Dennis Venema asked several questions regarding Intelligent Design. Since there is still much to discuss on the theology of common ancestry, it might be better to start a separate thread. I appreciate Dennis' questions and hope we can work out where we agree and where we don't.
Dennis asks, "I'll need to know what your definition of "design" is, as well as your definition of "scientifically." "
TJ: These are good questions. All of creation is designed and we can't distinguish between what is designed and what isn't. I admit I've seen that distinction in some ID writing but disagree with it. What I mean by design is that certain features may not be explained by the "laws" of science as we know them. This is not merely an argument from ignorance or a God of the gaps explanation, but is based on what we do know from science. An example is the origin of the first cell. We know the intracellular and extracellular environments are quite different and these chemical and electrical gradients are essential for cell function. Thus the arguments against cellularization are based on knowledge, not ignorance. Same thing with the reduction in entropy that occurs in the formation of macromolecules like DNA, RNA and protein.
DV: As for your "truly random" comment - I'm not sure what you mean, to be honest. I don't think anything is "truly random, even to God" if by that you mean it is beyond God's control.
TJ: I'm glad you feel that way but many of your TE colleagues will argue that evolution is truly random, even to God. God knows the end result but not the means by which we get there. An example is Simon Conway Morris, who holds that the evolutionary process has to end up with some kind of creature that seeks a relationship with God, but the details aren't known, even to God.
DV: As for antipathy towards an "interventionist" idea of God: if evidence were present that such a "discontinuous" event had occurred, I would be happy to weigh it and consider it. It is certainly within God's purview to "intervene" (if one can really call God interacting with His creation 'intervening' in any meaningful way). Nothing in biology that I have seen thus far makes me reach for the "miracle" category as of yet. Nothing I have read in the ID literature makes me reach for that category either.
TJ: Again, I appreciate your answer. Now we can debate the evidence, rather than presuppositions. Many TE's have claimed that it's only an incompetent God who needs to tinker with the evolutionary process because it wasn't designed right in the first place.
DV: To give you some more info on how I view ID, I see it as an argument from analogy: things in biology are analogous to things we know are designed (by people or animals); ergo, the biological entity is designed. Well, the strength of that argument depends on the strength of the analogy - I have yet to see a case where, in my view, the analogy holds up.
TJ: So you agree with the argument from analogy but haven't yet found a convincing example?
DV: The other line of argumentation I see in ID (Dembski's Explanatory Filter, for example) seems to me to be an argument from ignorance. You can't use Dembski's filter unless you have perfect knowledge of all "natural" mechanisms. I have also never seen Dembski actually use his filter and publish the results. Have you?
TJ: One initial comment about publishing: the names of Behe, Wells, Dembski et al. are anathema to the scientific community. They have tried to publish but their submissions aren't even reviewed. I personally think the Expelled movie was overdone but there's a lot of truth to it. So lack of publications doesn't mean anything. Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by needing a perfect knowledge of all "natural" mechanisms before you can claim design. Does science ever work that way? We may not invoke new concepts like emergence and self-organization to explain phenomena we can't explain.
DV: Another problem I have with the ID movement is that as it focuses on narrow examples (the flagellum, for example) it seems to dividing biology into "the miraculous bits God did" over against "the natural bits God wasn't involved in because 'Darwinism' can explain those." Well, I prefer to see God as the author and sustainer of the whole deal. In their zeal to "prove" a Designer, I think they're ignoring a big part of His design.
TJ: Agreed, but ID proper doesn't claim that some things are designed and others aren't. It merely claims that some parts cannot be explained by processes we know and understand. ID also doesn't claim to "prove" a designer. The word "proof" is only appropriate in mathematics and alcohol :-).
I hope this clears up some misconceptions so we can debate the evidence.
14 comments:
Thanks for this Tony - I have a few quick comments before I get back to work...
You still haven't defined "scientific/ally" from your perspective. Why does ID qualify as science in your view? I don't think it qualifies because it has not, in my opinion, (yet) produced hypotheses one can test experimentally.
