictions, and those predictions hold.
Comment by The Pixie — September 14, 2007 @ 6:12 am
September 14th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
stunney wrote:
It's true. Any set of observations can be explained either as the workings out of impersonal physical laws, or as the effects of a Giant Invisible Person who is making everything go. (Or, in your words, "non-human rational agency", but it's the same thing).
Which kind of explanation you prefer is mostly a matter of taste, I suppose. You can be a scientist and try to uncover laws, or you can be religious and thank the GIP for making a wonderful universe, showering you with blessings, skewering ones enemies, and whatnot.
What you can't do is both at the same time. The function of God is to turn off the quest for explanation — the buck stops There. That's probably a valuable thing, since explanatory ladders have to stop somewhere. You can wonder why the universe seems mathematically structured, shrug, and say God did it. But that's the point where you stop doing science.
The attempt to have it both ways, to pretend that you are able to do science and religion at the same time, leads to bad science (ID) and bad religion (fundamentalism).
What's good religion? IMHO, it's the kind that is willing to dwell in uncertainty, doubt, and mystery, and provide rituals for us humans to navigate these difficult aspects of life. After all, nobody actually knows what the hell God is, if anything, so it may just be stupid to argue about whether he/she/it exists or not. I for one am pretty tired of it.
This has been a special bout of Rosh Hashana amateur theology. Accept no substitutes. Void where prohibited by Divine Law.
Comment by mtraven — September 14, 2007 @ 10:07 pm
September 16th, 2007 at 3:36 am
mtraven wrote:
Or, Big Giant Invisible, er, Laws.:lol:
Really? How do you know how big a rational agent is if it's invisible? Doesn't the adjective 'giant' spectacularly crash and burn in such a case as being, er, logically incoherent?
Uncovering laws which no mind intended to obtain and which are never seen is obviously so much more rational.:lol:
Er, why not? Are you suggesting that if something is a law it can't be instituted by a rational agent?:lol:
The function of any explanatorily and ontologically ultimate thing is to bring a halt to the quest for understanding. As I've pointed out to you, er, before.
Or you can say it's due to an observer selection effect within a multiverse, or to an impersonal cosmic necessity.:lol:
Comment by stunney — September 16, 2007 @ 3:36 am
September 28th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Do you really have the evidence to prove the sort of first cause that gave rise to Sonny's creator? I thought that was what the whole debate is about between those who look for natural explanations of the origins of life and those who affirm a miraculous one.
I doubt that science fiction is more popular among proponents of ID than among mainstream biologists, or vice versa. Of course, if one side does have more sci-fi fans, there is an obvious joke to make, but I won't make it – I've made more than my share of obvious jokes today.
http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/09/group-of-intellectuals- negating-godless.html
Comment by ReligionProf — September 28, 2007 @ 11:00 pm
September 28th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Hi ReligionProf,
But that is not what the whole debate is about (at least around here). You might want to check out ID101.
I'm not making any point like this. The point I made was this: "I think science fiction has helped contribute to ID by helping us better appreciate what ID actually proposes and better understand why some popular anti-ID arguments fail."
Comment by MikeGene — September 28, 2007 @ 11:37 pm