Striking Similarities
by Steve PetermannThe nineteenth and twentieth centuries were times of particularly great challenge for Christianity. The advent of the historical critical method of biblical criticism that was initiated by Richard Simon in 1678, found full bloom more recently through the works of Hermann Gunkel, Martin Dibelius, Rudolf Bultmann, etc. While there had already been many critiques of biblical authority coming from outside of Christianity, this was an internal critique. Since it placed the inception of biblical texts squarely within the context of human perspectives and frailties, it was taken by many as a threat to the established notions of biblical authority. In short, it was a profound threat to biblical literalism. Not surprisingly there was a strong reaction to this "weakening" of biblical authority by the fundamentalist elements of Christianity which, by the way, continues today. What happened to the absolutism of biblical authority was like a vise. Pressure began from the outside but eventually a similar pressure emerged from within Christianity itself. When the pressure got great enough, things changed.
Anything sound familiar in this relative to the intelligent design controversy?
I think it should. Michael Ruse has claimed that the controversy is not about evolution, per se, but worldviews. I think he is right and what are worldviews if not religious, at least in the broad sense.
So what is happening in the religion of Darwinism? Of course there have long been external criticisms of Darwinism but more recently the intelligent design movement has challenged it on its own turf, science. This is similar to the external criticism that was applied to biblical authority. So is there a correlate to the internal criticism that arose within Christianity? Apparently so. In Michael Shermer's article on the recent World Summit on Evolution he reports of two prominent speakers who are doing just that.
Shermer summarizes William Provine's talk as:
"The gist of his talk was that we need a new theory of evolution, after which he listed 11 problems that included this statement: "Natural selection does not shape an adaptation or cause a gene to spread over a population or really do anything at all. It is instead the result of specific causes: hereditary changes, developmental causes, ecological causes, and demography. Natural Selection is the result of these causes, not a cause that is by itself. It is not a mechanism."
Then according to Shermer, Lynn Margulis drops another bomb:
"The problem with neo-Darwinism, Margulis concluded, is that "Random changes in DNA alone do not lead to speciation. Symbiogenesis–the appearance of new behaviors, tissues, organs, organ systems, physiologies, or species as a result of symbiont interaction–is the major source of evolutionary novelty in eukaryotes–animals, plants, and fungi."
An interesting thing about Shermer's report is that apparently there was no great uproar concerning this internal critique of Darwinism. Perhaps many think it is best to ignore it and hope that in a lack of attention it will fade. However, if the parallel holds truth and the internal critique grows the resistance from the fundamentalist elements will eventually be profound. So once again we have a vise of both internal and external critiques of neo-Darwinism.
What happened to Christianity because of the vise? The fundamentalists closed ranks and dug in. The moderate elements attempted to find some compromise that accepts the humanness of scripture while still maintaining its authority. Some more liberal elements embraced the consequences fully and formulated radical proposals like those recently of Borg and Spong.
Perhaps the same will be true of Darwinism. Those whose worldviews are not thoroughly and rigidly wedded to Darwinism will embrace the truth they find in the internal (and external?) critique and move on. Those who are fully entrenched will, no doubt, dig in and battle tooth and nail against the perceived threat. In the long run the simplicity of evolution under Darwinism, like the simplicity of earlier Christianity will be displaced with something vastly more complicated and indeterminate.
July 12th, 2005 at 3:22 pm
Question:
The fundamentalist side of Christianity lost most of its ground due to its unfortunate retreat to anti-intellectualism, by which it lost its ability even to take part in the theological dialogue. Do you see a parallel in the Darwinist story now being played out? So far it seems the real Darwinist fundies are maintaining at least a veneer of serious academic work (though for all they have published, authors like Dennett and Dawkins are not terribly persuasive).
Anyway, I'm not sure we can expect that aspect of history to repeat itself. If it does not, then will the future of Darwinism still parallel the history of Christianity? What will it look like? Or will Darwinism fundamentalism retreat the way the Christian version did?
