Posted on 11/17/2005 11:27:22 AM PST by Nicholas Conradin
The time has come to be blunt. The problem with Intelligent Design is not that it is false; not that the arguments in its favor reduce to smoke and mirrors; and not that it's defenders are disingenuous or even duplicitous. The problem with Intelligent Design is that it is dumb. I would contend that ID is dumb biology; even if it is on to something, what it is on to has no connection and does no meaningful work in biology (or physics). However, and more significantly, ID is dumb philosophy.
First, and despite the claims of its defenders, ID is a position in natural theology. And, despite its name, natural theology is not a branch of theology or of science, but of philosophy.
Natural theology lives on the boundary of natural philosophy (science) and metaphysics. The fundamental question of natural theology is: given what we know about the world from natural science, is the best available metaphysical picture of the universe one according to which the objects of natural science form a closed system or, alternatively, one according to which at least one entity fundamentally different from the objects of natural science is required to explain the structure of the natural world.[1]
Once we recognize that ID is a metaphysical position, we can recognize that ID has two principle competitors: metaphysical naturalism and global non-naturalism. Both of these frameworks compete with ID as fundamental perspectives for understanding the world.
First, let us consider metaphysical naturalism. Roughly, a metaphysical naturalist claims that the world per se is roughly the way that the world is portrayed in the natural sciences. The first, but not principle advantage, of naturalism is its profoundly elegant simplicity; at its heart rests the intuition that the world simply is the way that it seems to be. However, to really understand the power of this intuition pursued to a philosophical conclusion we must be willing to embrace its power to drive David Hume's war against superstition and moral privilege. The power of the tools that naturalism puts at our disposal for understanding who we are and why we are the way we are; for understanding the real place of human beings in the cosmos; and for elevating the dignity of the ordinary, both ordinary human beings and the ordinary world, cannot be overestimated. If you don't feel the pull of naturalism, then even if you ultimately find it inadequate, as I do, you just don't get it.
On the other hand there are a wide variety of non-naturalist cosmologies. General characterizations of non-naturalism fall together much less straightforwardly than do such characterizations of naturalism. This is, at least in part, because of the much greater historical depth of non-naturalism. Although, today, naturalism does feel like the default metaphysical position for those who begin their metaphysics with natural science, that is a quite recent phenomenon. Unfortunately, not being naturalists is about the only thing that the various non-naturalists have in common.
Fortunately, the virtues of non-naturalism can be usefully characterized as just the opposing virtues to those of naturalism. The best non-naturalist cosmologies derive from a very real sense on the part of their defenders of the messiness of the world; a sense that, contrary to naturalist expectations, things don't come together when we look deeper. That is, naturalism seems to require that there be a scientific picture of the world. Instead, claim their opponents, things just get weirder. Whether we are looking at quantum theory; at the strange fact that stars ever manage to light their fusion engines; at the weird and totally unexpected patterns that crop up in the fossil and evolutionary record; how can anyone who really digs down, even if they don't ultimately agree, fail to feel the pull of a metaphysical picture, which, at least, explains how all of this weirdness manages to fit together into a WORLD?
And, what do the ID types want to set against these? Some kind of bastard child of naturalism and non-naturalism. According to ID, the world perked along perfectly fine for several billion years according to the rules of physics. Over most of space-time the naturalists have it basically right, things just sort of go the way they seem they should. Then, a couple of billion years ago, along came The Designer, not itself the product of those processes. It showed up and decided to take a bunch of these otherwise perfectly natural chemicals and put them together to make bacteria and then designed in a replication system. Then it left it alone for another several million years and decided, "Hey, I've got these bacteria around, let's collect them into these other things." And, so forth.
But, this is just dumb! It takes the real virtues of both real alternatives and turns them on their heads. If naturalists value metaphysical simplicity, the simplicity of ID becomes simplemindedness. The ID theorist response to any puzzle is to demand a simple solution, even if the simple solution amounts to deus ex machina. This isn't just lazy philosophy; it's lazy fiction. On the other hand, if non-naturalists have a valuable sensitivity to the messiness of the real world, the ID theorists goal is to make that messiness go away. Pointing at every gap in our understanding and saying, "See there goes God, or whoever." isn't sensitivity to complexity; it's just stupidity.