I agree that IDers might have problems publishing in the mainstream literature, but you can't argue that they don't publish. I could care less where the work is published if it will hold up to scientific scrutiny. In this day and age I don't know how anyone with an internet connection can cry "censorship." Behe, Dembski et al publish reams of material - I have some of their recent books to prove it.
A quick comment: if Conway Morris sees life as convergent at a defined end but not preprogrammed at every step along the way, can you really argue that he advocates a "random" process? Again, I hope Arnold weighs in on the "randomness" issue because I know he has done scholarly work in this area.
TJ: "What I mean by design is that certain features may not be explained by the "laws" of science as we know them. This is not merely an argument from ignorance or a God of the gaps explanation, but is based on what we do know from science."
Really? It seems to me that the first part of that sentence is an argument from ignorance - you place design within the domain of what we cannot yet explain. You cannot exclude the possibility that the "as we know them" part will not improve in the future, as it almost certainly will. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you? Are you not saying that our confidence in detecting design is contingent on our understanding of "natural" laws?
It seems to me like you're saying - "if we don't understand it according to our current knowledge it might be designed." Well, I'll agree with that as far as it goes, but it doesn't seem like a very compelling argument to me, or a very reliable measure by which to gauge design.
I'd be happy to discuss what you see as evidence for design, though - perhaps some worked examples will clear up these issues.
Yes, I will indeed have something to say about randomness, but it will have to wait until later this week.
Dennis asks me for my definition of science and implies that the production of hypotheses is a requirement.
It's true that I don't have a ready definition of science. I don't see science as fundamentally different from what I do in other contexts. Do you define science for your students? What if something is true, but is not science? What do you say then?
Do the fields of forensic science and archeology not qualify as science? They don't make hypotheses but they do come with answers that advance science.
Dennis, I'm confused about your second paragraph. You say that IDers don't publish but then you say Behe, Dembski et al publish reams of material. I can also name several websites which publish ID material. My point was that the gatekeepers of peer-reviewed journals simply will not allow ID-related articles to be published. Just ask Richard Sternberg.
Thirdly, you state that my definition of design is one of ignorance. Allow me to reword the sentence in question, "The 'laws' of science are incapable of explaining certain features." Does that make a difference? That's not a statement of ignorance, it's a statement about the inadequacy of scientific laws to explain what we see.
One final comment, it may well be that something we think shows evidence of design turns out to have a naturalistic origin after all (forgive my sloppy use of words, you understand what I mean). That's okay and it wouldn't bother me.
My concern is that design is ruled out of order in science because it is defined to be unscientific. That's reminiscent of the drunk searching for his keys under a streetlight. When asked where he lost them, he replied, "Across the street but the light's better here." :-)
This has been fun but I need to take a break for a few days. I have a busy week ahead.
Hi Tony - below find my answers to some of your questions.
Do you define science for your students?
Yes. I view the ability to make controlled tests of predictions derived from hypotheses to be a requirement for science.
What if something is true, but is not science? What do you say then?
I say it is true, but that it is not science. For example, the fact that Jesus is God incarnate is as true as true can get, but it’s not a scientific claim.
Do the fields of forensic science and archeology not qualify as science? They don't make hypotheses but they do come with answers that advance science.
I disagree- these fields make ample use of hypotheses, predictions and tests.
Dennis, I'm confused about your second paragraph. You say that IDers don't publish but then you say Behe, Dembski et al publish reams of material. I can also name several websites which publish ID material. My point was that the gatekeepers of peer-reviewed journals simply will not allow ID-related articles to be published. Just ask Richard Sternberg.
My bad- I thought you were arguing that ID could not present its findings because of a conspiracy against them. Meyer's article was pretty underwhelming, though, don't you think? Axe's are much better, even if they have limited applicability.
Thirdly, you state that my definition of design is one of ignorance. Allow me to reword the sentence in question, "The 'laws' of science are incapable of explaining certain features." Does that make a difference? That's not a statement of ignorance, it's a statement about the inadequacy of scientific laws to explain what we see.
Two comments: if there are things that scientific “laws” are a priori incapable of explaining, why include those things within science? Or, do you mean “things in the natural world that the laws of science, as we currently understand them, cannot explain”? – in which case, it seems to me that once again the criteria is based on what we don’t know. How do you know that our understanding of science won’t improve in the future?