Comment by TomG — July 12, 2005 @ 3:22 pm
July 12th, 2005 at 4:11 pm
Hi TomG,
I think it is too early to tell how things will shake out with the Darwinist fundies. Actually though, although there is a similar vise in operation, I think there is a difference between the Darwinists fundies and religious fundamentalists. Religious fundamentalists are wedded to scriptural literalism. I really don't think Darwinists fundies are wedded to Darwinism as such. What they are wedded to is ateleology. As long as the new paradigm comes along that supports that I think they will happily submit. However, my guess is that new evolutionary approaches will not provide near the atelic support that Darwinism does because they will be much more holistic and indeterminate. It will be much harder to claim the "science" of evolution supports a non-teleology.
Comment by Steve Petermann — July 12, 2005 @ 4:11 pm
July 13th, 2005 at 12:56 pm
With all due respect Steve I think you are on thin analogical ice here. The moderate elements within fundamentalism you refer to, who came to call themselves evangelicals have produced a healthy and growing body of scholarship (Craig Evans, Darrell Bock, Larry Hurtado, and N.T. Wright are just a few names who come to mind) fully in conversation with critical method, but affirming a high view of the Bible's religious authority and historical veracity. In this case the "vise from within" and the "vise from without" produced a conservative (in the theological sense) protestantism much more intellectually vibrant and healthy than what preceded it. This has not happened so far within Neo-Darwinist circles has it?
I also want to question your statement about religious fundamentalists being necessarily wedded to "scriptural literalism." Please tell me what you mean by scriptural literalism, and if you believe any attempt to maintain a high view of biblical authority in the traditional Christian sense is so wedded. I hope that is not too off topic, but I'd like to understand your argument better.
Comment by roy w. — July 13, 2005 @ 12:56 pm
July 13th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
Hi roy w,
As you seem to be alluding to, the label "fundamentalism" also has a range of theological frameworks. I'm somewhat familiar with Craig and Wright and I agree they offer sophisticated theology. I tried to qualified the term with "scriptural literalism" but I suppose that can also be explicated in different ways.
I'm sure my view of literalism is different from some, but I suppose the best way to describe it would be with some examples. In my view a literalistic approach would accept things as literal fact like a 6 literal day creation, turning water into wine, walking on water, bodily resurrection, a literal apocalyse, etc. Having said that, however, I know from my experience as a Lutheran in my youth, and from Lutheran seminary that of those things I mentioned there is a range in mainline Christianity in which of those are taken literally or metaphorically. How would you describe "scriptural literalism"
I personally do not take those things literally, but also do not think that the sentiment behind them is any less important or powerful. In my current theology, I view all scripture including non-Christian scripture as part of the overall sacramental nature of the cosmos. Where the divine is transparent in scripture, an object, nature, a person, a place, etc. that is, in my view, revelatory.
As to whether a high view of biblical authority is wedded to some level of literalism, I would have to say yes. But I say that based on how I would guess "authority" is taken to mean in most of Christianity. If things like the incarnation and resurrection are not taken literally, I would guess it is an open question whether many would claim the message of the gospel is authoritative. Certainly someone who I would now consider a revolutionary within Christian theology, Marcus Borg, has claimed those should be taken metaphorically, but he would also still claim they are authoritative in some sense, say normatively and existentially.
Comment by Steve Petermann — July 13, 2005 @ 2:55 pm
July 13th, 2005 at 4:33 pm
"In the long run the simplicity of evolution under Darwinism, like the simplicity of earlier Christianity will be displaced with something vastly more complicated and indeterminate."
Um, hate to break it to you, but that process has been going on for over a century. Evolutionary theory has been extensively critiqued and modified over the decades, as thoroughly discussed in Gould's tome "Structure of Evolutionary Theory". I can't imagine a movement developing in which scientists would insist that "The Origin of the Species" is the final word on evolutionary theory.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 13, 2005 @ 4:33 pm
July 13th, 2005 at 4:56 pm
Steve, I really got a kick out of Shermer's report. Repeatedly, throughout, he details how various speakers challenged Darwinism, followed by something to the effect of "Nobody really had an answer to their objections, but nevertheless we all agreed amongst ourselves that there wasn't any problem." Then he ends by saying how healthy all this undiscussed disagreement shows evolution to be.