Consider one of the most fully developed alternative evolutionary cosmologies; that of Teilhard de Chardin.[2] De Chardin, one of the most celebrated paleo-anthropologists of his generation, noticed certain patterns in the evolutionary record available to him. In particular, he noticed what seemed to be patterns in the evolutionary record related to the evolution of central nervous system complexity, i.e. thought, that seemed to be surprising if the only constraints operating on biological evolution were basic physics, the physical boundary conditions and natural selection.
Trying to summarize his conclusions from this is just about as possible -- that is, it's not possible to do fairly -- as would be attempting to summarize, for example Richard Dawkins' attempt at an evolutionary account of vision. However, what follows should at least give the reader a taste.
Teilhard thought that he could "derive" the operative constraints on evolutionary systems necessary to generate the patterns he discerned. He argued that those constraints pointed to a global teleological structure for the entire universe. Roughly, these constraints are equivalent to postulating the evolution of conscious awareness, the noosphere, as a cosmological endpoint for all natural processes.
This is probably wrong, but it is real philosophy; you could spend years struggling with everything you need to really get a handle on in order to see where Teilhard goes wrong.
And this is the first thing to notice; unlike ID, Teilhard's cosmology is not a shortcut to anywhere. Teilhard's cosmology does not close off questions; it opens them up. And, if it is right, it really does help us make metaphysical sense of everything about the universe without having to abandon real science at any point in the process. That is, for Teilhard, as much as for any naturalist, we understand the universe by looking at the universe; not outside of it. In Teilhard's universe there are no dei ex machina; things happen in the universe because that's the way they happen in this universe. The difference is that this universe is not quite as straightforwardly self-subsistent as the naturalists would have it be.
And instead of attempts to really work through these problems, we are offered ID.
Consider the following example. Imagine yourself as a visiting alien; when surveying "Africa" you discover large termite mounds. Most of the crew gets right down to the business of studying termites and figuring out how they manage to produce their nests. But, a few make a different claim. Given that the termites are clearly not sentient, they decide that the termites could not possibly have built their nests in the absence of an independent sentient nest designer -- The Termite Farmer. Therefore, they take off and go looking for The Termite Farmer instead of studying what termites actually do.
Among what I would call "real" termite biologists there can be both naturalist and non-naturalists. That is, some of them think that what you see is what you get; others think that there is something more subtle going on with the termites. However, unlike the design theorists, they both think that you learn about termites by studying termites. Not, by wandering around looking for hypothetical termite designers. However, it's actually worse than that. It's as if the believers in termite-mound designers didn't just go around being pains in the neck to real biologists by pointing out the places they don't quite understand yet; problems with which the real termite biologists are, of course, already perfectly familiar. Instead of either getting down to work or getting out of the way, they go around crowing that termite biologists get it all wrong because the termite-designers tried to make it look as if they, the designers, didn't exist. That is, ID theorists need to claim that, although life looks like a fundamentally natural process subject to natural explanation, that naturalness is an illusion. But, this isn't just bad science or bad philosophy; it's a conspiracy theory fit for The X-files, and thus, while it may not be religion, it certainly is just dumb!
The author is Senior Lecturer in the Philosophy Department at Loyola University, Chicago.
NOTES
[1] There is another branch of "natural" theology, one that operates from an a priori basis. This family of arguments attempts to prove that possession of certain concepts or the ability to make certain judgments implies the existence of a "divine" being. Anselm's argument, what Kant calls the Ontological Argument, is the quintessential example.
2 Despite the claims of many naturalists, de Chardin does not make an argument from design in the sense at issue here. See Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea : Evolution and the Meanings of Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995).for an example of this mistake. See Stephen Toulmin, The Return to Cosmology for a (roughly) naturalist engagement with Teilhard which avoids this mistake.
Gitt merely asserts this. He gives no evidence nor argument nor even a plausible fallacy.
I am pretty sure that you are correct about not being able to discern that an apparently randomly generated information system was positively not intelligently designed. That was my original point. Thus, this is not a test of ID, but one of evolution. Granted, a positive result would indicate an intelligent designer, assuming Gitt's assertions are not flawed. But as you pointed out, a negative result merely means that we simply might not be looking at it right. Or, the designer might have used a method that precluded embedding 'fingerprints' in the information.
