Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Flawed Philosophy of Intelligent Design
Tech Central Station ^ | 11/17/2005 | James Harrington

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.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: buffoonery; id; idiocy; ignornanceisstrength; intelligentdesign; naturalism; naturalphilosophy; naturaltheology; science; teilhard
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 341-344 next last
To: WildHorseCrash
Learn the difference between what you want and what the law requires, and you will understand two things: Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean that it is against the law or should be.

Prophetic words. You would do well to heed them.

You’re all over the place in your response. The only pattern I can discern is that you are sanguine about construction, and content to leave matters to the people where the outcome is of little interest to you, but adamant that the people cannot be trusted where the outcome may affect your cause de jour.

“Our peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.” .....Thomas Jefferson, letter to Wilson Cary Nicholas, 7 September, 1803

I had offered several cases to demonstrate that the humor of the high courts is anything but reliable (and you have my thanks for adding another which had slipped my mind). Oh, no problem, you say, there is no constitutional obligation placed on the governing bodies or their patrons.

No? In the Ninth Circus that comes later. Most likely in the form of a court order. For now, what was once thought protected - government prying into the most intimate thoughts of children as young as six - has become an incessant vigil for parents, who must guard their children against a secretive and sneaky school administration. It’s doubtful there is any ‘damned law’ to change. The policy was probably instituted as an administrative decision, with, or without, board participation. So the appropriate jurisdiction (which may, or may not, have identical boundaries with the school district) must be petitioned, and a law must be passed prohibiting an action which the Ninth has already found constitutional. Any bets there won’t be a court challenge to any law passed? No? Go tell it to the judge.

The status of eminent domain is the same kettle of fish. A property right that once was protected, has been made subject to the whims and avarice of numberless legislative bodies. Ca-ching! Ca-ching! Cash registers ring! It’s Christmas year ‘round on the tax rolls (Oh, excuse me: it’s some-dayoff-instituted-a-long-time-ago-we-don’t-know-why year ‘round on the tax rolls). It will be interesting to see what sort of ‘damned law(s)’ comes out of the crucible of lobbying by countless developers, public union interests, legislative bodies desperate for more patronage cash, and who knows what other special interests (surely lawyers and construction unions). Some of the laws may be just fine. I hope so. But, whatever the laws are, they will become less with time, as public attention wanes. And, whatever they become, they will be, again, laws restricting activity the Supreme Court has already found constitutional. But, no problem. Right.

Then there’s that ‘damned law’ CFR. No problem, repeal the law. Ok. Now, how do you repeal the precedent? Again, something government would just love to do, and it’s constitutional. There’s a reason why CFR is sometimes called the Incumbent Protection and Elite Establishment Press Enabling Act. CFR will be a cinch to repeal. Right.

Now, we’ve gone all around the block with a lot of hand-waving and airy dismissals from you, all because I introduced some examples demonstrating the high courts cannot be relied upon to do the expected. You want to dismiss the examples: oh, no problem; they have no constitutional implications. Well, yes they are (a problem), and yes they do (have constitutional implications). Other than the unreliability of the courts, they have little to do with Dover except in a generic way, but I don’t mind our discussion, because all of these issues are of high interest to me. They all go to the issue of who trusts the people and who does not. Jefferson and Madison do (did). I’ll go with them. The courts and the legislatures do not trust the people. I think neither you.

In Dover, the people did exactly what you would have had them do. It wasn’t enough for you. You had to have federal participation. Well you have it; so, live with it, because with federal participation comes federal control (the more participation, the more control).

I think the courts will reject ID, but I sure wouldn’t lay any odds on it. It’s moot now. The people have spoken, and spoken rightly in my opinion. There are a number of FR people who say ID is perfectly acceptable as a philosophy. Maybe, but that’s a long way from being a settled issue. ID isn’t ready. It hasn’t an organized curriculum. It hasn’t a discipline. It hasn’t certification standards. It can’t yet be evaluated for accreditation purposes. I suspect its science would be well above high school level.

