The Wise Sage
by BradfordPhillip Johnson authored Science Futures, an article that makes some points that resonate with me. From the article:
“Predicting is very difficult, especially when it is about the future.” I probably don’t need to tell readers of Touchstone that this weird sentence, paradoxically both wise and absurd, bears the trademark of New York Yankee sage Yogi Berra, the Buddha of baseball.
I think of the great Yogi’s maxim whenever I hear theistic evolutionists warn intelligent design theorists against committing what they call the “God of the gaps” fallacy. Their point is that it is futile to rely on “gaps” that the theory of evolution has not yet explained as places where divine acts might be necessary, because those gaps will inevitably be filled as science progresses. Eventually, God will be squeezed out of these spaces, with consequent embarrassment to the cause of religion.
To avoid committing this fallacy, they claim, we must concede that evolutionary naturalism in biology has been proved beyond doubt, since whatever proof is missing today will surely be supplied tomorrow. I see the point, but I wonder how these folks can be so sure that the future discoveries will always support naturalism. Don’t they know that predicting is difficult, especially when it is about the future?
Very good Phillip. The essence of gap accusations entail inherent predictions of their own. Gaps will not only be filled. They will be filled in a way that satisfies existing preconceptions. So, gaps about the details of how life was generated, will not only be filled, the filling of them will exclude any inference of design. More of Johnson:
It is easy for me to understand why atheists believe a priori that all life must have evolved by purely naturalistic means all the way from non-living chemicals to modern human beings. They have no alternative that is consistent with atheism.
I've made the same point before on many occasions. Theists have more leeway than atheists when it comes to reconciling physical evidence with their metaphysics. If divine causaility is ruled out a priori, then naturalism must be a self-sufficient explanation in the absence of supporting empirical evidence. Not believing in abiogenesis is inconsistent with atheism. But abiogenesis can be consistent with theism. More:
Another motive for adhering to theological naturalism is a desire to protect God from having to take responsibility for the nasty things in nature. It is all very well to give God credit for designing the beautiful things, but what kind of God would have designed the mosquito? I fail to see, however, how theological naturalism protects God from responsibility for everything that exists. Granted that God created by natural laws, should he not have designed the laws so that mosquitoes would not come into existence?
The cited argument for theological naturalism is dumb. How would God not bear responsibility for an evolutionary outcome?
August 27th, 2008 at 6:49 am
How very true. In science, we predict *observations*. It is quite amazing the vast number of such predictions, and in such disparate fields of study, that the Theory of Evolution successfully makes, from geology to genetics.
That is not what constitutes a Gap argument. A Gap argument points to an area of scientific ignorance and then claims it must be filled with some preferred metaphysical putty, whether Jehovah, Demons or Angels. The Gap may never be filled, but the Gap argument remains fallacious without independent scientific evidence of Jehovah, Demons or Angels. The fallacy does not depend on some future ability of inherently limited scientific and technical expertise to fill that Gap with some naturalistic alternative.
No. A vague prediction of some future discovery does not constitute valid scientific evidence. The Theory of Evolution stands or falls on its own scientific merits.
Conflating science with atheism.
All the evidence is consistent with Last Thursdayism. Any slight anomalies in nature are due to last minute updates before the curtain went up. They'll be fixed by Next Thursdayism.
Comment by Zachriel — August 27, 2008 @ 6:49 am
August 27th, 2008 at 8:08 am
How Americo-chauvinistic to attribute Niels Bohr's "It is difficult to predict, especially the future" to Yogi Berra.
Comment by Raevmo — August 27, 2008 @ 8:08 am
August 27th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Bradford: Gaps will not only be filled. They will be filled in a way that satisfies existing preconceptions.
Zachriel, you've created a strawman. There are no gaps or non-gaps that I would not attribute to God as the ultimate cause at the end of a causal trail. That's because I believe God front loaded the design of the universe for his own purposes. Most theists would agree with me. But if I refer to a natural condition and impute a link between it and intelligent or purposeful causality I am making exactly that claim and it is that claim, you or anyone else so inclined, should respond to. The fact that you would instead insert nonsense about angels or demons into a comment indicates more about you than it depicts a responsible approach to an unsettled scientific issue.
He's not conflating science with atheism when he refers to the origin of life because science has provided no empirical evidence documenting how the origin of life took place. Johnson's point is that even when science returns null for documentary evidence, atheists are forced into a one dimensional approach to causality to satisfy their metaphysical predilections.
That's clearly not the case with the solar system and David Heddle's comment is apropos.
Comment by Bradford — August 27, 2008 @ 8:12 am
August 27th, 2008 at 8:17 am
The inclination of Americans to quote Yogi indicates the nature of their sense of humor.
Comment by Bradford — August 27, 2008 @ 8:17 am
August 27th, 2008 at 9:43 am
We all predict that the sun will come up tomorrow. Yet some people reasonable enough to make that prediction will then assume that for the first time ever a prediction that has always held for biology is going to be broken any discovery now. Its no more reasonable to deny evolution that it is to deny the sun will come up tomorrow. Naturalist explaination have worked time and time again.
Sure, the willingness to embrace fairy tales as if they are real must be very liberating. However so far in the entirety of human history the embracing of fairy tales has yet to teach us one single objective fact about the world we live in. Fairy tales: 0, Science: ∞.
I agree that God cannot escape responsibility for the existance of evil. But the obvious solution to the problem of evil is that God is simply evil himself. Your only other option is to embrace the liberal notion of "there is no such thing as evil" which directly contradicts Christan teaching.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 27, 2008 @ 9:43 am
August 27th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Bradford: The essence of gap accusations entail inherent predictions of their own. Gaps will not only be filled. They will be filled in a way that satisfies existing preconceptions.
We predict the sun will rise because we have seen it occur on countless occasions and can now explain the dynamics behind the appearance. We do not see encoded genomes arise except from living sources and are not in a position to predict how they would arise in non-biotic environments. When naturalist explanations are insufficient acknowledging that is good for truth and the integrity of science.
Bradford: Theists have more leeway than atheists when it comes to reconciling physical evidence with their metaphysics.
So which fairy tale would that be- the one presupossing that consciousness arises from unconscious matter?
Science was born in a Judeo-Christian culture whose first scientists were motivated by a desire to know how the creator ordered their world. As for objective facts there are plenty of them found in the historic narratives of the ancient Hebrew writers.
Bradford: How would God not bear responsibility for an evolutionary outcome?
Or the one you ignore- that evil is the responsibility of those perpetrating it and God can allow for free will. The responsibility for murder rests with the murderer.
Comment by Bradford — August 27, 2008 @ 10:22 am
August 27th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Augustine was able to conclude that time came into existence with matter when the universe was created, based solely off of theological reasoning.
Also, Todd. Why do you insist on calling theistic beliefs "fairy tales"? Are you that unable to move past your emotional flinch when the topic comes up? You might think you're scoring points, but from my perspective, it looks sad. Like some jerk (not that you are one) that just can't stop himself from throwing out insultive, digging comments…. even when in a context that isn't befitting of those type of emotional bursts.
If you can't stop yourself, then you can't stop yourself. But if you can, please do. I'd prefer if you'd act childish on your own time.
"I agree that God cannot escape responsibility for the existance of evil. But the obvious solution to the problem of evil is that God is simply evil himself. Your only other option is to embrace the liberal notion of "there is no such thing as evil" which directly contradicts Christan teaching."
That's the 'obvious' solution, Todd?
You're not very inclined Biblically. Surprising you would make such damning comments as "which directly contradicts Christian teaching"…. considering you don't seem to have much of a clue about it.
Why does God have to be evil, Todd?
Why is God responsible for the evil?
Why is that Bradford's (or any Christians) only option?
Comment by Doug — August 27, 2008 @ 11:13 am
August 27th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Raevmo:
I agree, though it probably has more to do with assuming physicists have godlike intellects and wouldn't have a track record of saying goofy things like Yogi Berra did.
If American intelligentsia stopped worshipping every guy in a labcoat and went back to properly balanced education, misquotations like these could probably be avoided.
Comment by angryoldfatman — August 27, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
August 27th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I never said half the things I really said. — Yogi Berra
Comment by Zachriel — August 27, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
August 27th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
You defined it thusly, "The essence of gap accusations entail inherent predictions of their own."
Pointing to a logical fallacy, such as a Gap fallacy (argumentum ad ignorantiam), does not entail any "inherent predictions".
Even allowing your false statement that there "no empirical evidence" tentatively supporting natural abiogenesis, one can be an atheist and still reject abiogenesis; e.g. if the universe and life were eternal.
Of course it's consistent with Last Thursdayism.
Comment by Zachriel — August 27, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
August 27th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Bradford: you've created a strawman.
Except that's not what is occurring. At TT we don't base our beliefs on ignorance but rather on articuable facts. You're busily promoting stereotypes. And if they are truly gaps then they are open questions with regard to solutions.
Bradford: He's not conflating science with atheism when he refers to the origin of life because science has provided no empirical evidence documenting how the origin of life took place.
As you point out the presence of amino acids during last Thursday's thunderstorm can just as well support lastthursdayism. If one believes life was eternal, he believes this in the face of solid scientific evidence that the age of the earth is finite.
A good dumb down response to scientific findings about the nature of the solar system.
Comment by Bradford — August 27, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
August 27th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Zach, you're saying that Bradford's statement is false, then you buttress your claim about atheists not having to accept abiogenesis with a claim that runs contrary to the evidence (eternal universe and life)?
And aside from that point, one could never have evidence for an eternal universe or eternal life. Think about it (and you really should considering your position on the relation of evidence and the existence of any supernatural entity), what evidence could possibly support the notion that the universe existed eternally? What evidence within the universe could possibly support it?
You're not talking about something that could be supported by evidence. You're talking about brute facts. Life and the universe (I understand it was only 1 example you mentioned) being eternal could only be accepted as a brute fact.
So, I don't see how that could possibly be an alternative to abiogenesis for atheist approval.
Let me qualify that: It could be a faith-based alternative, independent of evidential support. But currently it would be worse that than. It would be a faith-based alternative, contrary to evidential support.
Comment by Doug — August 27, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
August 27th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Zach,
Or naturalism.
Or naturalism.
Even this fringe belief is consistent with naturalism.
Or naturalism.
Comment by chunkdz — August 27, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
August 27th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Your statement, "The essence of gap accusations entail inherent predictions of their own" was general, not specific. Perhaps you meant it differently.
It is "futile to rely on Gaps", but not for the reason given. Gap Arguments are fallacious because ignorance is not evidence. Though it is not a formal argument, fallacious arguments have often led to embarrassment when new discoveries have filled the Gap.
Comment by Zachriel — August 27, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
August 27th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Naturalism is a metaphysical position. As such, it is not scientific evidence. Nor is Naturalism a mechanism, so it is not analogous.
We might say that disease is caused by Demons, or we might say it is caused by germs. If we don't know, we don't know, but modern scientists confronted with a new disease will make the working assumption it has a natural cause. Are they wrong to do so?
Is it?
Not all atheists are Naturalists.
Comment by Zachriel — August 27, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
August 27th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
They're unattached claims. Whether there is or is not empirical evidence to support a given theory of abiogenesis is irrelevant to whether or not atheists necessarily have to believe in abiogenesis.
Many atheists do rely heavily on science to support their beliefs, but not all atheists do so. For instance, many Buddhists are atheists. One doesn't cease being an atheist by misunderstanding or simply ignoring science, any more than a theist ceases being a theist by mangling science, or theology.
Comment by Zachriel — August 27, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
August 27th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Zach,
Metaphysical position, metaphysical "putty", take your pick.
I don't find anything "wrong" with your metaphysical assumptions. Just don't dress them up like they are science.
Comment by chunkdz — August 27, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
August 27th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
But then why use the example of an eternal universe or eternal life?
You might have well said that "an atheist is not obligated to accept abiogenesis when they can accept a brute fact".
Which is fine and well to say, but you were addressing Bradford's statement with respects to evidential support of abiogenesis.
Comment by Doug — August 27, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
August 27th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
By the way, Bohr stole his quote from a Danish cartoonist.
Berra's "Yogi-ism" was an original.
Comment by chunkdz — August 27, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
August 27th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Something is only 'metaphysical putty' when it is used as a gap-filler. Naturalism is not a mechanism, so it is not a valid scientific explanation for unexplained phenomena. Nor is a Gap evidence of Naturalism.
We might say that disease is caused by Demons, or we might say it is caused by germs. We don't say it is caused by "Naturalism". If we don't know, we don't know, but modern scientists confronted with a new disease will make the working assumption it has a natural cause. Are they wrong to do so?
I'm not a Philosophical Naturalist.
Comment by Zachriel — August 27, 2008 @ 6:24 pm
August 27th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
That was not the claim at issue.
Johnson says that atheists only have one consistent choice. That's because he conflates a scientific conclusion with a metaphysical position. Most atheists accept abiogenesis *because that is what the evidence indicates*. If the evidence supported Steady State and an alien Johnny Appleseed scattering seeds across the galaxy, then most atheists would change their scientific position. As we would hope most theists. But they might still hold their atheistic position.
If the evidence showed that the universe was eternal, what used to be called Steady State Theory, a person could still be a consistent atheist. It's only because the scientific evidence indicates that abiogenesis is a likely possibility that a scientifically-informed atheist takes that position.
Comment by Zachriel — August 27, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
August 27th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Zachriel,
So we might say God created life, or we might say nature created life. Pick your "gap-filler".
Yet another metaphysical assertion dressed up as science. Scientists don't assume natural causes, they simply are limited to natural observation, and work with what they've got. There is a difference between working within the limitations, and assuming that the limitations are reality. Working assumptions should be reserved for predictions that are falsifiable. Saying that "x must have a natural cause" is not falsifiable, and as such it is not science.
Comment by chunkdz — August 27, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
August 27th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
That's backwards.
I'd say, Bradford thrives on evidence. For reasons apparent to most Bradford isn't interested in accepting a materialistic promissory note that some are content with holding on to, so he doesn't limit the scope to material processes exclusively, so he keeps his mind open to the possibility of transcendent, intelligent forces wrt origin of life.
But nowhere near as typical as the bulk of your posts.
Comment by Doug — August 27, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
August 27th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Doug:
Doug, it is pathetic to find grown men throwing temper tantrums because one does not believe in that which is not documented by empirical results. If cells resulted from a series of chemical reactions we should expect to be able to see this occur. If forces of nature were disposed to favor the generation of living cells OOLers would not have to marshall PR attempts to convince us this is the case. They could simply point and explain. No metaphysical pledges of allegiance would be needed.
Comment by Bradford — August 27, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
August 27th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Chunkdz wrote:
It seems to me chunkdz is describing a form of “methodological naturalism” (or MN). I think that MN is crucial to natural science. However, it is easy to conflate methodological naturalism with metaphysical (or, philosophical) naturalism (which to avoid confusion I’ll refer to as PN).
Both Philip Johnson and Bill Dembski condemn MN, which I think is unwise. MN, in my opinion, simply describes what natural science does: trace and study natural causation in the natural world. Why should anyone have a problem with something like that? I think, perhaps Johnson and Dembski are worried about the way some people blur the distinction between MN and PN.
However, if we want to guard against that type of thinking maybe we can argue that there are really two forms of MN: (1) an equivocal from of MN, and (2) and unequivocal form.
I do think it is true that many people (including some prominent scientists) do carelessly conflate MN with PN. But, when you do that MN loses all its meaning as a concept. In other words, if you want to maintain a position that is distinctly non-metaphysical then you have to keep it non-metaphyical.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — August 27, 2008 @ 9:44 pm
August 27th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
I am not against MN per se. Here's where I draw the line:
MN is not assuming a natural cause.
MN is working within the artificial boundaries of naturalism.
This is where Zachriel and many others get carried away. They figure that science has to assume natural causation for everything. Science, in fact, makes no such presumption. Science merely operates within the parameters of naturalism because it is ineffective outside of that realm.
Comment by chunkdz — August 27, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
August 27th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Zachriel,
Then stop talking like one.
Comment by chunkdz — August 27, 2008 @ 10:00 pm
August 27th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
The former is either poorly defined or not testable, while the latter is vague. However, a more specific hypothesis, e.g. that life is a natural consequence of certain specified conditions, can be used to construct a valid hypothesis. Hence, we might say that life arose naturally as a short-hand for the more detailed explanation. Please note: This is not an assertion of Naturalism.
Comment by Zachriel — August 27, 2008 @ 10:00 pm
August 27th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Shorthand for a non-existent explanation? That's not science, my friend, it's blind faith. A placeholder for what your faith tells you will someday be discovered. The belief in things unseen.
In science, we test the hypothesis, then form a conclusion. You've got a conclusion but no explanation. Your cart is before the horse.
It's precisely what one would expect a philosophical naturalist to say. And it's certainly not a first for you. Give me a good reason to think otherwise.
Comment by chunkdz — August 27, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
August 27th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
That is quite contrary to my viewpoint. I find the empirical distinction between natural and supernatural to be poorly defined. A methodological definition of science can avoid most of these ambiguities.
Comment by Zachriel — August 27, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
August 27th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
You may disagree with most scientists working in the field, but please don't misrepresent my view. We might say the Solar System formed naturally as a consequence of gravitational collapse, even though there are significant areas of uncertainty in the exact history. Please note: This is not an assertion of Naturalism.
Scientists confronted with a new disease will typically make the working assumption that it has a natural cause. Do you understand why they do so and what this statement means? Please note: It is not an assertion of Naturalism.
Comment by Zachriel — August 27, 2008 @ 10:32 pm
August 28th, 2008 at 10:37 am
I would amend chunkdz's statement to shorthand for an unobserved explanation and use Zachriel's following statement to illustrate the point.
I think every posting member at Telic Thoughts understands that diseases are associated with pathogenic causes. If we begin a search for a bacteria or virus we do so in the rational belief that one might be identified as causing the disease. If the disease is uncontrolled cellular replication causing cancer, we would rationally search for causes leading to disruptions of the cell cycle. The cause for the rational directionality afforded our search is dictated by repeated observances enabling us to link causes to effects. We observe the replication of viruses and unicellular organisms within other organisms and see the results. The observed events form patterns we come to recognize.
That's precisely where analogies to life arising fail. We do not see it happen. We gather no patterns because none are there to recognize. The patterns we are presented are ones of processes whose end results are varying biochemicals. Extrapolations replace observed events. We all believe in nature when nature reveals itself. When it does not and end results are disconnected from observations of processes leading to them, then we have no scientifically compelling reason to assert a natural cause.
Comment by Bradford — August 28, 2008 @ 10:37 am
August 28th, 2008 at 11:13 am
That's right. We compare a common situation with known causes. Finding a reasonable match, we form a hypothesis for testing, with the working assumption that it has a cause, what we consider a *natural cause*, similar to those previously determined.
We know you are blind to the evidence for abiogenesis. That's not the issue. You're not blind to the fact that many scientists say they *have* evidence to support a tentative claim of natural abiogenesis. They may be wrong, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily Philosophical Naturalists.
Extrapolations are only good so far as they lead to testable hypotheses.
Comment by Zachriel — August 28, 2008 @ 11:13 am
August 28th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Who is "we"? The swamp cronies? You don't have to sell abiogenesis when you have real evidence that life arises. You simply point to the observation of it.
An irrelevant argument from authority and not needed when convincing evidence is available.
Strawman. Not my claim.
Comment by Bradford — August 28, 2008 @ 11:51 am
August 28th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Then you should be more careful about saying things like:
Any scientist who does so is making a metaphysical statement. Most orthodox scientists will simply do what methodological naturalism dictates: that they can only work within the limits of naturalism. No assumptions about causality before the hypotheses are tested.
Good. You've presented an explanation and come to a tentative conclusion. Science.
Contrast this with your earlier statement:
A conclusion made in the hope that a plausible explanation will someday appear. Not science.
I'm sure plenty of scientists do this. But this is not methodological naturalism. This is a conclusion before the hypothesis, generated from a metaphysical position.
The truly orthodox approach is to to limit inquiry at the outset to natural observation, per MN. This way science is truly effective, and the scientists metaphysical views need not influence the outcome.
The trap that you, and other professional scientists fall into, is that the results are often the same whether you take the MN approach or the metaphysical approach. This can lead to a blurring of the distinction if one is not careful. And if it gets blurred enough, for long enough, you get professional scientists like yourself making wild metaphysical claims like "Abiogenesis is a testable hypothesis" and believing it's science.