Anyway, I'd say for a couple of armchair cryptologists we've managed to kick this topic around in decent fashion. You'll have to forgive me, but I think I've hit the limits of what I can add and my momma taught me to shut up when I've run out of things to say ;-)
I haven’t forgotten a thing. I knew you’d go running to the courts (‘the law’) for your last refuge, and every time an individual gets in ‘the last word,’ if public policy doesn’t get rolled, then some other individual does. Far better it not be allowed to come down to ‘the last word.’
Typical of those steeped in a profound sense of their own invincible virtue, you place your trust in the courts with nary a thought in your head that court decisions are seldom a foregone conclusion, and won’t always turn in your favor, however righteous in your opinion you may be. Given the instance I’ve proposed, you’ve not a case at all. No religious instruction is decreed. Not so much as a mention of the word ‘religion’ is required. That doesn’t mean you wouldn’t win your case. It comes down to the judge. Some go berserk if they catch so much as a whiff of a possibility of a religious construction, however remote. But, do you want to win on that eventuality? Consider, before you commit. That is the manner in which Liberals seek to attain ‘the last word’ when they are not pleased with public policy. Lie down with Liberal dogs, get up with Liberal fleas.
We have a recent instance of the fruits of relying on the courts to decree public policy. Both Congress and The President, in the illusion that looking pretty trumped a principled stance, surrendered public policy to the Supreme Court. As a consequence, CFR is now the law of the land. We now not only have a bad law, we have bad precedent reinforced. What a victory for the stratagem of letting the Courts decide public policy! Right?
In the Dover, Penn incident, the people took matters of public policy into their own hands before the court could scarcely get its pants on, and turned out their board en masse. I’m sure you rejoiced, but did you learn anything? The court will still issue its ruling. God knows what unintended consequences will accrue. All because you couldn’t wait for the people to hand down their decision.
We have another recent instance in which the Ninth Circus Court has handed down its decision. As a consequence, children as young as first-graders can be surveyed to measure "exposure to early [sexual] trauma." It includes questions about sexual topics such as "thinking about sex" and "touching my private parts too much." Further the survey can be conducted without parental consent or even parental notification. There’s your court in which you put so much reliance. Hopefully the people will take matters into their own hands and turn out those who instituted that public policy.
Oh, I know you’ll say the Supreme Court will overturn such an incredibly ignorant decision. No problem, no worries, the Ninth Circus is the most overturned appellate court in the land. Do you know why the Ninth isn’t overturned more often? Because the Supreme Court doesn’t review more of the Ninth’s decisions. You have no guarantee this decision will even be reviewed.
I would prefer that government, particularly federal government, have nothing to do with education. I would prefer to ban governmental authority from asserting any control over the minds of the people. I do not trust government to discern (intellectually) the true from the false. I do not trust government to honestly report what is true and what is false, in the unlikely event it does stumble over them in the dark.
It's funny, not ot rip on you or anything but I remembered your prior post and a certain area of it had the flavor of "conclusively prove this to me, give me the concrete proof" kind of feel. You know, if you guys could offer me the same thing on a couple of issues I'd be a lot closer to recognizing evolution as a potential reality.
1. For instance, prove life arises from non-life. so far nobody's been able to do it. As far as I'm concerned unless this can be proved evolution will never be anything more than a flawed theory.
2. Prove inter-species evolution (not variation within the same species (or micro-evolution)) occurs. This has never been observed either so far and you'd think we see a girafopolous come from a hippo by now....now we only have to have the same lucky accident happen twice and make a female girafopolous so they could actually mate.... 3. Prove mutations produce new information, rather than just altering the information already present. I've seen five legged cows, and two-headed turtles, and short-legged sheep (none beneficial and), but I've never seen a cow with feathers (which would be evidence of NEW genetic info). A five legged cow isn't anything new genetically because they already had genetic information on how to build a leg.
I don't throw this stuff out to you to ridicule or slam you personally. these are just things that I have had to internally try to answer based on the evidence I have seen and determine what is more plausible to me. You seem to also take that approach, and so I offer these questions to you in that spirit of discovery.
The final analysis, I believe, is that neither ID or evolution are able to be proven conclusively. evolution (life from non-life, inter-species evolution) are not observable nor repeatable and so the scientific method cannot prove them. I would need more background understanding to say I believe I could prove conclusively ID to the satisfaction of evolutionists. I would say that data exists that both sides interpret to support their belief in their theories and that also disprove the other theory. In either case, both viewpoints require a degree of faith that they occur. It's really more of a question of which 'faith' you're going to be promoting.
