So why is the design inference sometimes permissable and other times not permissable? The answer appears to be in Alexander’s caricature of design theory. He writes that many IDs:
believe that only through the gaps in our present knowledge do we have incontrovertible evidence that God is at work in design. [305]
Alexander gives no citations of examples of IDs holding so to such a belief. Is there a single mainstream ID proponent who has ever promoted this notion?
Thoughts:
ReplyDelete1) Out of curiosity, what are references 62, 304ff, and 305? Can we have maybe a whole paragraph of quote?
2) My guess, from other articles he's written, that Alexander is he is of the school of theistic evolutionists that believes ID is not only bad science, but bad theology. The student that marvels at the beauty or complexity of DNA, or ATP synthase, to a believer is marveling at Creation. After all, "Nature is what God does"- Augustine.
So as a personal, gee-whiz look at that, God-is-great type experience--akin to marveling at the majesty of the Rockey Mountains--this is fine.
But, it seems, he thinks it is not a scientific argument:
".... It is a simple matter of fact that intelligent design forms no part of contemporary science...... Since intelligent design does not lead to testable ideas..... not surprisingly it has generated no fruitful research programme."
Nor a sound theological one:
"In the Christian understanding, God is seen as the composer and conductor of the whole "music of life" in all its completeness. Intelligent design instead promotes a "designer-of-the-gaps" in which the "designer" is used to plug the current gaps in scientific knowledge, a "designer" that will inevitably fade away as the gaps close."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/dec/03/intelligent-design-creation-christian
3) In his defense, what ID argument isn't of the gap-type? Behe's IC is-it argues we don't know how the flagella evolved, therefore design. Information theory based ones plead an inability to fully explain how evolution creates information. Sure, you won't phrase it as such.
4) It is an interesting choice to present a strong believer in theism and evolution here. This seems to me, a fundamental issue with the notion that evolution is an atheistic religion. Are Alexander, Francis Collins, and all religious biologists insane or are they liars? How can the 'religion' of evolution be used effectively in the pursuit of science by believers and non-believers of different faiths, without apparent conflict?
"the notion that evolution is an atheistic religion"
ReplyDeleteWhere did that notion come from?
Where did I get that idea?
ReplyDeleteHmm, maybe it is the constant drumbeat of comments who associate evolution with atheism. Maybe it is the anti-evolutionary works that tie evolution to atheism (and throw in Nazis and Stalinists, just for kicks).
Oh, and I know you all sometimes call this argument of science being driven by religion 'materialism' or you particularly call it 'scientific naturalism.' But my question stands. How can science be driven by religion (whatever it is), when many scientists hold religious beliefs independent of their work? Are they hypocrites, insane, or suffering from split personalities? Or is it that science, as a natural and purely natural investigation is useful? To the religious, perhaps there are non-overlapping modes of seeking 'higher' truth. I find it odd we are fine with methodological naturalism in geology, meteorology, and forensics*
but never biology.
*(Take a crime scene. No one saw it. Do we seek material evidence to tie a suspect to it. I could argue a demon intervened and planted the evidence. Why doesn't this fly? Why are we so comfortable in those cases seeing natural explanations, despite inability to rule out the contrary? When we abandon methodological naturalism, where do we stop? Why is Pat Roberston's belief in God causing earthquakes and hurricanes ruled out? How about the demon in the courtroom?).
And to support how pervasive the evolution=atheism link is, a quick google search:
Pat Robertson: "the evolutionists worship atheism. I mean, that's their religion."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/robertson.htm
Albert Mohler: "You cannot coherently affirm the Christian-truth claim and the dominant model of evolutionary theory at the same time."
http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2005_08_07_time.html
"Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion."
http://www.icr.org/article/455/
Evolution Is Religion--Not Science
Henry Morris, Ph.D.
In Peloza v. Capistrano School District, creationists argued 'evolutionism' was a religion.