261 posted on 11/18/2005 10:01:54 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: starbase

Given your desire to end this thread, I'll just say that if you take the time to examine the work on PatrickHenry's "about" page, and keep an eye out for Ichneumon's posts, I can assure you that the answers to the questions you have are out there.


262 posted on 11/20/2005 7:41:19 PM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Ultimately from "codex," latin for a wooden tablet or book... why?

I do have some idea about how proteins are made. What's the question?

I jumped from DNA to RNA because I had the glycine example handy. Neither, however, is encoded information such that information theory has any relevance, which, if I remember correctly, was the context of the original post.

263 posted on 11/20/2005 7:45:15 PM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash

Thank you. I'll check both those sources out.


Regards,

starbase


264 posted on 11/20/2005 7:45:56 PM PST by starbase (Standing on the glacial edge of a dead thread.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
ID isn't ready. It hasn't an organized curriculum. It hasn't a discipline. It hasn't certification standards. It can't yet be evaluated for accreditation purposes.

More important than any of the above: it's not remotely credible as science.

265 posted on 11/20/2005 7:50:08 PM PST by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash
I jumped from DNA to RNA because I had the glycine example handy. Neither, however, is encoded information such that information theory has any relevance, which, if I remember correctly, was the context of the original post.

Well, I think you are mistaken. The original context stated that DNA had coded information in post 170. You explicitly denied this by stating in post 236...Your majory error here is the belief that DNA is encoded information. It is not. It is one, big, long, complex biochemical problem. . You then proceeded to give a mistaken example containing ... run it through the magical RNA machine, you actually get the amino acid glycine. You actually create the stuff.

That particular sequence does not create glycine. I suggest you review the subject of mRNA, tRNA, DNA, the transcription/translation process and the ribosome. I also suggest you review the process of activating tRNA and gene splicing used in the following manner The exons are the coding region and are put back together to make the gene that is transcribed and translated into a protein. Sometimes the same gene can be spliced different ways to give rise to different proteins.

Visual aids.

Role of the Ribosome


266 posted on 11/20/2005 8:07:23 PM PST by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
You are correct about the specifics regarding lysine. I stand corrected. Serves me right for trying to dredge up high school bio after all these years without review...

Nevertheless, the main point which I was making, that the genetic code is not a "code" in the same fashion that a cypher or a language is, still stands.

Thank you for the corrective.

267 posted on 11/20/2005 8:43:54 PM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash
Nevertheless, the main point which I was making, that the genetic code is not a "code" in the same fashion that a cypher or a language is, still stands.

It is still coded information. What is your point? That letters, words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, books and libraries don't contain information?

268 posted on 11/20/2005 9:00:56 PM PST by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
That it isn't coded information in the manner that language is coded information; that communication theory is ill-suited as applied to the genetic context. I was responding, specifically, to these statements, in post #170:
5. Random processes cannot generate coded information; rather, they only reflect the underlying mechanistic and probabilistic properties of the components which created that physical arrangement.

6. Re-phrasing 5, coded information cannot arise by chance. Information requires a sender (a source of intelligence).

7. The information we see in the genetic code of life requires a source of intelligence behind it. It needed a source of intelligence (man) to discover the information and beign to understand it. You cannot have information without intelligence to create it.


269 posted on 11/20/2005 9:15:29 PM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash
That it isn't coded information in the manner that language is coded information; that communication theory is ill-suited as applied to the genetic context.

And why not? A computer program is certainly coded information in a manner similar to DNA.

270 posted on 11/20/2005 9:24:47 PM PST by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
And why not?

Because there's no communication involved. There's no sender, no receiver, no message, no meaning, no interference. It is analogous, at best, to communication. There in an intentionality inherent to communication that genetics lacks.

271 posted on 11/20/2005 9:37:19 PM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash
There's no sender, no receiver, no message, no meaning, no interference.