In the 30's and 40's they did both.
Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, New York, 1954 p. 46.
"This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion"
The talk of "feelings" in science. That is what ID is all about. Does it matter if Einstein said it? Nope.
I suspect that you are a much better scientist and you are so much smarter than Einstein.
Einstien's statment certainly belies your prior statement that "Nobody would ever say nuclear reactions in the stars/universe as the work of the intelligent creator."
I suppose you believe that Einstein was a nobody? Frankly, if Einstein was a nobody, then what does that make you?
Since you can't go against my points, you go against me. It is not about a person, but about the topic. Focus, please.
As for Einstein, he was a religious man, no doubt, but known for his science, not his talk of the divine. Nobody would know Einstein if he was a Rabbi, for example. :)
* Big E evolution: The assertion that evolutionary processes are adequate to explain all living things.
You stated: "Nobody would ever say nuclear reactions in the stars/universe as the work of the intelligent creator."
I pointed out that Einstein disagreed with your statement of fact and that Einstein himself was the exception to your rule.
You then stated that Einstein's opinion was irrelevant. I then pointed out that if Einstein's opinion on science is irrelevant, then you must be a better scientist than Einstein.
Now where did I go against you. By your own words you implied that Einstein was a poor scientist since he believed that nuclear reactions were evidence of an intelligent creator, something you stated flatly that nobody would believe.
Is your opinion on Science more valid than Einstein's? How many Nobel Prizes have you earned?
"The author is Senior Lecturer in the Philosophy Department at Loyola University, Chicago."
Scary. Very scary.
"I failed to clarify that it is not believed that existing species 'evolved from one another', but from common ancestors."
Then I fail to see how evolution explains anything other than variation within a species.
Then I fail to see how evolution explains anything other than variation within a species.
I think I see why you have a hard time accepting evolution, then. Tell me, if you witnessed a dog giving birth to a cat, or a monkey spinning around and morphing into a human, would that prove or disprove evolution to you?
I pointed out that Einstein disagreed with your statement of fact and that Einstein himself was the exception to your rule.
First, Einstein was talking about "feelings" of wanting to know the truth. And that, according to him, comes from the spiritual quest. How does that invalidate anything I said? That is just his opinion. Nothing he said meant it was an intelligent creator who creates nuclear fusion. He might as well have studied Torah or Bible or any other divine ancient scripture for that. Why go to all the trouble.
You then stated that Einstein's opinion was irrelevant.
Indeed. Einstein's religious views are irrelevant. He was saying the spiritual quest to find the truth was important. I disagree. That disagreement doesn't negate the fact that my post was about science making the nuclear reaction. I was talking about the nuts and bolts of why that happened, and you injected with Einstein's personal view of the importance of seeking spiritual truth. Offtopic and of course, irrelevant.
I then pointed out that if Einstein's opinion on science is irrelevant, then you must be a better scientist than Einstein.
Einstein was talking about the importance of finding the truth(i.e. science), and, that DRIVE comes from religion. He gave his views as a religious person. Nothing in it had scientific merit. A lot of DRIVE comes from secular side as well.
Now where did I go against you. By your own words you implied that Einstein was a poor scientist
Must you lie? Don't put words in my mouth.
since he believed that nuclear reactions were evidence of an intelligent creator something you stated flatly that nobody would believe.
Of course there are people who believe it. I was merely being sarcastic. I was having an online conversation here in FR with a woman who believed earthquakes were due to intelligent force. That is my I posted it here, trying to get it going.
Is your opinion on Science more valid than Einstein's?
When Einstein talked about intelligent creator, he surely wasn't representing science. He was just a human, trying to let out his own feelings. Don't disguise his personal opinions as solid facts. Just his opinion, and irrelevant to this conversation.
How many Nobel Prizes have you earned?
One less than Einstein. ;) And why do you continue to focus on MY (lack of) scientific background? Although I must say I know a hell lot more than Einstein, because things have been discovered after his death and are in introductory biology, physics, and astronomy courses.
"I am not sure I understand your point. Do you deny that fossils exist? Do you deny that fossils show a chronological understanding from simpler life forms to vertebrates, then to dinosaurs, then to mammals? Do you deny that fossils show a development from simpler plants to present-day angiosperms?
