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.
Why does everyone 'nit pick' what I wrote?
I've explained it before.
Science has provided powerful insights repeatedly, like the germ theory of disease, which revolutionized medicine. Without a detailed knowledge of the nature of semiconductors, like silicon, nobody would be using a computer right now.
Is there a single example of where ID has an insight or understanding of the world we live in that helps people or advances knowledge?
"Good point. I say parents. And as a parent, I want my child to learn the science of evolution. So don't try to fill his head with your religious nonsense and superstitious mumbo-jumbo."
Athiest.
I never said that a theory must be "proved." No theory will ever be proved - that's not what theories are.
The Big Bang theory can be tested. It can be falsified. Predictions about the universe can be made using it, and whether or not the predictions come true is how the theory is tested.
That's what makes the Big Bang theory a theory.
How can ID be tested? How can it be falsified? What predictions about the natural world can be made using it? Those are all questions that proponents of ID must answer before ID can be taken seriously as a theory.
Athiest.
Nope! Try again!
That was an interesting argument. Perhaps the next step will be "Nazi".
Let me simplify this article for you all.
He's doing the usual liberal ploy of calling something he disagrees with dumb.
He then uses lots of big words to explain rather simple concepts for a while.
After that he redefines ID into something narrower and rather absurd.
He then demonstrates why this absurd thing that he calls ID is dumb.
It's called a strawman argument.
Intelligent design is a theory that the world was created by intelligent design.
It is not in conflict with natural science.
Intelligent design's real weakness is that it simply cannot be disproven.
It's weakness is that it's a possible anser to almost anything. Why is the sky blue? Because it was designed that way? Maybe. It's blue because of the way the atmosphere bends light, but the universe could have been designed so that the atmosphere bends light.
ID is an theroy that provides an answer that if true, cannot be confirmed, and doesn't provide a complete understanding.
However, if you want to talk about the origin of the universe, it's hard to find an answer other than ID because in our understanding of nature, things come from somewhere. So where did the universe come from? The answer is we don't know. Some will suggest that the answer is that it was created.
We cannot prove that it was created. Therefore belief that it is created is a matter of faith.
Faith is not stupid. However not understanding that you are accepting something based of faith could be considered stupid.
Everyone has faith in something. However, some people are quick to call other people's faith stupid, but are unable to grasp that they themselves assume much based on faith.
"Well, I believe in God and I also accept that the theory of evolution provides the best explanation for observed changes in allele frequencies over time. I believe that God played a role in our existence, but that doesn't invalidate evolution. You seem to have a very narrow view of His design.
As for what existed before the Big Bang, that's a meaningless philosophical question unanswerable by science, or by any other discipline for that matter. What happened before Genesis 1"
On the contrary, you and I seem to be on exactly the same page. I am catholic and have a science/engineering back ground. My belief would take pages to explain but your understanding is similiar to mine. I believe there were dinosaurs and that we evolved from something else. I also believe that the universe is still expanding (theoretically). I believe God is behind it all.
I want my child to learn the science of evolution. So don't try to fill his head with your religious nonsense and superstitious mumbo-jumbo.
Superstitious mumbo-jumbo is believing an eco system that would have mammals breathing in oxygen and giving off carbon dixoide, while the plant life pulls in carbon dixoide and gives off oxygen just happening by chance.
That's not the science of evolution, but the science of chance. People have a right to differing opinions without ill mannered louts, whose mothers forgot to teach them manners, demeaning and disparaging what they have to say.
Finally someone shows up on a Crevo thread who actually understands philosophy and argues cogently and correctly that ID is just metaphysics trying to pass itself off as science.
Oh, and 'dumb' metaphysics at that.
People were ignorant of the things you listed. Now that we can see more clearly how life is programmed to create machines so sophisticated; the blinders are off.
The Theory of Evolution is like attributing the production of a sandcastle to the ocean because you observed the water creating the mote. Saying that the evidence only leads to the conclusion of Darwinian Evolution is like explaining the creation of a sandcastle by limiting oneself to natural phenomenon.
Two men become stranded on a remote island. As they explore the island they come upon a sandcastle with towers, buttresses and a drawbridge. The design of the castle is amazingly intricate.
One man comments, "It is amazing what time and the ocean can create. The small rocks and seashells on the shore must have got caught in eddies and swirled around and chiseled out that castle. There were a few palm leaves floating by that scribed out the little lines that look like bricks. We are alone here and there is no need to consider anything else."
The other man looked at him incredulously and said, "No, obviously that castle was created by another intelligent being with a clear intent of design, we are not alone. The engineering required to create the castle is far to sophisticated to have originated by natural means."
An attempt at denying God is making fools of our scientists. Science is entertaining and occasionally helpful.
>>selective pressures that actually led to the evolution of eyes
This is the dogma of the Darwinists..
Pressures don't select... This characteristic is given to nature which it actually doesn't have. If anything, it's all reactionary..
The theory of evolution is itself spoken in terms of intelligence and design, but instead of it originating with a divine creator, it originates with the forces of nature which actively and intelligently selects how creatures will evolve.
In reality, that's the biggest difference between the two camps -- in one camp, God is the reason for evolutionary changes, and in the other it's simply the force of nature absent a divine being though nature acts in the capcity of a divine being (intelligence, active selection, etc..)
"Is there a single example of where ID has an insight or understanding of the world we live in that helps people or advances knowledge?"
Maybe you mistake me for a fanatic of ID. I am not. But it promotes discussion of why we are here and how we came to be. In fact, I think I know very little about the actual theory of ID except that it purposes to recognize that the formation of the universe all the way down to life on earth and intelligent, free willed humans was part of a plan hatched by a being of higher intelligence.
I call him God.
He gets paid by the word?
Well put and succinct.
Agnostic!
Science has been wise to remove itself from the fray by intentionally avoiding the supernatural.
All of mankind's questions seek answers from all spheres of knowledge, science is but only one way.
Interesting reply. Two points:
1. Have you ever been to Grand Canyon, Zion, Bryce, etc? Those formation could have a person saying only God could have done it - but it was wind and water (which is not to say God did not direct the wind and the water). This leads to the second point, which is
2. Affirming evolution does not deny God. If God can make gravity, why can't God make evolution?
>>So, why are there eyes? Or mitochondria? Science can explain that, and even common sense can. One does not need ID for that.
Why are there eyes? If one accepts that evolution is the reason, an even more fundamental question arises, why evolution at all?
Why life at all?
Why reproduction? Survival of the species? That's a piss poor explanation. There is no intelligent reason any reproducation should ever take place. Science has a philosophical explanation which is taken in faith, but no compelling reason for reproduction.
Reproduction, be it in scientific allignment with the theory of evolution, makes no sense outside of an intellgent design. For what purpose should anything reproduce at all? There is no point, especially the lower one gets in terms of life forms.
>>More importantly, can ID explain why the Universe or life exists?
Yes it can. It explains why cells exist, dna, eyes, and even evolution. Evolution cannot explain itself or the questions you ask without dogmatic assumptions of faith.. Evolution cannot even justify itself in the face of the lack of a prime mover...
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.