Now, this could mean one of two things, depending on what Shermer means by "evolution". If he means neo-Darwinism specifically, then it doesn't really make sense in the context of the rest of his report, where he's trying to cite skepticism of neo-Darwinism's role as support for the health of evolution. Also, if he meant neo-Darwinism, he could have just said "neo-Darwinism".
Rather, he seems to mean evolution in the more broadly construed sense, and he's saying that it's healthy because there's internal disagreement over how it happened, but that everyone agrees that it did happen (although his point would have been better served if the detractors to neo-Darwinism had sparked healthy and spirited discussion, rather than being, by his report, mostly ignored).
Assuming the latter, a couple things come to mind. First, you can see the dynamic you're talking about taking place. What's acceptable to be considered as evolution is being diluted and expanded here. Shermer is allowing a pretty broad definition that doesn't just include neo-Darwinism. And second, if we're talking about evolution in the broadly construed sense, with the mechanism left unspecified, there's no reason why this, contra Shermer's introductory statements, is at odds with teleological explanation.
Comment by Deuce — July 13, 2005 @ 4:56 pm
July 13th, 2005 at 5:48 pm
Hey Deuce,
Seems like Shermer is being awfully casual about these apparent challenges to neo-Darwinism and a worldview based on it. From my engineering perspective processes like symbiogenesis would be a striking challenge to this non-telic position. Engineers bring components together from disparate systems all the time, but invariably interfaces must be designed and constructed before things can work. This is almost always a non-trivial task. Although I'm not a biologist, it would seem an incredible stretch to claim that interfaces between components to create things like organs and organ systems just happened non-intentionally.
Comment by Steve Petermann — July 13, 2005 @ 5:48 pm
July 13th, 2005 at 9:10 pm
Do you mean Shermer is being awful casual about challenges to neo-Darwinism? (You have "causal" above, but I think that's a typo.) I think if you want to understand the non-ID side better you have to realize that the popular idea of "Darwinism" as an ateleological worldview is somewhat mythical and external to what mainstream scientists actually do. Sure, Dawkins and a number of other influential scientists are atheistic and in their free time like to hawk their worldviews, using evolutionary arguments. But – and this is a key point – ateleology contributes nothing to actual evolutionary research. Dawkins does not speak for all "Darwinists" any more than the Pope speaks for all Christians.
The real meat and potatoes of neo-Darwinian theory has to do with reading the evidence and deducing what mechanisms and processes were involved in producing it. The question of whether those mechanisms and processes were ultimately designed is rather beside the point. You can just as easily do the same work, look at the same evidence, and make the same deductions, believing that what you are discovering is a set of processes which were designed to produce the kind of evidence you are finding. Or not. It makes no difference to the science or to the technique.
So if Shermer seems casual about the challenges, it's probably because it doesn't really matter, as far as the science is concerned. Common descent is pretty well established by now, and that's the core of Darwinian theory. Specific mechanisms are being studied and debated. Within Darwinian theory there have always been theistic (teleological) and atheistic (ateleological) evolutionists – the philosophical framework within which you care to interpret the ultimate significance of the science doesn't really change how you do the science. And so it goes.
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 13, 2005 @ 9:10 pm
July 13th, 2005 at 9:29 pm
The problem that people are finding with "biblical literalism" is that it often isn't the literal interpretation after all. For example, young-earthism isn't literal as those creationists claim it is. See Why Young-Earthism Isn't Biblical.
Comment by truthfinder9 — July 13, 2005 @ 9:29 pm
July 13th, 2005 at 9:52 pm
Hi Mark Nutter,
Yep you are right about the typo. Thanks. I fixed it.
If what you are essentially asserting is that an ateleological bias has no effect on research, I'll have to disagree with you on this. Any bias that arbitrarily truncates the search for scientific truth can effect research. When a bias delimits the scope of causal mechanisms that effects research. As a counter example you can take a look at how Mike Gene has explored utilizing teleological thinking as a strategy for research here.
Problem is that Shermer and his kind do not leave things in the scientific arena. They extrapolate their ateleology into the religious arena. When they do that they open themselves up to full philosophic and theological critique.