Dembski-
"As far as design theorists are concerned, theistic evolution is American evangelicalism's ill-conceived accommodation to Darwinism. What theistic evolution does is take the Darwinian picture of the biological world and baptize it, identifying this picture with the way God created life. When boiled down to its scientific content, theistic evolution is no different from atheistic evolution, accepting as it does only purposeless, naturalistic, material processes for the origin and development of life."
What Every Theologian Should Know about Creation, Evolution, and Design
http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_theologn.htm
Dembski-
"The elite in our culture are materialistic and atheistic. Intelligent design challenges their materialistic science and materialistic evolutionary theory. If you look at discipline after discipline, it's been evolutionized — medicine, business, religion, literature. [...] If we are right, all these superstructures built on evolution need to be questioned. [...] Intelligent design is the only view opposed to the reductionist materialism..."
http://www.lasvegascitylife.com/articles/2005/02/24/cover_story/cover.txt
"How can the 'religion' of evolution be used effectively in the pursuit of science by believers and non-believers of different faiths, without apparent conflict? "
ReplyDeleteAs I have pointed out on this blog, there isn't a big difference between the atheists and theists within evolution, as they rely on the same premises that have been used for centuries. When the evolutionist argues that god wouldn't have created the backward retina design, you can't tell if it is coming from a theist or an atheist. Both assume that sort of premise.
"When the evolutionist argues that god wouldn't have created the backward retina design, you can't tell if it is coming from a theist or an atheist. Both assume that sort of premise."
ReplyDeleteI think that is conflating arguments against creationism and design for scientific evidence for evolution.
Direct observations of evolution, molecular phylogeny, evo-devo, shared biochemistry and organelles, etc., don't proceed from arguments that "God didn't do it that way." They proceed from empirical data, not theology.
This is not to say scientists haven't made anti-design arguments, or forayed into the popular literature with such arguments (Origin of Species contains several, to counter Victorian notions of stationary creation). But I don't think you'll find much of that in the modern primary literature, now will you? Of course, your readers, having no familiarity with actual arguments for evolution believe your assertion that PZ Myers rebutting design arguments is the only scientific evidence for evolution.
And again, why are we comfortable with methodological naturalism in the courtroom and meteorology, for example, but not biology?
Does religion drive forensic science?
If we reject it, where do we stop?
"Direct observations of evolution ..."
ReplyDeleteOf which there are, let's see, that would be precisely zero.
"molecular phylogeny ..."
Which contradict evolution.
", evo-devo,"
Which failed.
"shared biochemistry ..."
Which contradict evolution.
", don't proceed from arguments that "God didn't do it that way."
Of course they do. That's why the failures don't count.
"They proceed from empirical data, not theology."
Yes, and the Emperor has beautiful clothes.
"This is not to say scientists haven't made anti-design arguments,"
Evolutionists.
"or forayed into the popular literature with such arguments (Origin of Species contains several, to counter Victorian notions of stationary creation)."
More mythology. The religion that ran all through *Origins* countered nothing. It presented evolutionary religious premises and conclusions. Name a *single* Victorian who mandated that "stationary creation" implied no pattern of hierarchy between the species?
"But I don't think you'll find much of that in the modern primary literature, now will you?"
Of course you will. The modern literature is no different. Whenever it proves evolution it entails evolutionary religious and metaphysical premises.
"Of course, your readers, having no familiarity with actual arguments for evolution believe your assertion that PZ Myers rebutting design arguments is the only scientific evidence for evolution."
PZ Myers' arguments are no different than any other evolutionists'. There are no "actual arguments" that prove evolution to be a scientific fact, that do not entail religious / metaphysical premises. You're living a lie.
"And again, why are we comfortable with methodological naturalism in the courtroom and meteorology, for example, but not biology?"
I'm perfectly comfortable with MN in biology. I'm not the one struggling with MN here. I have repeatedly asked evolutionists to explain how MN is to be used, and everytime I get no answer. Evolutionists are not using MN, they are using a metaphysical interpretation of MN, and calling it MN.