One final comment, it may well be that something we think shows evidence of design turns out to have a naturalistic origin after all (forgive my sloppy use of words, you understand what I mean). That's okay and it wouldn't bother me.
Fair enough. I appreciate the honesty. Likewise, if suddenly convincing evidence were brought forward for design I would be “ok” with changing my mind as well. Happy even – but I’m not holding my breath. The ID movement has had 20+ years and the arguments still bear striking homology to YEC and OEC antievolution arguments long debunked…
My concern is that design is ruled out of order in science because it is defined to be unscientific.
I don’t rule out design a priori or by definition; I don’t think others in science do either. If ID really is science, then, by all means, let’s see what the ID proponents have as evidence. So far all I’ve seen is argument from ignorance and argument by analogy. I’m not trying to be harsh here- those are the technical terms for the types of arguments being put forward.
What science won’t accept, however, is “we don’t understand how this is possible with known natural mechanisms, therefore design”; neither “this structure can be analogized to a known human artifact, therefore design.” I agree that these arguments are philosophy and not science.
This has been fun but I need to take a break for a few days. I have a busy week ahead.
God bless and Godspeed; I’ll look forward to further discussion.
Dennis, I've been mulling over your comments the last few days.
Firstly, I'm not convinced that hypothesis-forming is a prerequisite for science. I see science as a human activity to uncover knowledge (the Latin "scire" means "to know") about the creation. When I have my students develop a research proposal, I don't require an hypothesis but I do require them to develop a focused research question to which their research will give a clear answer. Such a question could be reworded into an hypothesis but I don't see that as important or even necessary.
In the context of ID, one could ask a question such as, "Are the processes of mutation, recombination, gene duplication, selection etc. sufficient to account for the presence of gene X?" I see that as a perfectly valid scientific question. The answer could be "Yes" or, "Not by the mechanisms we know of but we might find some other mechanism to account for it" or simply, "No."
Secondly, I'm still not comfortable with the distinction between science and non-science. True, I don't allow students to use miracles to explain their lab results but Paul in I Corinthians 15 cites "scientific" evidence (witnesses) for the "non-scientific" event of Christ's resurrection. Similarly, you say the fact that Jesus is God incarnate is non-scientific, but then John 20:30-31 says that the signs (scientific evidence) are recorded, "so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God..."
I don't follow your distinction between science and non-science, and philosophy for that matter. Do you think science is devoid of philosophy? Hardly. The problem is most scientists don't realize they have a philosophy of science. I just don't think you can neatly compartmentalize these human activities.
Hi Tony,
No, I don't think science is devoid of philosophy. That's why hypotheses, predictions and tests are so important for science! The fact that scientists from all walks of life, religions, philosophies, etc can arrive at a consensus through these methods shows that the approach can greatly minimize philosophical bias.
A few questions for you:
suppose one of your students tells you that they believe that astrology is a scientific discipline. How do you respond?
You say:
In the context of ID, one could ask a question such as, "Are the processes of mutation, recombination, gene duplication, selection etc. sufficient to account for the presence of gene X?" I see that as a perfectly valid scientific question. The answer could be "Yes" or, "Not by the mechanisms we know of but we might find some other mechanism to account for it" or simply, "No."
Please explain how you would tell the difference between the last two options, and provide a rationale for same.
Last question for now: from your vantage point, what has ID produced in the last 25 years that is unique and not merely a reworking of antievolution arguments previously advanced from the YEC and OEC camps?
I'll be away from internet access for a few days, but I look forward to further discussion.
This will probably be my last post on this subject. I have enjoyed it but sense diminishing returns on the time investment and doubt we'll come to an agreement.
DV: No, I don't think science is devoid of philosophy. That's why hypotheses, predictions and tests are so important for science! The fact that scientists from all walks of life, religions, philosophies, etc can arrive at a consensus through these methods shows that the approach can greatly minimize philosophical bias.
