'Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics': Supernatural Selection

The New York Times ^ | 14 April 2002 | JIM HOLT

[VadeRetro]

I'm not agnostic, but science ought to be. The complaint that Creationists are irritating is not an excuse for gratuitious "scientific" presumptions with theological ramifications.

You're basically saying that, whenever science finds or implies a lack of design, it has strayed into theology. It's going to do that a lot.

[Sabertooth]

You're basically saying that, whenever science finds or implies a lack of design, it has strayed into theology. It's going to do that a lot.

No, I'm saying that finding or implying design or the lack of it is subjective, and not scientific. To me, math, physics, chemistry, biology, and even evolution look like design. To another, they might not. But neither of us is one up on the other. That's why science should remain agnostic.

A converse to your statement above imight be: wherever science doesn't find or imply God, we must presume random or nature. There's no need, and the presumption is actually irrelevant to science.

Is a sincere scientist going to accept "random did it" or "nature did it," any more than he would "God did it?" If he sets all three aside, the inquiry proceeds anyway.

What's the downside to an agnostic science?

[VadeRetro]

A converse to your statement above imight be: wherever science doesn't find or imply God, we must presume random or nature. There's no need, and the presumption is actually irrelevant to science.

"Random" is often the wrong word. When you find a cause and it isn't magic--so far, it's never been magic--"nature" is the right word.

I'm not pushing any theological or even philosophical consequences of evolution, an old earth, the Big Bang, whatever. I merely insist that they have earned a place in science and science class. I'm not invading somebody's church with pictures of Archaeopteryx and yelling "Repent, superstitious idolators!" The converse relationship does not apply.

[Sabertooth]

"Random" is often the wrong word. When you find a cause and it isn't magic--so far, it's never been magic--"nature" is the right word.

What caused Nature?

[VadeRetro]

What caused Nature?

What caused God?

[Sabertooth]

Exactly... Science can't answer either question.

Agnosticism requires us to throw out both.

[sourcery]

Well said!

Dude! You are quickly becoming one of my favorite posters!

[edsheppa]

Caused? That seems to me an inappropriate extrapolation.

[Sabertooth]

Caused? That seems to me an inappropriate extrapolation.

Why do you think so?

[VadeRetro]

Exactly... Science can't answer either question.

More correctly, nothing, not science and not religion, answers the question "What caused nature?"

OK, maybe you say, "God is outside of nature?" Still I ask, "What caused God?"

So you say, "God is outside of time. Nothing caused God."

And I say, "How'd that happen?"

Science will be lucky if it ever figures out in any real detail how the Big Bang happened. That shouldn't be a big strike against it since everything else is later than that.

And it's not like anybody else knows.

[Chico]

I'll choose the sugar and spice and everything nice; you can be the primordial, protoplasmic atomic globule.

[VadeRetro]

I'll choose the sugar and spice and everything nice . . .

Shouldn't that make you a Chica?

[sourcery]

The distinction at the heart of the debate isn't between "natural" and "non-natural," but between "intentional" and "accidental." However, this distinction degenerates into meaninglessness in the case where no sentient being exists to have intentions. Reality is neither intentional nor accidental. It just is.

And the distinction between "natural" and "non-natural" is misunderstood. That which exists--is real--is natural. "Non-natural" is actually synonomous with "unreal" or "untrue."

[Sabertooth]

More correctly, nothing, not science and not religion, answers the question "What caused nature?"

Religion can answer it, but it's a matter of faith whether you accept that answer as true.

Different rules for religion than science.

Science will be lucky if it ever figures out in any real detail how the Big Bang happened. That shouldn't be a big strike against it since everything else is later than that.

I completely agree, as far as science is concerned. The outer limitations of scientific knowledge don't make the knowable content any less significant.

And it's not like anybody else knows.

That's not a scientific statement... it would require faith to believe it.

[Sabertooth]

My defnition of Nature refers to all that is encompassed by the space-time continuum, from the Big Bang to the present.

Given that, anything which is true beyond nature would fall into the realm of the supernatural, and is beyond the scope of science.

[edsheppa]

Many reasons. Our intuitive notions of causation are unreliable as can be seen by discoveries of the last century. Even had they not, it isn't appropriate to extrapolate from everything in the universe having a cause to the universe (and this is what you mean by nature, no?) having a cause. Isn't it even a category error since causation is law-like correlation in time and, supposing the universe to include time itself, cannot apply to time itself.

[VadeRetro]

The distinction at the heart of the debate isn't between "natural" and "non-natural," but between "intentional" and "accidental."

I tend to think it's between "natural" and "magical."

And the distinction between "natural" and "non-natural" is misunderstood. That which exists--is real--is natural. "Non-natural" is actually synonomous with "unreal" or "untrue."

So far at least, "magic" is "unnatural" and is unreal and untrue. I see potential for agreement.

[VadeRetro]

VadeRetro: And it's not like anybody else knows.

Sabertooth: That's not a scientific statement... it would require faith to believe it.

I suppose. True agnosticism is not knowing that stuff and not understanding how anyone can think they know that stuff. If I seem to be falling away from agnosticism, I'm not yet. I've been an agnostic since before I admitted it, before I hit my teen years. I know how to be one.

[Sabertooth]

...it isn't appropriate to extrapolate from everything in the universe having a cause to the universe (and this is what you mean by nature, no?) having a cause. Isn't it even a category error since causation is law-like correlation in time and, supposing the universe to include time itself, cannot apply to time itself.

I disagree, but not scientifically. Nor can you hold that position scientifically.

One can't speculate on what might be beyond the space-time continuum on the basis of anything scientific, since science only deals with what is inside of it. To do so goes beyond the bounds of agnosticism.

The Bible, for example, speaks of a time-like concept called "Eternity," that is distinct from time. But Eternity neither be ruled in or out, scientifically.

[Sabertooth]

If I seem to be falling away from agnosticism, I'm not yet. I've been an agnostic since before I admitted it, before I hit my teen years. I know how to be one.

Yeah, you do pretty well.... It's just a fine line, no? Always treading the border.

My complaint is with those who claim agnosticism, but are actually veiled atheists.