"Does religion drive forensic science?"
Of course not.
Me:"Direct observations of evolution ..."
ReplyDeleteCH: Of which there are, let's see, that would be precisely zero.
Really? None? No evolution of antibiotic resistance, no citrate utilizing E. coli, no nylonase, no results from directed evolution, no HIV resistance, no H1N1, no malarial resistance, no herbicide resistance, no stickleback adaptation to fresh water?
Perhaps you mean direct observations of speciation?
These are direct, molecular observations of ongoing, or recent speciation:
Sympatric ecological speciation meets pyrosequencing: sampling the transcriptome of the apple maggot Rhagoletis pomonella.
BMC Genomics. 2009 Dec 27;10:633.
Rapid evolution and selection inferred from the transcriptomes of sympatric crater lake cichlid fishes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20331780
Mol Ecol. 2010 Mar;19 Suppl 1:197-211.
Adaptive radiations: from field to genomic studies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19528644
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Jun 16;106 Suppl 1:9947-54. Epub 2009
Evolution in the Drosophila ananassae species subgroup.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19377294
Fly (Austin). 2009 Apr-Jun;3(2):157-69. Epub 2009 Apr 12.
Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.
Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
Crossley, S. A. 1974. Changes in mating behavior produced by selection for ethological isolation between ebony and vestigial mutants of Drosophilia melanogaster. Evolution. 28:631-647.
Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.
ME:"molecular phylogeny ..."
ReplyDeleteCH: Which contradict evolution.
You keep saying that. Again, molecular phylogeny producing nested hierarchies in metazoans is not even controversial. As for organisms where horizontal gene transfer dominates:
En route to a genome-based classification of Archaea and Bacteria?
Syst Appl Microbiol. 2010 Apr 19.
"...However, recent studies indicate that the species tree and the hierarchical classification based on it are still meaningful concepts, and that state-of-the-art phylogenetic inference methods are able to provide reliable estimates of the species tree to the benefit of taxonomy. Conversely, we suspect that the current lack of completely sequenced genomes for many of the major lineages of prokaryotes and for most type strains is a major obstacle in progress towards a genome-based classification of microorganisms. We conclude that phylogeny-driven microbial genome sequencing projects such as the Genomic Encyclopaedia of Archaea and Bacteria (GEBA) project are likely to rectify this situation."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Me:", evo-devo,"
CH: Which failed.
Response: How so? No analysis?
... Evo-devo has achieved substantial mainstream success and recognition, including
all the essential paraphernalia of an established discipline (dedicated journals, National
Science Foundation funding, etc.).
JA Bolker - BioScience, 2008
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
me: "shared biochemistry ..."
CH: Which contradict evolution.
Response: How so? If we DIDN'T share biochemistry other organisms, could we infer common descent. If bacteria had TNA or GNA, and we had DNA, wouldn't you herald this as a failed evolutionary prediction?
ME: "But I don't think you'll find much of that in the modern primary literature, now will you?"
ReplyDeleteCH: Of course you will. The modern literature is no different. Whenever it proves evolution it entails evolutionary religious and metaphysical premises.
Response: Find me a primary article, where arguments against God or design are given as evidence for evolution. I found a few articles discussing the ID movement but nothing else.
Note that the New Scientist staff writers are NOT the producers of the primary literature. Sure, the BA in English types love to sex the story up by framing it as part of a larger societal controversy-but this is 180 degrees away from the actual literature.
By the way, this, perhaps, is one of the most disingenuous arguments I've ever heard. To reduce the entire biological scientific literature to God/design-bashing is absurd.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CH: There are no "actual arguments" that prove evolution to be a scientific fact, that do not entail religious / metaphysical premises. You're living a lie.