TJ: I’m sorry, I lost you here. You say that science is not devoid of philosophy but its approach minimize philosophical bias? I agree that science needs rules, like logical thought, presentation of evidence etc. But scientists also have philosophical presuppositions like methodological or ontological naturalism, which may or may not be part of science.
DV: Suppose one of your students tells you that they believe that astrology is a scientific discipline. How do you respond?
TJ: And how would having hypotheses and predictions help you in determining whether astrology is true or not? Astrology has plenty of hypotheses and predictions! It’s the rigorous testing of these hypotheses which shows astrology not to be true.
DV: You say,
In the context of ID, one could ask a question such as, "Are the processes of mutation, recombination, gene duplication, selection etc. sufficient to account for the presence of gene X?" I see that as a perfectly valid scientific question. The answer could be "Yes" or, "Not by the mechanisms we know of but we might find some other mechanism to account for it" or simply, "No."
Please explain how you would tell the difference between the last two options, and provide a rationale for same.
TJ: That all depends on which way the existing scientific evidence is pointing. If we are discussing the polymerization of macromolecules, we know that energy input is required in biological systems to overcome the decrease in entropy. Where is that energy going to come from in a random system? The more complexity we find in a system, the more remote the possibility that it could have assembled by chance. In this case I would say the answer would be “no.”
Conversely, there are some arguments which are weaker. The endosymbiotic theory of the origins of mitochondria and chloroplasts presents some challenges in part because gene regulation in the organelles differs from that in the nucleus. That means all those transferred genes need to be placed in a context that can express that gene appropriately. Further, the protein needs to be imported back into the organelle. That’s a tall order. However, there are some recent examples of gene transfer from chloroplasts so, unlikely as it may seem, it could happen. Another example from your field: cell movement during gastrulation in fish is away from the center, but in other vertebrates it involved inward cell movement. If amphibians descended from fish, how could such a drastic change occur in such a fundamental process in development and what kind of intermediate would there be? Again, it’s a tall order but possible, particularly since the same signals seem to be involved.
(to be continued)
(Part 2)
DV: Last question for now: from your vantage point, what has ID produced in the last 25 years that is unique and not merely a reworking of antievolution arguments previously advanced from the YEC and OEC camps?
TJ: You may not be satisfied with my answer but for me it has altered the way I view living things. I see design as real, not apparent. When I discuss Sean Carroll’s concept of a developmental toolkit in my Developmental class, I show how that is a design metaphor, “If I were to build an animal, what tools (Wnts, BMPs, etc.) would I use?” When I discuss the structure of the genome I can point out that the genome contains information which is not reducible to the chemical constituents of DNA and protein. That information didn’t come out of thin air. I feel free to speak teleologically when I explain things to my students, not just as a pedagogical tool, but because teleology in biology is real. Which brings me to ask something I meant to ask earlier, “Why do you feel the argument from analogy with human-designed artifacts is invalid for ID?” Whether Mount Rushmore was designed by humans or space aliens is irrelevant, it still shows design. BTW, just because some antievolution arguments come from the OEC and YEC camps, doesn’t mean they aren’t valid.
DV: I'll be away from internet access for a few days, but I look forward to further discussion.
TJ: I’m going on vacation later this week so I’ll also be out of contact. However, I’m not sure we will ever agree on this subject so I don’t know how fruitful continued discussion will be. I also suspect we’re talking past each other, with subtly different understandings of terms like philosophy, hypotheses etc. There are other areas that I would like to take off the back burner, including population genetics and the theological issues.
Hi Tony,
Thanks for your comments. Perhaps you’re already on vacation – if so, rest well.
DV: No, I don't think science is devoid of philosophy. That's why hypotheses, predictions and tests are so important for science! The fact that scientists from all walks of life, religions, philosophies, etc can arrive at a consensus through these methods shows that the approach can greatly minimize philosophical bias.
TJ: I’m sorry, I lost you here. You say that science is not devoid of philosophy but its approach minimize philosophical bias? I agree that science needs rules, like logical thought, presentation of evidence etc. But scientists also have philosophical presuppositions like methodological or ontological naturalism, which may or may not be part of science.
