Hello 2ndreconmarine! WRT the above: This is the seemingly intractable problem regarding Intelligent Design — there seem to be as many definitions of it as there are commentators on it. The definition you give here is not at all what I think of as ID. All the intelligent design hypothesis states is that “certain features of the universe and life are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.” Certain features, not all features. On my understanding, ID does not at all deny Darwinian evolution. It simply maintains that living organisms cannot be fully accounted for on the basis of random mutation + natural selection alone.
As Alamo-Girl tirelessly points out, what is most needful is to discriminate the important differences between ID and the ID movement. The latter is not science. The former is, if we are to listen to scientists such as John Wheeler, Fred Hoyle, et al. To me it doesn't matter a whit that these gentlemen did not self-describe as IDers. (Hoyle was an atheist.) You just have to take a look at their work and what they had to say about it to draw that conclusion.
I find it fascinating that the description you give of ID above is actually the view of Sir Isaac Newton. It was Newton himself who “thought to catch this tendency of the mechanical explanation [of nature as] leading to a world independent from God.” [see: Wolfhart Pannenberg, Towards a Theology of Nature, 1993]. As a practical matter, Newton was concerned that all that random bumping around of material objects would inevitably become a source of disorder in the world; and that God would have to step in from time to time to set matters aright again.
BTW, FWIW, this is not my belief. Though I share with Newton the idea that God is active in the world because the essential nature of God is, as Newton put it, “the Lord of Life with His creatures,” I strongly doubt he has to intervene and tinker with the physical creation, nor does every new species require a “special creation” by God. Evolution may very well be the tool God chose to realize His grand design in time.
My own thought in the matter — which is purely speculative of course — is that the world takes its foundation in an algorithm from inception, which defines all possible infinite possibility spaces for anything that can come into existence in this universe. It is a kind of blueprint that specifies the kinds of outcomes that can be realized, in advance; but it does not need to precisely define each and every unique, particular entity that comes into existence. The “design” is so unimaginably perfect that it runs as if on automatic pilot, so to speak. This is a model of that which is unchangeable (Logos and laws which flow from it) and that which is susceptible to change, to development.
Of course, readers in philosophy will instantly catch me out here as a Neoplatonist. :^)
As a Christian, I identify this algorithm from inception as the Word, the Logos of God. A scientist might associate it with the singularity of the big bang. God spoke the Word, and then just let’ er rip. An expanding universe suitable for the evolution of life is the result.
It’s important to mention here that I fully recognize my “speculation” on this topic is not strictly-speaking “scientific.” Rather, it is cosmological. I’d just like to point out that many scientists today, especially in physics, astrophysics, and information science, have been drawn to the cosmological implications of their work. Evolutionary biology, on the other hand, seems to be working overtime to constrain their field of endeavor to the narrowest possible.
Lastly, I think the real bone that Neodarwinism wants to pick with ID is ID’s skepticism about methodological naturalism. In particular, MN does not appear to be eminently suitable to exploring such things as consciousness, intelligence, and successful communication in nature. It is, as I’ve suggested elsewhere, limited to only two of Aristotle’s four causes, the material and the efficient. And yet, the more we study the universe and the things in it, the more we realize that questions of formal and final cause are essential to understanding the “all that there is” in this universe.
Well, that is my present understanding at any rate, subject to change as “new data come in.” :^)
Incidentally, that Ellis article I provided the URL for well develops the idea of final causes in nature, called “goals” in the article. Spunkets and I were having a conversation about that, a couple of weeks ago. We didn’t get very far, unfortunately.
I very much enjoyed the article at the top of this thread, and thank you for pinging me to it. I agree with you that it’s unproductive for one to base religious belief on scientific theories. If you have faith, you don’t need the theories. As to whether there is intelligent life anywhere else in the universe, all I can say is: I don’t know, and presently have no way of finding out. Seems like a very good reason to remain silent on the subject.
Again, thanks, 2ndreconmarine, for pinging me to this fascinating article, and for your excellent essay/post! Sorry to be so tardy with my reply.
Careful, BB, you may be evolving into a deist. My cyber-passion for you never ebbs.
I also strongly endorse your subsequent reply posts!
Now, if only our correspondents would take the time to digest what you've just said rather than getting all atwitter that we don't automatically dismiss the intelligent design hypothesis because of the behavior of some of its supporters...
”This is the seemingly intractable problem regarding Intelligent Design - there seem to be as many definitions of it as there are commentators on it.”
Is it the definitions which are the intractable problem? Or is the problem the commentators, who seek an advantage in how they sculpt their definitions (refine their descriptions? I suggest the latter, and if that understanding is the correct one, then the problem will remain intractable.
Definitions, and/or descriptions, are supposed to facilitate communication, by contributing to the clarification or perfection of one’s understanding of things and ideas. Instead they are too often used to denigrate; the intent not being clarification, but attack. We see this in attempts to tie Darwin’s theory of evolution to the failed social, economic and governmental theories of Marxism or, generally, Socialism at large. Those who see the connection have the burden of establishing the connection. The record would seem to indicate that Darwin neither intended nor saw any such connection, but that Marx & Engels did. Likewise, we see attempts to denigrate Christianity by describing, for instance, the sacrament of holy communion as ritualistic cannibalism. The motive in either of these two cases would not appear to be clarification.