Comment by Steve Petermann — July 13, 2005 @ 9:52 pm
July 13th, 2005 at 10:14 pm
Mark:
I'd have to disagree that it's the core of Darwinian theory. Common descent predated Darwin by a fairly large margin. The central idea that Darwin really brought to the table was natural selection, or rather, the idea that natural selection was responsible for putting together slight variations, which individually weren't very substantial, to generate all the biological forms we see today. How the variations came about in the first place was left as an unanswered question, though Darwin didn't regard them as being arranged towards large-scale ends (it being natural selection's role to arrange them). Neo-Darwinism made it explicit that the slight variations (now called mutations) were random genetic changes.
Comment by Deuce — July 13, 2005 @ 10:14 pm
July 14th, 2005 at 11:17 am
Steve,
Wow, a lot got added in just a day on this thread. I don't want to take this thread away from it's purpose, which is to discuss whether Darwinist orthodoxy will have to adjust itself in the same ways orthodox or "fundamentalist" Christianity had to adjust itself in the same way in response German higher criticism etc. So I'll try and respond to your response to me in a way that ties them together
I probably meet your definition of a scriptural literalist since I believe in all your examples except a literal six day creation (neither did St. Augustine by the way, or B.B. Warfield, or Charles Hodges -assuming you are familiar with those last two and how they influenced the early American fundamentalists c. 1900-20). My definition of scriptural literalism would be an approach that woodenly ignores questions of genre, historical and literary context, and the need for an interpretive framework (a canonical/confessional one in my case). I think the real difference is that I see no reason why God could not act in space and time in the ways you describe as literal, and that while on might reject a particular instance of that on a posteriori or evidential grounds (like a literal six-day creation),
that such things are possible in principle I see no grounds for rejecting. Indeed I believe they are necessary for a distinctively Christian theology (for a contemporary and creative development of these ideas in honest dialogue with science you could check out T.F. Torrance and Alister McGrath's writings).
Now, how does this relate to Darwinism & c. I think you hit the nail on the head in your first response to Tom G. that Darwinists are not committed to a particular scheme of evolutionary theory but to non or anti-teleology simpliciter. In that same way, a traditional Christian like myself is wedded to the idea that God reveals himself in space and time such that true propositions and a coherent narrative may be constructed in dialogue with that Revelation, but not to any particular theory for articulating that principle.
So in the end, while I'm not crazy about Steve, about your definition of scriptural literalism, I retract what I said. I think your analogy is basically sound. Whether the Darwinists will be able to construct a sophisticated response when and if a consensus case emerges against current evolutionary orthodoxy is another question.
I've enjoyed dialoguing with you!
Comment by roy w. — July 14, 2005 @ 11:17 am
July 14th, 2005 at 12:41 pm
Deuce – you're right, of course, I should have said that common descent is the core of what's been retained since Darwin, and indeed it isn't original with him. Oversimplification on my part.
Steve – while I agree that any bias that arbitrarily excludes legitimate possibilities can have a negative effect on research, in practice this does not have a significant impact on evolutionary research, for two reasons. One, not all evolutionists are ateleological, so are not arbitrarily biased against teleological possibilities. In the marketplace of ideas, if a theistic evolutionist can marshall the verifiable evidence to support a particular hypothesis better than competing hypotheses can be supported, the weight of the evidence will tell in favor of the theistic evolutionist, at least as far as the specific mechanism is concerned. The teleology of that mechanism may be debatable, but if the evidence supports the mechanism itself, scientists will accept that the mechanism is justified.
Secondly, evolutionary science is mostly concerned with describing the specific processes and mechanisms by which things happen (or have happened), and teleology is largely a side issue. Calling a flagellum "designed" doesn't really tell you how the bacterium acquired the flagellum originally, so a scientific explanation of a mechanism for bestowing a flagellum on a bacterium is something that can be done independently from a consideration of whether or not the flagellum itself was designed. Design and implementation are related, but separate, domains, and evolutionary science is only exploring the "implementation" domain. Carpentry does not disprove architecture. The teleological implications are worth discussing, but they don't contribute significantly to the process of discovering the specific mechanisms by which this or that feature was originally implemented. Or at least, such does not seem to have been the case so far – perhaps someone on the ID side will find a way to use ID theory to reveal implementation details on how evolution works? That would be a development I would be interested in seeing.