I personally think methodological naturalism is a good philosophical presupposition for science. It forces scientists to focus on what can be empirically tested, and to leave what cannot be tested outside of science.
DV: Suppose one of your students tells you that they believe that astrology is a scientific discipline. How do you respond?
TJ: And how would having hypotheses and predictions help you in determining whether astrology is true or not? Astrology has plenty of hypotheses and predictions! It’s the rigorous testing of these hypotheses which shows astrology not to be true.
Exactly! You’ll note that I included “tests” in my list above. If tests of predictions (based on defined hypotheses) can help you decide if astrology is true, then it can help you evaluate if anything purporting to be science is “true,” or at least supported by the scientific method. This includes Intelligent Design. Thus it is reasonable to request of ID that it demonstrate rigorous testing of predictions based on its hypotheses. So far I have not seen such rigorous tests, nor even detailed predictions that might be so tested. If ID can provide such predictions and demonstrate tests that support these predictions, then ID will earn its place within science.
This is part of the reason why I asked you what was new about ID compared to YEC and OEC. These movements, especially YEC, do make very defined predictions that can be tested: the earth/cosmos is 6,000-10,000 years old; humans share no ancestry with other forms of life, for example. Now, these predictions have failed to find empirical support, but at least these movements make testable predictions! I have not yet seen equivalent predictions from the ID movement – on the whole the ID movement seems much more vague to me. If you know of any testable ID predictions (and are willing to continue the conversation) please let me know. I don’t think that’s too much to ask from a movement that claims to have a scientific theory poised to overthrow the most fundamental theory of biology.
[cont]
Reading through your rationalization for choosing between the “no, not ever” option and the “not as we now understand” option, it still seems to me that you’re basing your choice on (our necessarily) incomplete information. To put it another way, back in the early 1990s Behe was using the absence of transitional whale fossils as an argument against common ancestry for these organisms, and that these organisms were designed in a non-evolutionary way. Shortly after, transitional whale fossils started cropping up, and he no longer uses that argument. I guess my concern is that if I ever put something into the “unexplainable” category, and use it as an argument for Design (and hence a Designer, or God), what happens to my view of God if evidence ever comes to light that shows there is a “natural” explanation for the phenomenon? This still seems like a God-of-the-gaps type of logic to me, where new understanding can remove part of one’s argument for God.
DV: Last question for now: from your vantage point, what has ID produced in the last 25 years that is unique and not merely a reworking of antievolution arguments previously advanced from the YEC and OEC camps?
TJ: You may not be satisfied with my answer but for me it has altered the way I view living things. I see design as real, not apparent. When I discuss Sean Carroll’s concept of a developmental toolkit in my Developmental class, I show how that is a design metaphor, “If I were to build an animal, what tools (Wnts, BMPs, etc.) would I use?” When I discuss the structure of the genome I can point out that the genome contains information which is not reducible to the chemical constituents of DNA and protein. That information didn’t come out of thin air. I feel free to speak teleologically when I explain things to my students, not just as a pedagogical tool, but because teleology in biology is real. Which brings me to ask something I meant to ask earlier, “Why do you feel the argument from analogy with human-designed artifacts is invalid for ID?” Whether Mount Rushmore was designed by humans or space aliens is irrelevant, it still shows design. BTW, just because some antievolution arguments come from the OEC and YEC camps, doesn’t mean they aren’t valid.
I’m glad that ID does this for you, but it’s really not that different from a TE perspective. TEs still believe in teleology, (after all, many are Christians) they just don’t think God had to “intervene” in the details in the same way as for ID. When I teach biology I teach it from a teleological perspective too. God can intend things through a "natural" process like evolution just as much as through what we would call a “discontinuous intervention.“
[cont]
On the argument from analogy: I agree that Mt. Rushmore is an artifact/ was designed. I probably wouldn’t feel the same way if Mt. Rushmore was one of a group of replicating entities with an internal code that mostly lined up with other replicating entities similar to it, and that code had been shown to be subject to change during replication, that various members of the Mt. Rushmore-like population competed for resources for their survival and replication, and there were series of entities in the fossil record that appeared as forms similar, and leading up to, the Mt. Rushmore we see today. While the foregoing might seem a bit silly, I am in fact explaining why I think this argument from analogy doesn’t transfer over to living things. Living things are in a fundamentally different category than human artifacts, for the above reasons.