Well, you are wrong on at least of those. There is a message. There is a meaning. There is interference. The receiver might be the cell itself. The sender is at the moment unknown.

272 posted on 11/20/2005 9:55:34 PM PST by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

3


273 posted on 11/20/2005 9:56:11 PM PST by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
There is a message. There is a meaning. There is interference. The receiver might be the cell itself. The sender is at the moment unknown.

What is the message? What is the meaning? Prove the intentionality. Show how the "cell itself" is the receiver. What, exactly, is the "message" and "meaning" of the single base change causing sickle-cell disease.

274 posted on 11/20/2005 10:08:32 PM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash
What is the message? What is the meaning?

An example. You figure out the message. You figure out the meaning. You figure out the sender. And you figure out the receiver. These items are all here.

GM goat spins web based future

Using spider genes pinpointed by researchers at the University of Wyoming, Nexia then succeeded in breeding Webster and Pete, the world's first goats to carry the spider web gene.

275 posted on 11/20/2005 10:18:44 PM PST by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
No, not an example. I do not care about genetically modified goats. I am interested in genetics unmodified by man...

With regard to that, you said that "There is a message. There is a meaning. There is interference. The receiver might be the cell itself. The sender is at the moment unknown."

With regard to pure genetics I simply ask you, again, what is the message? What is the meaning? If you are so certain that they exist, identifying them quickly should be no problem, without the necessity of the "you figure it out" bullshit in your last message. Prove the intentionality. Again, what, exactly, is the "message" and "meaning" of the single base change causing sickle-cell disease.

276 posted on 11/20/2005 10:26:12 PM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash
No, not an example. I do not care about genetically modified goats. I am interested in genetics unmodified by man...

Sorry, WHC, you asserted something. I have shown you wrong. You denied that DNA had information. I have shown that it does. As far as the DNA is concerned, for a specific individual "A", the DNA's message is "This is the genetic make up for individual 'A'". There are subparts, such as "This describes 'adenylate cyclase 2'".

277 posted on 11/20/2005 10:32:53 PM PST by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
You denied that DNA had information.

No, I didn't. I said that it wasn't coded information in the same way that language is coded information. Are you a liar or do you just need to improve your reading comprehension skills?

And the rest of your post--your "the DNA of person A sends the message of 'this is the genetic makeup of person A'" silliness--just shows that, in fact, there in is no communication, no intentionality, no message, no meaning to genetics.

Whatever... Believe whatever silliness and superstition you want.

278 posted on 11/20/2005 10:53:46 PM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash
No, I didn't.

Don't call me a liar. These are your words.

Your majory error here is the belief that DNA is encoded information. It is not. It is one, big, long, complex biochemical problem.

Your follow-on evidence was severely flawed, such that it shows you have little or no knowledge of how DNA works, among other things.

Your blatant ignorance is no evidence of anything more than your blatance ignorance. And despite your attempts at refutation, DNA has coded information.

279 posted on 11/20/2005 11:16:56 PM PST by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash
...DNA has coded information.

ADCY2

Official Symbol: ADCY2 and Name: adenylate cyclase 2 (brain) provided by HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee
Gene type: protein coding
Gene name: ADCY2
Gene description: adenylate cyclase 2 (brain)
RefSeq status: Reviewed
Organism: Homo sapiens
Lineage: Eukaryota; Metazoa; Chordata; Craniata; Vertebrata; Euteleostomi; Mammalia; Eutheria; Euarchontoglires; Primates; Catarrhini; Hominidae; Homo
Gene aliases: HBAC2; KIAA1060
Summary: This gene encodes a member of the family of adenylate cyclases, which are membrane-associated enzymes that catalyze the formation of the secondary messenger cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP). This enzyme is insensitive to Ca(2+)/calmodulin, and is stimulated by the G protein beta and gamma subunit complex. It is expressed in brain.

280 posted on 11/20/2005 11:20:36 PM PST by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 341-344 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson