"Intelligent Design": Stealth War on Science

A president who consults religious lunatics about who should be on the Supreme Court... Judges who want prayer in school and the "ten commandments" in the courtroom… Born-Again fanatics who bomb abortion clinics… bible thumpers who condemn homosexuality as "sin"... and all the other Christian fascists who want a U.S. theocracy….

This is the force behind the assault on evolution going on right now in a courtroom in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Last year, the Dover city school board instituted a policy that requires high school biology teachers to read a statement to students that says Darwin's theory of evolution is "not a fact" and then notes that intelligent design offers an alternative theory for the origin and evolution of life--namely, that life in all of its complexity could not have arisen without the help of an "intelligent hand." Some teachers refused to read the statement, citing the Pennsylvania teacher code of ethics, which says, "I will never knowingly present false information to a student." Eleven parents who brought this case to court contend that the directive amounted to an attempt to inject religion into the curriculum in violation of the First Amendment. Their case has been joined by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

The school board is being defended pro bono by the Thomas More Law Center, a Christian law firm in Ann Arbor, Mich. The case is being heard without a jury in Harrisburg by U.S. District Judge John Jones III, whom George W. Bush appointed to the bench in 2002.

In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that public schools could not teach the biblical account of creation instead of evolution, because doing so would violate the constitutional ban on establishment of an official religion. Since then Intelligent Design has been promoted by Christian fundamentalists as the way to get the Bible and creationism into the schools.

"This clever tactical repackaging of creationism does not merit consideration," Witold Walczak, legal director of the Pennsylvania American Civil Liberties Union and a lawyer for the parents, told U.S. District Judge John E. Jones in opening arguments. "Intelligent design admits that it is not science unless science is redefined to include the supernatural." This is, he added, "a 21st-century version of creationism."

This is the first time a federal court has been asked to rule on the question of whether Intelligent Design is religion or science. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, which opposes challenges to the standard model of teaching evolution in the schools, said the Pennsylvania case "is probably the most important legal situation of creation and evolution in the last 18 years," and that "it will have quite a significant impact on what happens in American public school education."

Proponents of Intelligent Design don’t say in the courtroom that they want to replace science with religion. But their strategy papers, speeches, and discussions with each other make it clear this is their agenda.

Intelligent Design (ID) is basically a re-packaged version of creationism--the view that the world can be explained, not by science, but by a strict, literal reading of the Bible. ID doesn’t bring up ridiculous biblical claims like the earth is only a few thousand years old or that the world was created in seven days. Instead it claims to be scientific--it acknowledges the complexity and diversity of life, but then says this all comes from some "intelligent" force. ID advocates don’t always openly argue this "intelligent force" is GOD--they even say it could be some alien from outer space! But Christian fundamentalists are the driving force behind the whole Intelligent Design movement and it’s clear… these people aren’t praying every night to little green men from another planet.

Phillip Johnson, considered the father and guiding light behind Intelligent Design, is the architect of the "wedge strategy" which focuses on attacking evolution and promoting intelligent design to ultimately, as Johnson says, "affirm the reality of God." Johnson has made it clear that the whole point of "shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God" is to get people "introduced to the truth of the Bible," then "the question of sin" and finally "introduced to Jesus."

Intelligent Design and its theocratic program has been openly endorsed by George W. Bush. Earlier this year W stated that Intelligent Design should be taught in the schools. When he was governor of Texas, Bush said students should be exposed to both creationism and evolution. And he has made the incredibly unscientific, untrue statement that "the jury is still out" on evolution.

For the Christian fascists, the fight around evolution and teaching Intelligent Design is part of a whole agenda that encompasses reconfiguring all kinds of cultural, social, and political "norms" in society. This is a movement that is fueled by a religious vision which varies among its members but is predicated on the shared conviction that the United States is in need of drastic changes--which can only be accomplished by instituting religion as its cultural foundation.

The Christian fascists really do want--and are working for--a society where everything is run according to the Bible. They have been working for decades to infiltrate school boards to be in a position to mandate things like school prayer. Now, in the schools, they might not be able to impose a literal reading of the Bible’s explanation for how the universe was created. But Intelligent Design, thinly disguised as some kind of "science," is getting a lot more than just a foot in the door.

The strategy for promoting intelligent design includes an aggressive and systematic agenda of promoting the whole religious worldview that is the basis for ID. And this assault on evolution is linked up with other questions in how society should be run.

Marc Looy of the creationist group Answers in Genesis has said that evolution being taught in the schools,

Ken Cumming, dean of the Institute for Creation Research's (ICR) graduate school, who believes the earth is only thousands of years old, attacked a PBS special seven-part series on evolution, suggesting that the series had "much in common" with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. He said,

After the 1999 school shooting in Littleton, Colorado, Tom DeLay, Christian fascist representative from Texas, gave a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives, blaming the incident in part on the teaching of evolution. He said,

The ID movement attacks the very notion of science itself and the philosophical concept of materialism--the very idea that there is a material world that human beings can examine, learn about, and change.

Dr. Eugenie C. Scott, the Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, points out:

The Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (another Christian think tank) says that it "seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies."

Teaching Intelligent Design in the schools is part of a whole Christian Fascist movement in the United States that has power and prominence in the government, from the Bush regime on down. And if anyone isn’t clear about what "cultural legacies" the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture wants to overthrow--take a look at the larger Christian fascist agenda that the intelligent design movement is part of: asserting patriarchy in the home, condemning homosexuality, taking away the right to abortion, banning sex education, enforcing the death penalty with the biblical vengeance of an "eye for an eye," and launching a war because "God told me [Bush] to invade Iraq."

The inference is “intelligent cause” not “intelligent designer”.

I guess I don't see how you make the distinction here. If you are saying simply that there is an intelligence that is the (non-corporeal) cause behind everything (corporeal), then I don't see how this is any different from the old Prime Mover argument (a philosophical and not a scientific argument).

When you say that the "intelligent cause" idea expands the boundary of research to include phenomena as causation and agency (esp. noncorporeal) as causation, it sounds to me like we are already outside of the realm of science. Firstly, science already recognizes "phenomena as causation," in the sense that phenomena - things that happen - sometimes cause other things to happen. But non-corporeal agency is the significant and a-scientific stretch. Math and physics do deal with non-corporeals, but biology deals with them as well (at least with the list you gave). But neither biology nor mathematics nor physics cause anything. They are descriptive and not causative, in the same way that logic, however eloquent it may seem at times, does not have any causal effect on reality (though it often affects our perceptions of reality, and therefore affects our dealings with reality - as do illogic, blindness, good or poor heatlth, etc.). That said, physics and math have not, as far as I can tell, stood down from the presupposition of naturalism, at least not in their scientific applications.

“Matter in all its motions” - the realm of science - does not currently and will likely never explain “all features” of the universe and life, but neither will logic or math or physics or, for that matter, religious belief. "All features" is an exceptionally tall order. But science has succeeded to an often astonishing degree in explaining the material features of life and the universe, and there is every reason to suppose it will continue to do so.

Thank you for your reply!

me: The inference is “intelligent cause” not “intelligent designer”.

you: I guess I don't see how you make the distinction here.

The “intelligent cause” can be either a phenomenon such as intelligence as an emergent property or fractal intelligence - or it can be an agent such as God, collective consciousness, aliens, Gaia, etc.

An “intelligent designer” on the other hand must be autonomous and therefore, an agent.

When you say that the "intelligent cause" idea expands the boundary of research to include phenomena as causation and agency (esp. noncorporeal) as causation, it sounds to me like we are already outside of the realm of science. Firstly, science already recognizes "phenomena as causation," in the sense that phenomena - things that happen - sometimes cause other things to happen. But non-corporeal agency is the significant and a-scientific stretch.

I readily agree that non-corporeal agency is a stretch considering the scientific materialism paradigm of biology, but I do not agree it is a-scientific. We are however limited by our own technology at the moment.

I would say it is a-scientific for any investigator, upon reaching something he cannot explain, to throw up his hands and say “nature did it” or “God did it” – when the truth is that it can’t be explained at all, at this time.

But all of this is beside the point. The origin of the “intelligent cause” is no more relevant to the intelligent design hypothesis than the “origin of life” is to the theory of evolution.

Darwin never asked nor answered the question “what is life” – therefore our indulgence here in asking and answering the question “what is intelligent cause” is already beyond what was required of the theory of evolution. And yet we seem to have to “go there” because people are not as willing to accept “intelligent cause” as an axiom as they are to accept “life” as an axiom.

Math and physics do deal with non-corporeals, but biology deals with them as well (at least with the list you gave). But neither biology nor mathematics nor physics cause anything. They are descriptive and not causative, in the same way that logic, however eloquent it may seem at times, does not have any causal effect on reality (though it often affects our perceptions of reality, and therefore affects our dealings with reality - as do illogic, blindness, good or poor heatlth, etc.).

Er, there are myriad computers which do indeed execute logic and cause things to happen in a physical sense – control systems, etc. And artificial intelligence likewise accrues logic and causes things to happen in a physical sense.

The terms “math” “physics” and “biology” are indeed descriptions. They are in fact, codes – language codes which describe universals much like a variable in a formula codes for a universal. Encoding and decoding are evidence of intelligent cause.

That said, physics and math have not, as far as I can tell, stood down from the presupposition of naturalism, at least not in their scientific applications.

Physics and mathematics state their presuppositions as axioms and postulates. They are not known to state ideology in this fashion.

Here is the difference. Methodological naturalism in physics would say in retrospect that the results are naturalistic: “the idea that the mode of inquiry typical of the physical sciences will provide theoretical understanding of world, to the extent that this sort of understanding can be achieved. “ - Stoljar, Daniel, "Physicalism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2001 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).

But in biological research, naturalism is the presupposition. Thus, Whitehead coined the term “scientific materialism”:

"There persists," says Whitehead, "[a] fixed scientific cosmology which presupposes the ultimate fact of an irreducible brute matter, or material, spread through space in a flux of configurations. In itself such a material is senseless, valueless, purposeless. It just does what it does do, following a fixed routine imposed by external relations which do not spring from the nature of its being. It is this assumption that I call 'scientific materialism.' Also it is an assumption which I shall challenge as being entirely unsuited to the scientific situation at which we have now arrived."

The assumption of scientific materialism is effective in many contexts, says Whitehead, only because it directs our attention to a certain class of problems that lend themselves to analysis within this framework. However, scientific materialism is less successful when addressing issues of teleology and when trying to develop a comprehensive, integrated picture of the universe as a whole. - Irvine, A. D., "Alfred North Whitehead", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2003 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

Thus, biology should not be amazed that the results are naturalistic – it is, after all, the only place it looked because naturalism was a presupposition in structuring the investigation.

“Matter in all its motions” - the realm of science - does not currently and will likely never explain “all features” of the universe and life, but neither will logic or math or physics or, for that matter, religious belief. "All features" is an exceptionally tall order. But science has succeeded to an often astonishing degree in explaining the material features of life and the universe, and there is every reason to suppose it will continue to do so.

Science has made impressive advances in “instrumentalizing” nature. But it will never be able to address or answer the questions of “why something exists” or “why it exists this way and not some other way” or “what is the lofty structure of all that there is” - until it is willing to erase the “here there be dragons” warnings which mark the boundaries of its investigations.

Erasing those boundaries is the objective of the "intelligent design movement" in this war.

Thanks for the reply. Quite a bit to cover here, and I'll do my best.

You: The “intelligent cause” can be either a phenomenon such as intelligence as an emergent property or fractal intelligence - or it can be an agent such as God, collective consciousness, aliens, Gaia, etc.

An “intelligent designer” on the other hand must be autonomous and therefore, an agent.

So a cause may be intelligent but lack agency? This seems a contradiction, since by definition intelligence is a faculty - one that an agent possesses and makes use of (or not) as one factor in the government of its actions.

But let me see if I understand your distinction correctly. If I read you right, you are positing that an intelligent cause is not necessarily an agent, while an intelligent designer necessarily is one. I think it is this distinction that is problematic for me. To call a cause intelligent is tantamount to acknowledging its agency. This is why, in my opinion, the origin of any so-called “intelligent cause” is indeed relevant to the intelligent design hypothesis.

I thoroughly agree. This is precisely the argument of evolutionary biologists against Intelligent Design (in particular) and Creationism (in general), which, not for all, but for the large part of their proponents, seem to answer all the tough questions quite neatly and with minimum intellectual perspiration.

there are myriad computers which do indeed execute logic and cause things to happen in a physical sense – control systems, etc. And artificial intelligence likewise accrues logic and causes things to happen in a physical sense

Here I would say the computers perform logic-based operations, but it is the operation and not the logic that is the cause. A schema may serve to guide an operation but does not cause it to be performed. Similarly, while you are quite right that physics and mathematics state their presuppositions as axioms and postulates, I do not think that a physicist whose formula, based on whatever axioms and postulates, failed in its material-world application, could in good conscience object that, because all the calculations worked perfectly on paper, the material world must have it wrong.

Have to run now, but I'll address the latter half of your post later tonight or tomorrow.

And thank you again, by the way; I'm enjoying the discussion.

Earth sciences are just that, earthly. We may well, in short order, be dealing with life forms that are other than carbon based, extra-earthly.
When we have a sulfur based life in hand we will be forced to make comparisons. In so doing biology will be confronted with the need to discover laws and principles. Facts will not be enough.
Biology is stuck in Plato's cave. It denies the sun because it has never stepped outside the walls of its enclosure. Let life (or, God forbid, intelligent life) emerge from some thoroughly foreign stellar environment, then these flatworms will have a challenge on their hands.
The mystical concept, Gaea, has enchanted me with its presupposition that the earth is alive as a singular entity.
In answer to the unasked question, "Where is evolution leading us," I imagine a living creature composed of the entire structure of the earth. As more of the earth's material is assimilated by life forms and more of those forms create symbiotic relationships can we not say that evolution may be moving in a direction? Once this question is asked it becomes necessary to discern dynamics that support one as opposed to another morph.
Is not this precisely what environmentalists insist upon? But, rather than taking a reactionary stand against all change, can we not view man's influence, for example, as expressive of a natural impulse toward greater harmony? We can substitute a negative principle for a positive one.
We want to believe that ecosystems are the expression of myriad life forms existing in exquisite harmony. Why is it so difficult to recognize that humans are in perfect harmony with their ecosystem? Are we not made of the same stuff, emergent from the same processes as all of those other wonderfully harmonious creatures?
Environmentalism is a biological field in which phenomenological principles are assumed. Sadly, the assumptions are nearly all political, based, as they are, on Marxist opposition to the private ownership of physical resources. Hence, we get the odious operating principle, "humans will naturally despoil their environment unless controlled by an elite cadre of enlightened professionals functioning as government owners of the earth."
Nevertheless, the science of the environment is awash in principles, theories and discussions about the nature of the earth. Discussions about principles of life are not outside the bounds of science. What is needed is for these discussions to become less political and more philosophical.
This is but one more arena in which ID is waging war. The tyranny of Greenpeace, the Nature Conservancy, National Geographic, and all the rest of their ilk must be ended. They are bound up in hostility to Nature and especially in utter contempt for those who believe that there is a greater and a deeply wholesome dynamic undergirding Nature of which humans are an integral part.
Two important ideas have emerged from this discussion.
One is the recognition that there are divergent false paths that lead us astray into psychotic aberrations, fantasies producing great evil. They are marked by the denial of intellectual, cultural and spiritual history.
The second is that life exists as a unity with all of its composite members. It is not the case that any life form exists in perfect isolation, outside the presence and influence of all other life forms. Surely there is a principle at work here.

Thank you so much for your reply! I, too, am enjoying this discussion.

So a cause may be intelligent but lack agency? This seems a contradiction, since by definition intelligence is a faculty - one that an agent possesses and makes use of (or not) as one factor in the government of its actions.

But let me see if I understand your distinction correctly. If I read you right, you are positing that an intelligent cause is not necessarily an agent, while an intelligent designer necessarily is one. I think it is this distinction that is problematic for me. To call a cause intelligent is tantamount to acknowledging its agency. This is why, in my opinion, the origin of any so-called “intelligent cause” is indeed relevant to the intelligent design hypothesis.

Actually, the cause itself is intelligent, i.e. “intelligent cause”. But the cause may be either a phenomenon or an agent.

Agents are autonomous albeit not necessarily physical (corporeal). But intelligence as phenomena may be emergent properties or fractals – neither of which are corporeal or of necessity, autonomous.

For instance, fractal intelligence, like a Mandelbrot set, is “infinitely” self-similar from the whole to the part, to the subpart and so on.

And emergent properties are not necessarily physically autonomous, e.g. swarm intelligence. Take a 100 army ants and put them on a flat surface and they’ll walk in a circle till they die of exhaustion. But take a million of them and they’ll form a colony, conduct raids, keep a geometry, calendar and constant temperature in the nest. No single ant has the requisite sensory perception much less intelligence (awareness, decision making ability) - but as a swarm they do and thereby result in the emergent property, intelligence which can cause things to happen.

This is why information (paraphrased “successful communications” from Shannon’s theory) is such an important part of the investigation.

Information is defined as the reduction of uncertainty in the receiver or molecular machine in going from a before state to an after state. It is the action, not the message.

Many of us see this successful communication as the mathematical marker for distinguishing that which is alive from that which is not alive or is non-life. When an organism or cell ceases to successfully communicate, it is not alive. If it is incapable of successful communication (like a rock) it is non-life.

Or to paraphrase to the terms you used, it is the operation of the logic (or encoding/decoding) which is causal, not the logic per se. Or put another way, the life is not “in” the DNA (obviously because DNA is used in forensics) – but rather in the successful communication of the DNA (or tRNA) message.

Wimmer’s creation of the polio virus in the lab also bears this out. But I digress…

Similarly, while you are quite right that physics and mathematics state their presuppositions as axioms and postulates, I do not think that a physicist whose formula, based on whatever axioms and postulates, failed in its material-world application, could in good conscience object that, because all the calculations worked perfectly on paper, the material world must have it wrong.