TJ: I’m going on vacation later this week so I’ll also be out of contact. However, I’m not sure we will ever agree on this subject so I don’t know how fruitful continued discussion will be. I also suspect we’re talking past each other, with subtly different understandings of terms like philosophy, hypotheses etc. There are other areas that I would like to take off the back burner, including population genetics and the theological issues.
I do hope you enjoy your vacation and re-create in the true sense of the word. I am sorry, though, that we’ve come to the end of the discussion this quickly – it seems like we’re just getting started. I’ll respect your decision to discuss other topics, however, and leave this discussion where it stands unless you'd like to continue it.
I for one would like to talk more with IDers. The ID movement continues to claim for itself that it is a true scientific theory, one that will replace “Darwinism” in the near future. Some prominent members of the ID movement have labelled TEs as compromisers and not much better than atheists because they do not join the ID cause. In the face of these claims I am very interested in discussing things with IDers! Yet, one is hard-pressed to find even a blog where one can have open dialogue with knowledgeable ID proponents (all the blogs I know of either have no provision for comments or censor comments).
I for one think that TEs and IDers need more dialogue , not less; especially those of us on both sides who claim the Lordship of Christ.
Dennis, a few minor points to close out this discussion. I want to move over to the theological implications of human evolution and I hope you join us in this discussion. You have been most respectful and cordial and I have appreciated your comments.
You mentioned that Behe used to use the argument for whale evolution until a convincing fossil series was discovered. I don't recall Behe using such arguments, which would be inconsistent with his training as a biochemist. Behe doesn't deny common ancestry. You're not thinking of Michael Denton? But I could be mistaken. It's been a while since I read DBB.
You said, "I personally think methodological naturalism is a good philosophical presupposition for science. It forces scientists to focus on what can be empirically tested, and to leave what cannot be tested outside of science."
I too think that methodological naturalism is a good way to start. But what happens if the evidence you encounter e.g. in the origin of life shows it to be impossible from a naturalist perspective? Does it then become non-science? By denying the possibility of design, aren't you assuming what you're trying to determine? I'm still hung up on your defining some things as science or nonscience and what that means for whether they're true or not.
Hi Tony,
A few brief comments, and then I will be happy to move on to the topics you suggest.
You can see Behe using the whale argument here.
He hasn't used it for a long time - that is the last time that I am aware of. He stopped using it pre- Darwin's Black Box (coincident with discoveries of several transitional whales in the mid 1990s).
Another comment: do you think it would be possible to conclude that life could not have possibly had a "natural" origin? I don't think we can conclude that yet. There is a lot of interesting research going on in that area.
I don't think it would be wise to invest too much theologically in the notion that life could not have arisen through (so-called) natural means (recall, I hold that all is ordained and sustained by God - so "natural" is just one means by which God works). It may well be that in the future more conclusive evidence will be available for how life originated on earth. Already there are some fairly compelling clues.
In either case, abiogenesis is an interesting but ultimately irrelevant issue for evolution (since evolution only starts once you have a replicating entity subject to descent with modification).
DV: I don't think it would be wise to invest too much theologically in the notion that life could not have arisen through (so-called) natural means...
TJ: I see your point but I'm not staking any theological claim on abiogenesis, I just feel the evidence is against a naturalistic origin. I agree with you that regardless of the mechanism, God is at work in the process.
DV: It may well be that in the future more conclusive evidence will be available for how life originated on earth. Already there are some fairly compelling clues.
TJ: Can you elaborate on these compelling clues? I haven't seen anything remotely compelling yet.
DV: In either case, abiogenesis is an interesting but ultimately irrelevant issue for evolution (since evolution only starts once you have a replicating entity subject to descent with modification).
TJ: But we weren't talking about evolution, we were discussing evidence for design or more precisely, evidence against a naturalistic origin. Further, one part of the model of abiogenesis, ribozymes, does involve descent with modification.
Post a Comment