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 14, 2005 @ 12:41 pm
July 14th, 2005 at 1:17 pm
Mark Nutter said:[quote] "Sure, Dawkins and a number of other influential scientists are atheistic and in their free time like to hawk their worldviews, using evolutionary arguments."[/quote]
So what would be wrong with ID scientists in their free time hawking their teleological` world views using evolutionary arguments?  If Dawkins is not denounced, why denounce those who advocate design?  Do Dawkins arguments ever appear in the scientific literature? If so, doesn't the teleological argument deserve an equal place?
Mark Nutter said: [quote]"Specific mechanisms are being studied and debated. Within Darwinian theory there have always been theistic (teleological) and atheistic (ateleological) evolutionists "“ the philosophical framework within which you care to interpret the ultimate significance of the science doesn't really change how you do the science."[/quote]
That's right! ID scientists follow the same procedures as scientists advocating a materialistic word view do. The difference being that ID scientists look for mechanisms involving intelligent organization and definable purpose, such as ones that purposefully improve the functioning of the organism — without any need for whatever "natural selection" might add to the process.  Any research into intelligent, purposeful behavior originating in biological systems, including bacteria and organisms without brains, might be pursued by a scientist with a teleological world view. Any research into how environmentally directed, purposeful adaptations might become incorporated into the genome would be teleological. (versions of Lamarckism)
Materialists will search for mechanisms that show no purpose, ones that serendipitously "just happen" to improve functioning.Â
Comment by Bert — July 14, 2005 @ 1:17 pm
July 14th, 2005 at 1:36 pm
Mark,
But what if intelligence was involved in some fashion that produced "the specific processes and mechanisms by which things happen" Should scientists just presume there is no intelligence involved? Seems to me there are at least a couple of pretty good reasons not to arbitrarily truncate exploring possibilites based on that presumption.
1) Scientific progress could be thwarted or delayed and explanations/descriptions would necessarily be incomplete and inadequate. If exploring an ID approach could prove fruitful as it has for Mike Gene on proof reading why not give it the benefit of the doubt? It might speed our understanding of biotic systems and how they came to be the way they are.
2) If scientists are going to fiddle with genetic material they would be well served to explore how to "intelligently design" genetic systems. Since evolution seems to have done a pretty good job of creating remarkable complexity without destroying all life, perhaps there are design strategies at work that account for that.
Well ID is a new approach to science. Folks like Mike, Jonathan Wells, hosts on this blog, and other ID explorers are breaking new ground. I agree, it will be interesting to see what happens.
Comment by Steve Petermann — July 14, 2005 @ 1:36 pm
July 14th, 2005 at 11:52 pm
Bert said:
Absolutely nothing!
Steve said:
I wouldn't recommend making arbitrary assumptions. The main thing is to figure out the mechanism and be able to come up with a scientific explanation/description for how Nature works and/or did work in the past. If you've got a detailed model that produces specific, predictable outcomes that can be compared to the observable evidence, and it matches, then you've got a working hypothesis, whether you assumed intelligence was involved in originally producing the mechanism or not. If ID theorizing helps you solve the puzzle, then go for it. It's not the ID that's going to make or break your case for you, but whether or not the observable evidence matches the predictable outcomes specified by the detailed model in your hypothesis. But if ID helps you make that model, then you've got something you can take to the bank.
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 14, 2005 @ 11:52 pm
July 16th, 2005 at 6:30 pm
No it isn't, it's actually just Paley dressed up in biochemical clothing.
So far as I can see, you're awfully keen on making ID something which it isn't: scientific.
Unless of course you care to answer..
1) What specifically is the designer and how did you SPECIFICALLY come to identify it and the experimental approach used?
2) What methodology did the designer use to create living things, how did you detect it experimentally and how did you rule out other mechanisms?
3) Is the method employed above in 2 still going on today and how did you experimentally derive this?
If you can't answer these, perhaps you could direct me to one of these 'leading' ID theorists who has? Until ID has something even remotely resembling a mechanism (heck, let's just start at a proper hypothesis) I wouldn't exactly call it science, let alone a new approach.
Comment by Aegeri — July 16, 2005 @ 6:30 pm
July 16th, 2005 at 6:36 pm
Oh good, seems like Bert has an answer:
1) What specifically is the designer and how did you SPECIFICALLY come to identify it and the experimental approach used?