Does repeating it over and over help you to believe?
Comment by chunkdz — August 28, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
August 28th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Zach to Bradford:
Um… Zach, there is no evidence for abiogenesis, there is just the observation that life exists (and the assumption that it must have had a beginning). Scientists claiming to *have* evidence are not telling the truth, because they have none. What they DO have is ample evidence that life does not poof into existence from raw matter under any conditions we have ever observed, conceived or tested.
You need to be clear about the difference between extrapolations and faith-based assumptions. Spontaneous generation HAS been tested, and found not to occur. Your faith-based assumptions are not science.
Honestly, nobody cares if you cling to your faith-based assumptions in spite of all empirical evidence to the contrary. People are very good at doing that very thing. To investigate the actual empirical, observable existence of life on planet earth (or elsewhere), it isn't necessary to assert ANY assumptions, extrapolations or fanciful imaginings about how it began. It's simply not pertinent to what is being quantified by scientific investigation.
Comment by Joy — August 28, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
August 28th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Is there more to it than "natural is what can be detected, observed, measured and supernatural is not", then?
Comment by Alan Fox — August 28, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
August 28th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Alan Fox
Of course not. The Higgs boson is natural because we've dete…
Wait…
Okay, the multiverse is obviously natural because we've measu…
Hmmm…
Well, consciousness is most assuredly natural because we've obser…
…
I have faith… er… I believe… ah… I TRUST, yeah, trust that science will be able to detect, observe, and measure all of these things in the very VERY near future.
Comment by angryoldfatman — August 28, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
August 28th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
I do loves me some angry old fat man!
Comment by chunkdz — August 28, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
August 28th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
We're not discussing the scientific validity of abiogenesis. I just pointed out that many scientists say they have evidence sufficient to support a tentative claim of natural abiogenesis.
We're not discussing the scientific validity of abiogenesis. We're discussing whether someone proposing a tentative hypothesis that life had a natural origin necessarily implies that person is a Philosophical Naturalist.
Comment by Zachriel — August 28, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
August 28th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
You snipped that incorrectly. My comment was in reference to the boundaries of science.
No, it's a statement about scientists.
They may merely be making a reasonable extrapolation from other diseases. As Bradford stated, "The observed events form patterns we come to recognize."
The hypothesis is the assumption.
No. You misread that. The parallel structure was obvious. Someone who thinks the evidence that life arose as a result of natural conditions on the primordial Earth might reasonably say that life arose naturally.
Yes, it was a statement about scientists.
A working assumption is not a conclusion. Scientists have great experience in the study of disease and use this knowledge to form the hypothesis, the tentative assumption which is then tested. Doing so is not Philosophical Naturalism.
And do you really think that scientists routinely consider supernatural causes for new diseases?
Comment by Zachriel — August 28, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
August 28th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Zach to Bradford:
Yet have we not been long discussing whether someone proposing a tentative hypothesis of intelligent design - complete with evidence to support it - is necessarily a "supernaturalist," therefore automatically banned from 'legitimate' science?
You guys have long insisted that the designer his/her/itself must be firmly established before we are allowed to make that design inference, no matter how much evidence there is to support it. How quickly to retreat when someone asks you how, precisely, this spontaneous generation happened. Now it's perfectly okay to be "tentative" about a generality.
I've just gotta ask, because I've long wondered… what, exactly, is the body within science that determines authoritatively who's "tentative hypotheses" can be put forward, and who's can't? Who sits on that panel of judges, and who anointed them to BE judges?
Comment by Joy — August 28, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
August 28th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
More precisely, that which has objective empirical implications.
I prefer a spare methodological definition of science which avoids most problems of distinguishing between natural and supernatural. If we can form and objectively test consistent hypotheses, then we have the seed of scientific understanding.
Comment by Zachriel — August 28, 2008 @ 7:08 pm
August 28th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Zach,
I thought we'd been over this, but ok.
So if the assumption/hypothesis is that abiogenesis occurred, how would you falsify this hypothesis?
You can't. It's not a falsifiable hypothesis. Therefore it's not science. Just another metaphysical assertion from Zachriel. Ho hum.
Comment by chunkdz — August 28, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
August 28th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Yes, we did cover this. A general claim of abiogenesis is too broad in-and-of-itself to constitute a valid scientific hypothesis. However, specific abiogenetic hypotheses can and have been proposed and tested.
Falsification of the general claim might include convincing scientific evidence of artifice. Currently, there is no evidence of artifice in the origin of life.
Comment by Zachriel — August 28, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
August 28th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
I like the way that the theologian/philosopher Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984) described science. Schaeffer argued that all world views can be reduced to 2 basic presuppositions– “the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system and the uniformity of natural causes in an open system…” (He Is There and He Is Not Silent, p 65)
I like it because, at least to me, he appears to be describing natural science as the study of a “uniformity of causes.” Another way to describe it is to substitute the word continuity for uniformity. So, in other words, natural science can be construed as the study of the continuity of natural causes. This is what empirical natural science studies; it is all that empirical natural science can study. This why natural science has a lot difficulty when there is a lot of discontinuity in the causal chain.