I can assure you that fossils exist. I have one right here on my mantlepiece. It is of a fish that lived in Devonian times."
Of course fossils exist. My point is that fossils give very limited, if any, information about origins.
Chronology is another problem. Carbon dating has shown inconsistencies so it has limited dependability.
Genetic studies have shown similar genetic coding between species. Great, but no factual conclusions can be drawn from this other than life is made up of common materials.
People have tried to insert these three elements, fossils, chronology, and genetic information, into a predisposed conclusion (evolution). It's like putting 3 pieces of a 1000 piece puzzle together and claiming that you know the completed look of the puzzle.
Evolution depends on mutations as the process to cause variation and eventually leading to a new species. Leaving aside the fact that most mutations die, let's look at it from a mathematicians point of view. From a probability standpoint, the odds of having both male and female mutations that are able to mate are already slim; but to have viable male and female mutations to occur to explain every species on the planet is highly improbable.
My point is that many here are poking fun at ID believers but evolutionist theory has its own flaws. Many of those flaws are large enough for me to disbelieve it altogether. Science is in a sad state when theories can not be challenged and unfortunately it seems evolution has become an 'untouchable' theory.
No doubt.
"I think I see why you have a hard time accepting evolution, then. Tell me, if you witnessed a dog giving birth to a cat, or a monkey spinning around and morphing into a human, would that prove or disprove evolution to you?"
If you can show me evidence of that really happening, I would have to completely rethink evolution. ;)
You are chopping my sentence midway so that you can have a point. No point on your own, its all about ME.
Indeed it is.
Goodnight Einstein.
1. For instance, prove life arises from non-life.
I know it sounds like ducking the question, but the ToE doesn't even try to explain the first cause of life. The closest it comes is its assertion that all extant life share a common ancestor. This is based on the observation that all terrestrial life shares four traits deemed essential for life as we know it: replication, heritability, metabolism, and catalysis. In other words, we don't know (or even care, for the purposes of evolution) how the first life form started, but we do know that it had those four traits and passed them on to all existing life.
2. Prove inter-species evolution (not variation within the same species (or micro-evolution)) occurs. This has never been observed either so far and you'd think we see a girafopolous come from a hippo by now....now we only have to have the same lucky accident happen twice and make a female girafopolous so they could actually mate....
3. Prove mutations produce new information, rather than just altering the information already present.
It is necessary to make a clarification here before I can give an answer. It seems you are under the impression that individual creatures evolve. That is not in any way what the ToE asserts. In fact, such an occurrence would do great damage to its foundation! What it does claim is that, over time, entire populations will experience genetic drift. These very gradual changes sometimes result in a portion of the population enjoying a genetic change that in some way makes them more able to accommodate environmental pressures than their unfortunate brethren. If this environmental favoritism results in those genetically blessed having a greater propensity to propagate, then their genetic improvement will, over many generations, encompass the more and more of the population.
Additionally, if a population gets split resulting in multiple groups isolated from each other, then this mechanism will result in a gradual divergence between the separate groups. The longer these groups remain separated, the greater the divergence. Eventually, this can result in the groups ending up with genetic structures so varied that they no longer could co-exist as a single population should they come back in contact with each other.
Both of these methods rely on multitudes of subtle, gradual changes, not abrupt radical ones. Accordingly, the exact line that separates the new species from the old is very blurry indeed. However, consider this happening not just once over tens of thousands of years, but thousands of times over many millions of years. Each successive change between species might be blurry, but the differences between the originating species and the latest iteration would be a little more easy to identify.
That said, I'd like to point out that in the case of mammals, the transitional fossil record does an outstanding job of illustrating gradual changes in key skeletal structures. From reptiles, to mammal-like reptiles, to true mammals, and on to extant species, the development of mammalian indicators used to identify and classify living species today are layed out in a chronological roadmap for all to see.
Considering the potential for gradual 'micro' changes to accumulate over time, I find it hard to accept that genetic change would somehow restrict itself from crossing over an arbitrary border between species.
The final analysis, I believe, is that neither ID or evolution are able to be proven conclusively.
I'll close just by saying that science is not in the business of proving either of these. Instead, it works by attempting to disprove them. I'm sure you've been exposed to examples of how the ToE could be falsified. You've even provided one yourself in the course of our discussion. The rub with ID is it lacks such a virtue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.