2) What methodology did the designer use to create living things, how did you detect it experimentally and how did you rule out other mechanisms?
3) Is the method employed above in 2 still going on today and how did you experimentally derive this?
I'm awaiting these mechanisms that ID theorists have experimentally detected witth glee Bert.
And they prove it with experimentation (EG. The ames test). What experiments (you know, stuff done on lab benches not books) have ID theorists done to actually prove their mechanism of a designer? You mentioned it above so I must assume you have some idea if there is a mechanism that ID has derived experimentally somewhere. Would you care to point it out to me?
Comment by Aegeri — July 16, 2005 @ 6:36 pm
July 16th, 2005 at 6:55 pm
Better be careful, Steve, or your political Christianity may turn out to appear supportive of non-political Christianity, and not just of intelligent design theories per se as (a) scientific enterprise.
"[W]hat are worldviews if not religious, at least in the broad sense." – Steve Petermann
"Breaking new ground" – this sounds like the rote of an ID-revolutionary.
A.
Comment by g arago — July 16, 2005 @ 6:55 pm
July 17th, 2005 at 8:29 am
g,
Not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate? Thx.
Comment by Steve Petermann — July 17, 2005 @ 8:29 am
July 17th, 2005 at 2:52 pm
Aegeri:
Since you seem keen on experiment support for a position how about you first provide the experimental evidence that supports your position. Remember the hosts on this blog are not anti-evolutionists. Instead Mike's term "Intelligent Design Evolutionists" certainly applies to me and I would guess the rest of us here. If my assumption is correct that your position is that evolution is non-intentional, then provide the experimental evidence that supports that. Now before you just cite "natural law" as a given for non-intentionality, you'll first have to provide experimental evidence that the regularities and irregularities that science routinely observes is non-intentional.
Comment by Steve Petermann — July 17, 2005 @ 2:52 pm
July 17th, 2005 at 5:09 pm
Nice dodging! Bravo, bravo indeed!
So I take it you haven't a single thing whatsoever to support anything you say?
Disappointing. You sounded so confident too.
So you've dodged my questions and asked questions of your own I see. But you've ultimately given me a non-answer and tried to shift the burden of proof I see. You are the one however making the extraordinary claim, you back it up. Why are you afraid to do so? I've asked YOU about a designer, I have not told YOU if I adhere to a designer or not. YOU provide me with this evidence and 'science' you are purporting supports the designer.
This is extremely telling, because you're the one throwing around "ID is science" so what science is there? Are you telling me there really isn't any man behind the curtain? That you don't have any scientific evidence at all for a designer?
You and every other design 'theorist' just 'thinks' there is a designer? There isn't a single empiracle basis at all for it, let alone what it is or any mechanisms it used to 'design' life? Thinking there is a 'designer' is as useful scientifically as thinking 'demons' cause disease is useful medically.
I would be showing you a level of respect you have failed to show me by at least giving you an answer. All you've done is run around with the equivalent of your head on fire. Really, answering legitimate questions with irrelevant questions of your own is quite pointless. Are you telling me this whole ID is science charade is pointless and I shouldn't ask ID theorists science questions? Is this because they have no science behind them at all in reality?
So we're practicing the good old creationist tactic of goalpost shifting? Sorry, I've been doing this far too long to fall for that.
Once again:
1) What specifically is the designer and how did you SPECIFICALLY come to identify it and the experimental approach used?
2) What methodology did the designer use to create living things, how did you detect it experimentally and how did you rule out other mechanisms?
3) Is the method employed above in 2 still going on today and how did you experimentally derive this?
Care to answer this time or will I get more nonsense? You're claiming design? Good, fair enough I never disagreed with the concept hence how I asked you how it was experimentally determined. All I asked for is the EMPIRACLE scientific support that you are claiming the ID movement has produced in evidence of a designer.
Comment by Aegeri — July 17, 2005 @ 5:09 pm
July 17th, 2005 at 6:04 pm
aegeiri,
Well you were the one demanding experimental verification. I take it from your silence that you have no such verification of your position. I would think that one who demands such would accept parity. Apparently I was wrong. I will offer my evidence when you offer yours.