And yet Einstein fought relentlessly for local realism. He was wrong of course as non-locality (quantum entanglement) has been tested up to some 10 kilometers.

For Lurkers: Non-locality, also called quantum entanglement, is where the quantum states of two or more objects have to be described with reference to one another regardless of the extent to which they may be spatially separated. Or to put it another way, measurement of one of two entangled photons will determine the other even if it is 10 kilometers away, on the moon, in another galaxy, etc. This seems to violate the speed limit of the universe to some (speed of light) and thus is troubling to them. It also creates a troubling paradox for some, since they see time as proper or absolute, whereas others see time as relative, a dimension. In other words, some would be concerned about what happens when both of two entangled photons are measured at the same absolute time, where each is found simultaneously determining the precise measurement of the other.

Thank you oh so very much for your excellent post!

Two important ideas have emerged from this discussion.
One is the recognition that there are divergent false paths that lead us astray into psychotic aberrations, fantasies producing great evil. They are marked by the denial of intellectual, cultural and spiritual history.
The second is that life exists as a unity with all of its composite members. It is not the case that any life form exists in perfect isolation, outside the presence and influence of all other life forms. Surely there is a principle at work here

Absolutely! I couldn’t agree with you more. These are the two most import points in this entire discussion – we must avoid “second realities” and we need to uncover the “life principle”.

So very true. This is the primary stumbling-block to answering the question “what is life?” with descriptive language rather than a mathematical model. Similar issues arise with anomalies such as prions, bacterial spores, mimiviruses, viruses, mycoplasmas, etc.

Biology is stuck in Plato's cave. It denies the sun because it has never stepped outside the walls of its enclosure. Let life (or, God forbid, intelligent life) emerge from some thoroughly foreign stellar environment, then these flatworms will have a challenge on their hands.

Plato’s cave is a great metaphor. It’s better than my “here there be dragons” inscription on maps metaphor!

The mystical concept, Gaea, has enchanted me with its presupposition that the earth is alive as a singular entity. In answer to the unasked question, "Where is evolution leading us," I imagine a living creature composed of the entire structure of the earth. As more of the earth's material is assimilated by life forms and more of those forms create symbiotic relationships can we not say that evolution may be moving in a direction? Once this question is asked it becomes necessary to discern dynamics that support one as opposed to another morph.

Gaia has become popular with the panspermiasts. They are now using the term “cosmic ancestry” and asserting that life is timeless, i.e. pre-existed the beginning of space/time (regardless of cosmology).

The Scriptures speak of Creation as an intelligent whole (Romans 8) but the pre-existent creating life is Logos, Jesus Christ (John 1, Col 1, etc.)

Is not this precisely what environmentalists insist upon? But, rather than taking a reactionary stand against all change, can we not view man's influence, for example, as expressive of a natural impulse toward greater harmony? We can substitute a negative principle for a positive one.

We want to believe that ecosystems are the expression of myriad life forms existing in exquisite harmony. Why is it so difficult to recognize that humans are in perfect harmony with their ecosystem? Are we not made of the same stuff, emergent from the same processes as all of those other wonderfully harmonious creatures?

Indeed. When we look at the “whole” it appears that all of Creation is harmonious and moving in the direction of survival. It strongly suggests a life principle, a fecundity principle or an evolution of one.

Environmentalism is a biological field in which phenomenological principles are assumed. Sadly, the assumptions are nearly all political, based, as they are, on Marxist opposition to the private ownership of physical resources. Hence, we get the odious operating principle, "humans will naturally despoil their environment unless controlled by an elite cadre of enlightened professionals functioning as government owners of the earth."
Nevertheless, the science of the environment is awash in principles, theories and discussions about the nature of the earth. Discussions about principles of life are not outside the bounds of science. What is needed is for these discussions to become less political and more philosophical.

This is but one more arena in which ID is waging war. The tyranny of Greenpeace, the Nature Conservancy, National Geographic, and all the rest of their ilk must be ended. They are bound up in hostility to Nature and especially in utter contempt for those who believe that there is a greater and a deeply wholesome dynamic undergirding Nature of which humans are an integral part.

The “hate America first” crowd on the far left is, sadly, often the “hate mankind” crowd as well. I agree that the discussion needs to become philosophical rather than political.

The fact that I understand myself perfectly clearly and have great difficulty understanding some others leads me to believe that I am a simpleton. This, it strikes me, is an example of intellectual phenomenology that could lead to a bad choice in a mate.

LOLOL! You have no problem understanding us and we certainly have no problem understanding you – so you’d be safe in finding a mate on this forum.

Continuing on...