But notice that Schaeffer places science into a world view (or global) context. There are only two basic ones according to him: (1) a closed system– naturalism, and (2) an open system–basic theism. How do we determine to which world system we belong? Can empirical science tell us? I think not. Science works from the bottom up and is very limited in what it can tell us our global system.
I think that Schaeffer is also saying natural science can operate as well in either system– as long as our view of science is limited to the study of the uniformity (or continuity) of natural causes. In other words, natural science does not require a closed naturalistic system.
Earlier I argued that there are two ways we can look at MN: equivocally or unequivocally. Those who have an equivocal view of MN see a necessary connection between the pursuit of science, a causally closed universe and a naturalistic world view.
An unequivocal approach to MN however recognizes that science can work comfortably in either system. Unequivocal MN doesn’t confuse the M’s. M stands for methodological not metaphysical.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — August 28, 2008 @ 10:42 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 6:05 am
O'Rly?
I suspect none of these things will be detected, observed or measured unless someone makes the attempt.
For example, the Higgs boson is a prediction of a particular cosmological theory, and attempting to find it is a legitimate scientific endeavour.
Similarly, proposing a scientific theory of "Intelligent Design" which makes testable predictions might advance the claim that it has some scientific merit.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 29, 2008 @ 6:05 am
August 29th, 2008 at 6:18 am
I certainly agree about the problem of defining "supernatural". I think it stems from the colonial tendency to see things as adversarial; if a concept exists, it must have an opposite. From a scientific viewpoint, either the supernatural does not exist and is thus not worth talking about, it does exist but is invisible to the scientific method, so… ditto, or it does exist and the supernatural can influence the natural world in some way (poof?), in which case the interface where that influence is felt should be observable. Surely somewhere for the ID scientist to start.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 29, 2008 @ 6:18 am
August 29th, 2008 at 7:16 am
@ John A Designer
Sorry, I didn't read your post before commenting. You seem to be saying what I am saying.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 29, 2008 @ 7:16 am
August 29th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
To Joy:
I hope to be a semi-regular commenter on TT, and I'll use your comment above as a springboard for this brief introduction to why my perspective might be helpful.
I don't know how common it is among evolutionary creationists like myself to dismiss ID thinkers as "supernaturalists" or to "ban" them from science. But I have unequivocally disclaimed this stance. Some ID proponents have, in my opinion, excused themselves from the scientific community, and I think this is partly (but by no means exclusively) due to the kind of talk to which you refer. In other words, I think your complaint is legitimate, in part, and I think that labeling ID "unscientific" just because it might imply "supernatural" activity is ridiculous.
Similarly, please don't identify me with "you guys," the ones who insist on the specification of the identity of the "designer" in concert with a "design inference." That's silly. Anyone who talks like that has never read Del Ratzsch, a friend of mine.
My position wrt MN is, it seems, quite similar to Zachriel's. I don't embrace MN because I think explanations have to be naturalistic. I embrace MN because I have an expectation that biological phenomena have natural explanations. I don't expect cell biology to require non-naturalistic explanations for the development of cancer phenotypes, even though our current understanding of cancer cell biology is incomplete. I don't expect developmental biology to require non-naturalistic explanations for the construction of neural pathways, even though our current understanding of the development of the mammalian brain is quite incomplete. I don't expect genetics to require non-naturalistic explanations for the variation in human cognitive ability, even though our current understanding of human cognition is skeletal at best. My expectations are based on my experience, and on my view of the historical success of scientific explanation. Naturally I think I'm right, but I'm not stupid or arrogant enough to think that my expectations amount to philosophical or theological principles. I have the impression that a major difference between ID thought and my perspective is centered on these expectations, and it so seems to me that we could agree to disagree, and then make a lot of progress in our thinking together.
Comment by SteveMatheson — August 29, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Zach,
That's not what scientists mean by falsifiability. It means that your claim should have some specific predictable outcome. All you have is some vague, broad claim that reflects your metaphysical beliefs, and some spurious explanations that lack any shred of plausibility. The general claim should only come after the specific claims have been vetted. As I said before, you have your cart before your horse.
As a professional scientists, you really should understand that falsifiability is not some obstacle to overcome or avoided, it is a quality to be embraced and utilized.
Comment by chunkdz — August 29, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Hi Steve Matheson,
Glad to see your position marked out a bit.
I've often wondered, and asked TE scientist acquaintances, when was it that science ever created a track record of demonstrating that only natural causes were necessary such that they could be reasonably expected for all questions.
A list of proximate causes does nothing, however impressive, to banish teleology.
Here's a simple example I use that displays my automotive, anatomical and neurological ignorance:
Question: Why did the car turn to the left?
Because the wheels turned.
Why did they turn?
Because the transaxle moved.
Why did it move?
Because it's attached to the rack and it was moved by the steering shaft which was moved by the steering wheel which was moved by the hands, connected to the arms of the driver.
All naturalistic and mechanistic.
But not once has the question actually been answered in any way that would create any confidence that teleology has been banished by the history of these answers.
Why did the arms move? Muscle contraction caused by electrical stimulation caused by neuronal activity caused by and reflecting a brain state. And what caused that brain state?