Comment by Steve Petermann — July 17, 2005 @ 6:04 pm
July 17th, 2005 at 7:10 pm
Actually I can assume you have none and your ringing silence and shifting of goalposts is a brilliant indication you have nothing.
Of course, the irony is that now you are attempting to salvage your sinking ship by maintaing that because I didn't answer your non-answer (let's face it, I asked you first and you failed miserably to even address any issue I raised) is just indicative of how much 'evidence' (IE none) that you have. Again, I don't have to answer your question when you didn't bother showing me any respect by answering mine in the first place.
Of course, creationists and pseudoscientific cranks who don't have evidence constantly engage in your tactics. They never answer questions, merely answer with a question of their own.
Very telling.
Comment by Aegeri — July 17, 2005 @ 7:10 pm
July 17th, 2005 at 9:32 pm
aegeri,
Ok, let's assume that my experiment evidence is analogical evidence based on observation, which is what all scientific evidence is anyway. What is yours? Do you have any? Or are you just stonewalling?
Comment by Steve Petermann — July 17, 2005 @ 9:32 pm
July 17th, 2005 at 9:52 pm
I see you're confused.
Let me ask again:
1) What specifically is the designer and how did you SPECIFICALLY come to identify it and the experimental approach used?
2) What methodology did the designer use to create living things, how did you detect it experimentally and how did you rule out other mechanisms?
3) Is the method employed above in 2 still going on today and how did you experimentally derive this?
I'm getting a bit tired of playing round and round the mulberry bush. I'm not falling for goalpost shifting so please DO present the evidence you have. I'm not INTERESTED in what I believe, I'm interested in assessing this 'scientific' evidence from you or other ID theorists that establishes it as science. Believe it or not, science works by experimentation and actually proposing and testing hypotheses. Where are they?
Why are you uncategorically REFUSING to answer such simple questions? You're the one claiming that there is scientific evidence here, that is something slightly more than belief (which is all I see you have at the moment, as you dodge the question continually).
Wrong.
Observe->Propose Hypothesis->Falsify hypothesis->Publish results.
Second step.
Independent group repeats experiment->Observes result->Agrees with your hypothesis or rejects it with a new hypothesis->Attemp to falsify new hypothesis or the old one->Publish results.
Ad infinitum.
Science is seperate from witchcraft, crankery, pseudoscience and other idiocy because hypothesis can be tested and repeated independantly by other groups. Your observations are irrelevant unless they can be repeated, tested or verified in some way. Every one of my questions naturally asks "how did you falsify" the hypothesis of a designer at each step. How did you falsify what your designer is? How did you even tell what the designer was to begin with and how did you falsify (experimentally) that? How did you determine what the mechanism used was and how did you falsify it?
Every time I challenged you for an experiment, stuff done at lab benches which ID advocates seem massively allergic to actually doing I might add, you just badgered me for what evidence I have. But that is irrelevant and I could care less what I believe, because I'm not interested in beliefs. I'm interested how you're turning YOUR belief into science and what experiments YOU have to back that up. When you use the word science I can immediately assume you've got experiments to back that up (you are aware right, as I mentioned earlier, science is done at a LAB BENCH and not in books and debates right?). So answer the questions as YOU claim ID has science to support it. YOU back up your claim.
Shift the goalposts again, which you probably will I imagine because let's face it, I know for a fact you haven't got any experimental backing because all the ID advocates you cited earlier don't do any actual research. Heck, I'd be surprised if the discovery institute even has a functional microscope. In any event you'll capitulate shortly by trying to again, shift the burden of proof somewhere it is irrelevant, so long as it isn't on what YOU'RE claiming.
At the moment, it's looking like you were lying when you said there was 'science' in ID. That means testable hypotheses and predictions to me.
Unless you think science is witchcraft where anything goes?
Comment by Aegeri — July 17, 2005 @ 9:52 pm
July 17th, 2005 at 10:09 pm
Aegeri,
Oh well. You have a lot of rhetoric but no assertions/evidence of your own. You demand a lot of IDists but none of yourself. A true interlocutor is willing to accept some level of burden. You accept none. I'm through wasting my time with you. You show no sincerity to support your own position.
Comment by Steve Petermann — July 17, 2005 @ 10:09 pm
July 17th, 2005 at 11:56 pm
Incidently, I'm actually a theistic evolutionist if anyone is bored enough to ask rather than assert. I just find it rather ironic that you've just done what I don't, I don't move my belief (that God certainly had a hand in life) into science for the very reason that I know for a fact I can't falsify the hypothesis at all. I also know of no experimental support for such a position which, as you claimed you had scientific evidence, I became curious about and decided to ask you how you had determined those three things (in reality, question 2 should be question 1).
Simply asserting that life is designed is meaningless scientifically (as I pointed out earlier). It doesn't actually do anything to advance our understanding and it would appear that if life was designed, it certainly still isn't being designed or it was over a very long time ago anyway. This is the importance of the question "how do you tell if the process of design is still going on today". If you simply call evolutionary forces 'design' then there really isn't any point anyway, because that is theistic evolution (which as I've said earlier I already ascribe to).
Again, if 'design' as a scientific theory/hypothesis is to be useful it must naturally make predictions. It must then naturally have experiments that test these predictions.
I can only assume the resounding silence I get from nearly any ID advocate when for experimental proof of their position is because this experimental evidence simply doesn't exist. That does, in a nutshell, kill ID as science.
Comment by Aegeri — July 17, 2005 @ 11:56 pm
July 18th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
Aegeri asked
Bert: The designer is the rationally functioning biological system itself, whose purpose is to maintain and maximize function.
Aegeri
Bert: The system employs all the epigenetic mechanisms by which individual systems heal wounds and achieve limited adaptation to the environment during growth and development . I haven't ruled out any mechanisms — except accidental, undirected DNA copying errors somehow organized into intelligently functioning systems by "natural selection". I ruled this out the same way I rule out all obvious mythologies. If materialists have another mechanistic, deterministic explanation, other than RM&NS, I'd be eager to hear it. In the meantime I accept as the designer the apparent organizing intelligence innate to the system itself.
Aegeri
Bert: Yes. Many of the mechanisms by which individual organisms change and adapt during growth and development are known to science and others await discovery. The mechanisms by which systems upgrade their genome to make epigenetic systems permanent also await discovery. (Lamarckian)
Comment by Bert — July 18, 2005 @ 3:54 pm
July 18th, 2005 at 10:56 pm
Surely your designer then is immediately falsified by bacterial pathogens. Bacterial pathogens not only lose the majority of their genomes, their functional genes become completely useless. Take leprosy for example, of all of the organisms genes the vast majority have been turned into useless pseudogenes and the remainder have been deleted (compared to Mycobacteria tuberculosis). Comparatively, it's lost functions and its genome is in massive decay. Hence, your designer is falsified surely as the experimental evidence from bacterial genomic studies establish that bacterial genes are neither maintained in all situations and their functional potential is diminished.
But I asked for experimental verification of this. How did you disprove, using experiments, that mutations are not accidental? Did you establish this using a modified ames mutational test that I am not aware of? As I established above, your 'designer' doesn't fit with the established evidence from bacterial pathogens which randomly accumulate mutations in their genes (reducing function) and then deleting them out. The only thing that appears important in the life of a pathogen is the aquisition of pathogenicity factors such as type three secretion systems, fimbriae and other virulence characteristics.
You have failed to rule this out experimentally.
That is what matters in science.
As I established above, said 'organising' intelligence hasn't been established experimentally, and your description of it is falsified by bacterial pathogens and how they evolve. Again, I asked how did you experimentally verify this.
But lamarckianism doesn't work with the established evidence. Do you have any experimental verification that any of these mechanisms actually occur? Again, who at a lab bench determined these mechanisms and how were they at a lab bench experimentally verified? Again, the ames test shows that mutations occur randomly and in many different manners. For example, a lethal mutation can be reverted by a wide variety of mechanisms none of which seem to follow any particular 'design' logic. Just whatever works best and the simpler the mutation (single nucleotide polymorphisms are common revertants for example) the more likely it is to be the revertant- exactly as would be predicted by random mutations selected for under natural selection. How does this fit with what you are claiming?
Comment by Aegeri — July 18, 2005 @ 10:56 pm