...biology should not be amazed that the results are naturalistic – it is, after all, the only place it looked because naturalism was a presupposition in structuring the investigation.

To be sure, but this is no different than arguing that the results of a mathematical operation will reflect the structures on which mathematical operations depend. In other words, a tautology. The natural sciences are not arbitrarily restricted to the natural world; it is only in the natural world where theories regarding the properties and developments of the natural world may be tested.

Erasing those boundaries is the objective of the "intelligent design movement" in this war.

I agree. Science does not ask "why?" but "how?" "Why?" is, as you say, "beyond the boundaries of its investigations," at least in the teleological sense (i.e. "Why did this rock fall?" is actually a "how?" question for science, whereas "Why (what is the purpose of the existence of) this rock?" is a teleological, unscientific (though no less important for that!) "why?" question). To my thinking, this is as it should be. What is, is not necessarily answerable to reason, nor does a given reason (evolution, intelligent design, theology) necessarily bear on or reflect what is.

Obviously this is a philosophical difference between us (and it may have not a little to do with our differing backgrounds - I am not nearly as well-versed in complexity or information theory as you seem to be - as a result there is much that I cannot speak to (emergent properties, fractal intelligence), either in affirmation or disagreement). I don't see why a philosophical difference should have to engender war, but certainly some will be willing to fight it as such. In any case, I believe you have done an excellent job of identifying what it is that the larger scientific community is fighting against and what the intelligent design movement is fighting for: "erasing those boundaries." That said, the terms are far from settled. In the political battle, you seem to represent a minority (that is, you appear to have scientific as well as philosophical and religious interests in the outcome, whereas most ID proponents - at least here on FR and on the schoolboards in Kansas and, previously, Dover - appear to have primarily, if not solely, religious interests). Are you really intent on "erasing the boundaries," or do you mean, in fact, only to redraw them? And in the latter case, why should a political solution be necessary for the redrawing of scientific boundaries when throughout its history science has demonstrated a marvelous willingness, however conservative, to redraw - when presented with sufficient evidence - its own boundaries?

Just some more food for thought...

Thank you so very much for the continuation of your insights! And thank you for the encouragements!

The natural sciences are not arbitrarily restricted to the natural world; it is only in the natural world where theories regarding the properties and developments of the natural world may be tested.

Indeed, that is the “observer problem” which truly is philosophy and an important disclaimer in statements made by the physics community.

If biology approached investigations like physics, yours would be the observation (as Stoljar defines methodological naturalism) and this war would end in a peace treaty, so to speak.

However, as Pattee describes (see post 478) and Whitehead affirms – there exists a cultural difference between biology and physics which is so severe that biology has, over the years, sought to be recognized as an “autonomous” science.

What will help is the inter-disciplinary research that is going on right now. On those investigations biology has effectively waived the “matter in all its motions” presupposition to include noncorporeals such as information, complexity, autonomy, semiosis, geometries, etc.

Noncorporeals are not tested directly but indirectly by their effects on corporeals that can be tested. Such inferences are routine in physics and math.

I agree. Science does not ask "why?" but "how?" "Why?" is, as you say, "beyond the boundaries of its investigations," at least in the teleological sense (i.e. "Why did this rock fall?" is actually a "how?" question for science, whereas "Why (what is the purpose of the existence of) this rock?" is a teleological, unscientific (though no less important for that!) "why?" question). To my thinking, this is as it should be. What is, is not necessarily answerable to reason, nor does a given reason (evolution, intelligent design, theology) necessarily bear on or reflect what is.

If science would honor that cut – which Niels Bohr recommended – there would be no poaching from either side. His point was that science cannot penetrate the essence of things, their meaning --- but rather science should concentrate on what can be said about nature, developing concepts so that we can talk about phenomena in nature productively.

Sadly though there are more than a few scientists in positions of great power who practice philosophy under the color of science, thus becoming a political force as well. These we aver have chosen to live in a “second reality”.

To understand why there is a legal/political force in the intelligent design movement which parallels the math/science investigation of the intelligent design hypothesis - Lurkers might want to review the following posts and the dialogue between: post 308 and post 314

You and I are not at war in this discussion even though we may be considered by some as being on opposing “sides”. We respect each other’s point of view and negotiate common ground. If only the majority of combatants out there could meet one another with the same mutual respect, surely there could be an agreed peace.

In the political battle, you seem to represent a minority (that is, you appear to have scientific as well as philosophical and religious interests in the outcome, whereas most ID proponents - at least here on FR and on the schoolboards in Kansas and, previously, Dover - appear to have primarily, if not solely, religious interests).