So why did the car turn left?
The conscious will of the driver. The driver chose to go left.
And arguments to the contrary not withstanding, there is a reason this is called the hard problem and why many experts say science will likely never answer the problem of consciousness because it is outside of its purview.
I think that this is the nature of all truly scientific answers (descriptions, really, of how - not explanations of why) and I think the search for proximate causes is vital and important. But the successes in this area do nothing whatsoever to tell us if only naturalistic causes are working and science is not building a track record of demonstrating that they are or fully explaining without non-naturalistic causes.
Let's look at the other end:
Do you expect the origin of the universe to have naturalistic explanations?
How about the anthropic coincidences?
OOL?
Consciousness?
Comment by Pez — August 29, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Another quick example.
When I thought about mitosis I wondered "what makes the chromatin duplicate, line up along the centre of the cell and then move to the poles separating into equal chromosomes as they go?
Finding out about microtubules didn't really answer the question.
To me that sounds like saying that I moved to the big city because there was a nice highway connecting it to my home town and a moving van drove down it with all my stuff.
Comment by Pez — August 29, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
SteveMatheson:
Welcome to TT, Steve. Thanks for giving us a round-out of your position, and a link to your blog. We're pretty tolerant around here, so if you can avoid becoming so tiring that our eyeballs start to bleed, you should do fine. Also, you should probably be informed that arguments to authority aren't usually helpful in moving a discussion forward. Most of us are anonymous or semi-anonymous by design, reflecting Mike Gene's philosophy that arguments should stand or fall on their own merits. Most of the questions raised here on a scientific level are about things that still remain mysteries to scientists. Because much of the fast-incoming evidence from the fields is unexplainable and utterly unpredicted by the NDS uber-theoretic paradigm, that which tends to support an emerging design paradigm will be highlighted on that basis.
Then it's probably a good thing the post you cite was addressed to Zach. I do find it interesting and a bit odd to self-describe as an "evolutionary creationist" rather than a TE, which is the more common terminology by far. Is there a difference between a Theistic Evolutionist and an Evolutionary Creationist? Just trying to flesh out the continuum here…
Again, it's a good thing the "you guys" appeared in a post to Zach, then. Zach is doing double duty by being a die-hard nay-sayer here and concurrent rabble-rouser over in the Swamp's name-calling peanut gallery. If he weren't using the same nom de plume on both forums, you'd swear it was two different people.
Oh, I expect that all proximate causes and physical mechanisms will reside in the realm of physical phenomena too. In fact, I don't recall anyone here who expects otherwise. We just think that quite a bit of it displays evidence of telic design, while displaying zero evidence of having arisen via RM-NS (magic poofs + dumb luck).
No one here "requires" biology to offer non-naturalistic proximate causes or physical mechanisms. But it's interesting that you bring up cancer and mammalian brains, since I have seen some apparently non-natural anomalies in both realms. I've even sat through the sworn testimony of a dozen scientific 'experts' in a court of law firmly insisting on the existence of a genuine Miracle related to a particular human brain and its ultimately fatal injuries. And I have experienced spontaneous remission of cancer my own self. Surprisingly (or not), I expect both of those "Miracles" have natural-though-anomalous explanations. Unfortunately, science isn't looking for them. I think that's a shame, because that knowledge could be immensely useful. FAPP.
It's biology's corruption by theoretical "orthodoxy" that stands in the way. I'm hoping these debates eventually help to scrape the rust of this branch of the scientific scaffold, before it collapses under the strain.
You should consider perhaps abandoning your scarecrow, since it doesn't much apply around these parts. You won't find the IDers here arguing for supernaturalism in the regular and irregular processes of life and evolution on planet earth. Even if life on planet earth were found in the end to have been designed, it wouldn't necessarily indicate that a supernatural entity did the creating. But since the supernatural isn't part of science's FAPP job description anyway, that's not a big issue.
Comment by Joy — August 29, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
I see you misread my comment, so I'll repeat it.
A general claim of abiogenesis is too broad in-and-of-itself to constitute a valid scientific hypothesis. However, specific abiogenetic hypotheses can and have been proposed and tested.
Do you really think that scientists routinely consider supernatural causes for new diseases?
Comment by Zachriel — August 29, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Off-topicWhen have I dismisssed "ID thinkers as 'supernaturalists'" or suggested banning someone from science? I have asked you previously to provide specific quotes rather than making sweeping declarations about my comments.
Comment by Zachriel — August 29, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Zach,
And yet you believe it is falsifiable. Fascinating.
Do you really think that strawmen like this help your argument?
Comment by chunkdz — August 29, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
My question is direct and to the point. And unanswered.
When I pointed out that scientists typically make the working assumption that disease has a natural cause, you said "This is a conclusion before the hypothesis, generated from a metaphysical position". A working assumption is not a conclusion, and the hypothesis comes from knowledge of previous examples.
Comment by Zachriel — August 29, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Right. There is likely noone interested in disputing the working assumption about diseases. Knowledge garnered from previous examples is copious where disease is concerned. The applicability of knowledge to other mysteries of science is not so readily apparent.
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Chunkdz did.
Perhaps. But many scientists believe there is evidence linking the origin of life to other, known natural processes. This is an evidentiary question, not a metaphysical one. And that was the point raised.