Me: Direct observation and empirical data are not metaphysical. Parsimonious explanations are not metaphysical. Are natural explanations for earthquakes and hurricanes metaphysical because they reject Pat Robertson's "God did it"? Is the courtroom metaphysical because it rejects that a demon could have planted the data to frame a suspect? Methodological naturalism isn't metaphysics nor a religion!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CH:There are no "actual arguments" that prove evolution to be a scientific fact, that do not entail religious / metaphysical premises. You're living a lie.
Simple way around fact-deny all data supporting it. There is no data. Scientific show-stopper. Rebuttal-See the entire literature.
Me:"And again, why are we comfortable with methodological naturalism in the courtroom and meteorology, for example, but not biology?"
ReplyDeleteCH: I'm perfectly comfortable with MN in biology.
Response: Even to the exclusion of supernatural causes as scientific explanations? Note my examples include excluding demonic transgression in forensic science, and God in causing hurricanes. Are you comfortable with limiting biology to "practical methods for acquiring knowledge, irrespective of one's metaphysical or religious views," such as we so comfortably seem to apply in those fields?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CH:I'm not the one struggling with MN here. I have repeatedly asked evolutionists to explain how MN is to be used, and everytime I get no answer.
You've been talking to the wrong biologists, I guess. MN would ask hypotheses to be tested only by reference to natural causes. Popper rejects MN in favor of falsification. Personally, I might favor falsifiability as a better standard.
My take:
1) Empirical evidence is observed
2) Hypothesis proposed that explain observation via natural causes. Hypothesis should be falsifiable
3) Hypothesis is experimentally tested
4) Corroborated hypotheses are used to construct theories.
For example:
1) Molecular phylogeny reflects a point mutation in GENE X between Species A and B, which have recently speciated and show color patterning differences
2) Hypotheses: a)GENE X controls color patterns
b)the alteration to GENE X caused
reproductive isolation, which led
to speciation
3) Experimental: swap gene X's, attempt mating....
Either I was right, or wrong
4)Example of evolution, along with 1000's of
other studies, leads to support
Questions? Metaphysics?
What, then, would the methodologically natural version of the same be? Note you have already rejected phylogeny and speciation. I question why.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
""Does religion drive forensic science?"
CH: Of course not.
If I reject the defense argument that a demon has altered the evidence presented in the courtroom to frame a suspect, based on methodological naturalism, is this religious? Is it metaphysical?
If I get interviewed by the press, and say that the Demon-tampering defense is absurd, that everything we know points to natural causes, and that the evidence didn't appear demon-designed by any criteria the defense presented, have I strayed too far?
RobertC. you will of course have noticed that Cornelius did not respond to the questions in your first post.
ReplyDeleteRobertC:"Direct observations of evolution ..."
ReplyDeleteCH: Of which there are, let's see, that would be precisely zero.
I think, RobertC, that Dr Hunter wants to see a movie.
Magnificent rebuttal, RobertC. Dr. Cornelius falls silent.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I must add my two cents.
== Cornelius writes: ===
"molecular phylogeny ..."
Which contradict evolution.
=======
This is an outright lie. There are differences of opinion, and there are lies, and this is a lie. Every day molecular biologists construct phylogenetic trees of genes, proteins, whole genomes. The trees are overwhelmingly easy to interpret by matching against phylogenetic trees of species constructed by, e.g. anatomical similarity.
=== Cornelius writes: ===
", evo-devo,"
Which failed.
"shared biochemistry ..."
Which contradict evolution.
===================
Cornelius thinks he can get away with bare assertion-- simply saying that molecular phylogeny contradicts evolution-- and not even backing that up with any evidence at all. Outright dishonesty, plus laziness.
Yes, Cornelius' "motarkee" crowd, his "halleluah chorus", that doesn't care a bit about the scientific details, will cheer and shout "Amen" when he smites the infidels. They don't care about the results of real scientific experiments done every day.
The "halleluah chorus" (JoeG,BA77) don't care that Cornelius is lying. Cornelius is living a lie, and we should call him on it.