Indeed, people come to the battles with different points of view. Those who approach the matter from a religious perspective – and aggressive atheism should be considered a religious perspective – are more apt to be arguing over their epistemology than the actual issues of either the intelligent design hypothesis or the intelligent design movement.

We had an interesting thread here awhile back on that very subject, trying to find ways to improve our communications. The object of the thread was to reveal our personal assessments of how we know what we know and how sure we are that we know it: Freeper Investigation. You might find the disclosures helpful in understanding the correspondents on these science threads.

Are you really intent on "erasing the boundaries," or do you mean, in fact, only to redraw them? And in the latter case, why should a political solution be necessary for the redrawing of scientific boundaries when throughout its history science has demonstrated a marvelous willingness, however conservative, to redraw - when presented with sufficient evidence - its own boundaries?

I am truly intent on “erasing the boundaries”. Redrawing boundaries accomplishes nothing on the deep questions, most especially the question of a life principle.

The legal/political aspects are focused on First Amendment rights – most especially the hope of returning the interpretation to freedom “of” religion instead of “from” religion. Frankly, the Supreme Court has created a terrible mess over the years with decisions which are not clear, e.g. the Lemon decision and the strange yes/no dual decisions on the Ten Commandment displays this summer. Now there is a decision in the 7^th that atheism is a religion and a 9^th decision that “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the establishment clause – either of which may come up for review.

The litigation of the intelligent design movement should also someday rise to the Supreme Court to force clarity in the caselaw concerning freedom "of" religion, the establishment clause, non-discrimination based on religious beliefs, etc.

I have follow up to my last reply. The tautological points out a logical aspect. As the word's etymology will indicate, tauto= from the Greek "the same."

But, knowledge of an event that we obtain through sense perception is and is not the same thing. Otherwise that tree you see is growing in your head. And then everything is in everything and the game is over. There is nothing more to say.

Magritte pointed out by example, C'est nest pas une pipe. Everybody can see that it is. Obviously, it is and is not a pipe.

This suggest different modal aspects of existing things. Before we apply the concept of the tautological for practical argumentation, we should first recognize that there are kinds of knowledge, biological, logical, physical, mathematical.

It may be that with each of the kinds of knowledge their is a self-referential aspect that is inescapable. But we can't substitute one for the other on a false notion of the tautological. Not at all.

Still, the concept of unity is a riddle, both for human consciousness and for the world of nature. I tried to ask this question in a conversation with js1138 here.

Leibniz pointed out something along these lines. If you posit "the same," you imply the other. Once you have A, you imply non-A. And the objection should be respected: this doesn't say what non-A is. That's right. And a logical proof is not a proof of its existence. One can't reason anything into existence. What to do? Was Descartes & co. on track to shrink the universe to A for the sake of certainty and never mind what might be non-A? The only way out of this conundrum is to present A, and show something that is non-A. Philosophy did this long ago when it posited a First Cause. It spoke to the existence of it. Knowledge about it may be limited to describing it extrinsically and in relation to causality in general.

If the influence of extrinsic causes depends on the existence of extrinsic causes there may be some preliminary work to do. On the other hand, it is a dangerous game to assume that the scope of our knowledge is identical with the object of our knowledge.

I'm so very glad you are engaged in this discussion, cornelis. I look forward to hearing all of your insights!

Also, we must take care in extending this tautology to assume that what is outside of it does not exist. That is part of the problem A-G has been alluding to: as if only biology exists. I trust she doesn't make the same mistake as saying only mathematics exists!

Indeed, I am not applying a tautology to mathematics, as if only mathematics exists.

I would say that mathematics looks in a mirror and sees physics – and vice versa. This is what Wigner and Vafa call the “unreasonable effectiveness of math” – which can be inverted to the “unreasonable effectiveness of physics”.

I would also say that philosophy (including theology) is the one discipline which overarches all of science and math because, at the root, if reality were not intelligible and logical - then neither science nor math would have anything to do. (philosophy>science)

The reverse does not however hold. Science does not overarch all of philosophy (science>philosophy). The presumption that it does is a “second reality” as betty boop described earlier on the thread.

For this reason (as far as the disciplines go) I endorse Neils Bohr’s cut – that science should speak only to what can be said about phenomena in nature (whether or not corporeal) - leaving the discussion of meaning up to philosophy which overarches all types of knowledge.

Sadly though there are more than a few scientists in positions of great power who practice philosophy under the color of science, thus becoming a political force as well.

I would be happy to concede this point - that people in power often misuse their power - but scientists have no more claim to this (well trodden) ground than politicians or religious leaders.

...and aggressive atheism should be considered a religious perspective...

Agreed.