Comment by Zachriel — August 29, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Alan Fox wrote:
I have noticed some of your posts, but I am not sure I remember your point of view. Maybe you could give me a brief summary of where you are coming from.
For the moment let me continue where I left off. I wrote above, “that Schaeffer places science into a world view (or global) context. There are only two basic ones according to him: (1) a closed system– naturalism, and (2) an open system–basic theism. How do we determine to which world system we belong? Can empirical science tell us? I think not. Science works from the bottom up and is very limited in what it can tell us our global system.”
Is that it? Are we left with just a bottom up perspective? Is there any way to decide between basic world views? I think there is. Francis Schaeffer certainly thought there was as well.
In his book, He Is There and He Is Not Silent, he writes: “What I urge people to do is to consider the two great presuppositions–the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system and the uniformity of natural causes in an open system…and to consider which of these fits the facts of what is.” (p65)
It is perfectly legitimate and rational exercise to look at a global system from a top down perspective (as limited as that might be) and make a rational judgment about which of several competing worldviews is a better explanation. Indeed, this is very natural way of thinking for us humans. Philosophers and theologians have been doing so for thousands of years.
For example, recently Anthony Flew rejected one basic world view (naturalism) and accepted a logically opposite position (basic theism or deism) purely on the basis of logical inferences and reason. He writes about it in his book, There is a God: How the Worlds Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.
“I must stress that my discovery of the Divine has proceeded on a purely natural level, without any reference to supernatural phenomena. It has been an exercise in what is traditionally called natural theology. It has no connection with any of the revealed religions. Nor do I claim to have had any personal experience of God or any experience that may be called supernatural or miraculous. In short, my discovery of the Divine has been a pilgrimage of reason not of faith.” (p93)
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — August 29, 2008 @ 11:24 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 6:51 am
It is just what you choose to believe, in a free society at least.
Well, exactly. Everyone is free to choose their own philiosophy, in a free society at least.
"Logically opposite" makes no sense at all to me. Taking a "naturalist" view merely accepts the limitations of the scientific method. It is fundamentalists such as Biblical literalists who create problems for themselves by denying the "bleedin' obvious". Flew does not seem, judging by the quote you use from him, to be confronting naturalism, just moving beyond its limits in his personal philosophy.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 30, 2008 @ 6:51 am
August 30th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Alan Fox wrote:
Theism is not the logical opposite of atheism? What kind of logic are you using?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — August 30, 2008 @ 12:26 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Hi SteveMatheson,
Welcome to TT.
Excuse my bluntness, but I sincerely hope you are being sincere. We don't need any more pretensous tap dancer's. If you think a "human-like intellegence" did it, then say so. On the other hand, If you think "unorchestrated (i.e. random) mutations did it" then say that.
Modifications of opinions are allowed and even encouraged (often strongly).
I hope you will offer positive proposals and hypotheses.
Personally, I propose orchestrated quantum effects are at work (interconnected in both space and time).
At any rate, it is nice to see new faces like yours at Telic Thoughts.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 30, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
TP, thanks for the welcome. Not sure what "pretensous tap dancer's" are but I would probably just ignore someone who referred to me in that way. I'm always sincere (meaning honest) so I have a tendency to say "I don't know," especially when it comes to questions that you might answer with "orchestrated quantum effects."
I'm a Christian who believes in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and I'm not arrogant enough to pretend to know how he has worked all these 14 billion years. So you might be disappointed in my lack of "positive proposals and hypotheses." I find the concept of design interesting, especially because I'm a Christian, but I find the ID movement to be impoverished, morally and intellectually. So I consider myself a friendly critic. I'm friendly to the discussion of design, obviously friendly to the discussion of God and his work, but critical of bogus arguments, quote mining, culture war chest-beating, and the abuse of science.
Comment by SteveMatheson — August 30, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Hi Steve,
Nice reply to TP.
Upthread I asked, with regard to your expectation of naturalistic answers to biological questions,:
Comment by Pez — August 30, 2008 @ 7:04 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Steve Matheson,
Greetings. I have respect for your position, and have enjoyed reading your blog. However..
..I'm very critical of many aspects of ID/the 'movement' myself. But your putting it like that is just… well, funny to read. Can you really be a friendly critic when you assert your opponents are intellectually and morally impoverished?
Nevertheless, welcome.
Comment by nullasalus — August 30, 2008 @ 7:05 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Alan Fox:
Does that make it natural or supernatural?
And what about the multiverse and consciousness, which you have ignored?
How about intelligence? How does one go about detecting, observing, or measuring it directly?
Comment by angryoldfatman — August 30, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
August 30th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Hi nullasalus–
I remember you from UD…hi again. Yeah, it does sound funny that way… Let me expand.
I was trying to separate my interest in design and in God's work from my low opinion of the ID movement as it is represented by its several unofficial spokespersons (and as it is perceived on the ground in the Christian culture I interact with). In my experience it is common to associate "design" with the ID movement. And that movement has little intellectual or moral credibility in my book, because its leaders have next to none and it is rare for its fans and followers to acknowledge this.
But of course there are design thinkers who are curious skeptics intent on exploring design but who exhibit integrity. On the ASA listserv and