'Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics': Supernatural Selection

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

[VadeRetro]

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

I've said it often here: the more I used to argue with liberal Democrats when I worked back in Beltway Land, the more theistic I used to get. Now, the more I argue with creationists, the more atheistic I get.

I'm pretty close to the edge these days. But, unlike my pre-teen self in Sunday School, I feel no need for stealth. If fervor for the Church of Atheism strikes me, I'll say so. But I still don't see how anyone can think they know something that has to be completely divorced from observable experience.

[Sabertooth]

If fervor for the Church of Atheism strikes me, I'll say so. But I still don't see how anyone can think they know something that has to be completely divorced from observable experience.

Faith either way, with this qualifier...

In the case of a believer, they might have observable inner experience which is nevertheless not replicable. But the at least have a data set of one. The quandry of the atheist is determining whether their lack of an inner experience implies a data set even that large.

[sourcery]

So far at least, "magic" is "unnatural" and is unreal and untrue.

Yes. And as soon as something is proven to be real, it is no longer considered magical. In fact, many object to scientific investigation and analysis for precisely this reason: demystification removes the "magic."

[jennyp]

In the case of a believer, they might have observable inner experience which is nevertheless not replicable. But the at least have a data set of one. The quandry of the atheist is determining whether their lack of an inner experience implies a data set even that large.

Ooh, if you're going to invoke subjective feelings, telepathic communication, or whatnot into the argument, then that cuts both ways: We have much more than just one dataset. We all know of many people who obviously have subjective thoughts, feelings, convictions, epiphanies, and yes - hallucinations & delusions. Some of these people soberly insist that they talk to God & He talks right back to them. Some of these also insist that Satan tries to horn in on the conversation & turn them away from God.

The point is, inherently subjective experiences run the gamut from things we'd all agree are valid understandings of the real world as it is, all the way to utter lunacy. The reason we rose out of the bronze age is we figured out how to reliably approximate actual objective knowledge about the world at large by combining & evaluating everyone's subjective beliefs & experiences in a valid way. And so far, the fruits of this "intersubjective knowledge" have not made the case for God nor for ID, IMO.

[BMCDA]

But I still don't see how anyone can think they know something that has to be completely divorced from observable experience.

That position is not necessary to be an atheist and I'm sure there aren't many who hold this extreme view. Most of them (including me) are as sure that gods do not exist as many non-atheists are convinced of the nonexistence of leprechauns, IPUs and the like.

[VadeRetro]

That position is not necessary to be an atheist and I'm sure there aren't many who hold this extreme view.

I don't know how extreme it is, but one militant athiest told me he could prove there was no God. I was very interested, but whatever it was seem to dissolve in the telling and he never mentioned it again.

[AndrewC]

The point is, inherently subjective experiences run the gamut from things we'd all agree are valid understandings of the real world as it is, all the way to utter lunacy. The reason we rose out of the bronze age is we figured out how to reliably approximate actual objective knowledge about the world at large by combining & evaluating everyone's subjective beliefs & experiences in a valid way. And so far, the fruits of this "intersubjective knowledge" have not made the case for God nor for ID, IMO.

And where did this "objective" analysis take place? Who was the great "objective" organizer that stated "Nuts over there, Real thinkers here." Darwinians self-importance wasn't in evidence quite yet. The reason man arose out of the dust is that man dreams, of things not "real".

[gcruse]

 if we are made in the image of God, the ultimate knower, then divine providence can be counted
on to have supplied us with reliable cognitive faculties.

In which  case our construction of Darwinism can be counted on to be reliable.

[AndrewC]

In which case our construction of Darwinism can be counted on to be reliable.

Free will allows for mistakes to be made.

[gcruse]

That doesn't require Darwinism to be a mistake.

[AndrewC]

That doesn't require Darwinism to be a mistake.

No, but it reeks of week old fish.

[gcruse]

Too subjective. What it DOES do is disprove the notion that thinking with an ID brain is any more reliable than one evolved from a monkey. If free will allows mistakes to be made, so does evolution.

[PatrickHenry]

But I still don't see how anyone can think they know something that has to be completely divorced from observable experience.

There is a subtle philosophical distinction. The atheist says: "You -- Mr. Theist -- have no evidence, and until you do, there is nothing for me to consider."

The agnostic looks at the same data and says: "True, there's no evidence for theism, but what do I know? It might be true anyway."

So in this context, the agnostic looks at the absence of evidence and still holds open the likelihood that there may be a case to be made. The atheist doesn't exactly say there's no god (some do, but not as I'm defining it), just that there's no reason for him to even consider the possibility until some evidence turns up. As I said, it's a subtle difference.

[The_Reader_David]

I am willing for the moment as a rhetorical point concede that the "construction of Darwinism" is reliable. It is, however, not scientific. The notion of "natural selection" as standardly applied is tautological, and thus not scientific in the Popperian sense.

What is unreliable is ignoring the fact that a scientific, falsifiable, prediction-generating version of "fitness" will involve laws, and that the resulting law-constrained stochastic search does not have the philosophical content needed to make Darwinism into an atheistic argument-from-no-design.

Retracting my rhetorical concession, I would point out that which is created in the image and likeness of God is also in the same account marred by an action which separates him (us) from the ultimate knower. The perfectly built telescope with a smudged mirror will show false images, so the disordered senses, reason and noetic faculty of Man is no longer necessarily a reliable guide to truth.

[WhiteyAppleseed]

What they deny is that the standard Darwinian theory... suffices to explain the whole of life. The biological world, they contend, is rife with evidence of intelligent design -- evidence that points with near certainty to the intervention of an Intelligent Designer.

Ultimately, either view comes down to faith. Whatever teaching you believe will be your dominant view. How long will it take science to take evolution to its logical conclusion and find that beyond there is a kind of spiritual evolution that will give them hope, alone as they are, in the Holy of Holies.

[AndrewC]

Too subjective.

Shall we flip a coin? Darwinian evolution evidently denies a free will. It might describe it as a "random" will.

[BMCDA]

And I'd be interested too ;)
However, depending on how this deity is defined it can be quite difficult to disprove it. A god like the Greek Apollo is rather narrowly defined and so easily disprovable (but only to that extent that he doesn't exist as defined; he could very well exist but doing something else than moving the sun across the sky). The monotheistic deities on the other hand are more complex and thus harder to "disprove" in the above sense. Nonetheless one can point out inconsistencies in their definition.

[gcruse]

You can't have it both ways. Either ID-created mentality is superior to that generated by evolution, or it is not. If ID-generated mentality is reliable, then so are the conclusions logically generated and supported by the evidence which derive from that mentality. My point is that the statement of the new-creos proves to be a contradiction.

[BMCDA]

And thus Atheism and Agnosticism do overlap to a great extent.