I am truly intent on “erasing the boundaries”. Redrawing boundaries accomplishes nothing on the deep questions, most especially the question of a life principle.

Here we will have to remain in (philosophical) opposition. I do not believe strongly one way or the other that the so-called boundaries reflect reality, but I do believe that coherent communication of ideas (perceptions of reality) depends greatly on the establishment and maintenance (which may include revision and/or reconception) of certain categorical boundaries. I believe also that the "deep questions" are of infinite depth, and that our steps in the direction of unraveling them are inherently, shall we say, asymptotic.

The legal/political aspects are focused on First Amendment rights – most especially the hope of returning the interpretation to freedom “of” religion instead of “from” religion.

Freedom of religion, if we are to include atheism as a religious position, necessarily includes freedom from religion.

That's all I have time for now...

C'est nest pas une pipe .

cornelis, you wrote: “…it is a dangerous game to assume that the scope of our knowledge is identical with the object of our knowledge.” As you noted, Magritte pointed to an example, a picture of a pipe, with the legend or caption beneath: “This [or it] is not a pipe.”

The issue comes up because we are wondering about “tautologies.” As you note, “tauto = from the Greek ‘the same.’” But clearly, though both are “same” in some sense, there is a difference between the image of a pipe and the actual pipe of which it is the image. The distinction seems to lie in the fact that one is an actual existent, and the other a description of that one. Plato knew that the eikon — the image of reflection — is not the same thing as — i.e., is not identical to — that of which it is the image or reflection.

In our “doctrinal age,” it seems we have lost this distinction.

Moreover, I think in recent times the development of modern science has, in general, tended to emphasize the description over the reality described.

However, to follow your leading by Magritte, may we revisit C'est nest pas une pipe with a hope to further elaborate the problem he cites? Voegelin has some interesting insights into this question.

As you know, cornelis, Voegelin distinguishes two basic modes of consciousness: intentionality and luminosity. I think you’ve put your finger on a useful way to make a first approach to this distinction when you wrote:

“Leibniz pointed … [I]f you posit ‘the same,’ you imply the other. Once you have A, you imply non-A. And the objection should be respected: this doesn't say what non-A is. That’s right. And a logical proof is not a proof of its existence. One can’t reason anything into existence. What to do? Was Descartes & co. on track to shrink the universe to A for the sake of certainty and never mind what might be non-A? The only way out of this conundrum is to present A, and show something that is non-A. Philosophy did this long ago when it posited a First Cause. It spoke to the existence of it. Knowledge about it may be limited to describing it extrinsically and in relation to causality in general.”

It seems for Voegelin the isolation of A is a function of intentionalist consciousness; that is, the model of mind intending an object of thought. To intend an object is to isolate it from its wider context so that it may become susceptible to discrete analysis. I gather this is the model of the natural sciences, generally speaking.

But what Voegelin most tellingly points out in In Search of Order [Volume V of his monumental Order and History] is that intentionalist consciousness imposes on reality a certain concrete “thingness” that it does not, in actuality, possess. Modern quantum theory bears out this insight.

In short, intentionalist consciousness is geared to “thing-reality.” This, I think, is the model that scientific methodological naturalism follows.

But following Plato et al., Voegelin recognizes that “thing-reality” is a participation in a far greater and all-subsuming “It-reality”: Things and events take place within a timeless, universal context. To deal with this “realm” of human experience/existence — the de-selected “Not-A” — requires another modality or potentiality of consciousness: that is, luminosity. Luminosity is the “mode” in which the human mind engages It-reality.

To try to put these statements into focus, following Magritte: “Thing-reality” refers to the picture, drawing, photograph, or any other kind of “image” or description of “pipe.” “It-reality” refers to the actual pipe in its actual context, on which any description or depiction of “pipe” necessarily depends. Otherwise, there would be nothing to say about pipes in the first place.

The major problem with It-reality from the analytical perspective of methodological naturalism is that it can never be an intended object of consciousness, the reason being that it is timeless, while scientific experiments are necessarily, ineluctably time-bounded. Because the future is unknown, no aspect of It-reality can be “isolated” as an object of experiment, or even of valid hypothesis (it seems to me).

It was Plato who first recognized that human existence was experienced as an “In-between” of these dual “poles” of consciousness (so to speak). Indeed, as Voegelin and many of his students have by now pointed out, the key to human thriving is the attainment of a “balance of consciousness” that resolves the tension between intentionalist and luminous consciousness.

Maybe more later. But for now, I’ve probably run on too long already.

Thank you ever so much for posting these thorny problems here, dear cornelis; and for your penetrating insights and sound advice as to how we might further explore these issues.

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.