Thinking Christian Comments
Original Post: Intelligent Design Grab-Bag
Not being able to say how the knee evolved does not mean it was intelligently designed. As amazing as the human body is, it doesn't mean that every aspect of it is intelligently designed, and the knee (along with the urethra passing through the protate gland, etc.) is a prime example. It is amazing *as far as it goes,* but, after that. . . .
When I encounter "believers" like Holo, it reminds of a wonderful talk Os Guinness, the Christian historian, philosopher and theologian gave. It is entitled: "The One Unanswerable Objection to CHristian Faith: Christians."
Paul, if we don't know how the knee evolved, that could mean:
a) It evolved and we don't know how, or
b) It was designed.
I don't think there's another option. Irreducible complexity does speak against a, which, if it is the case, leaves b.
Irreducible complexity is still a live option, though many have written it off--they're doing so prematurely, in my considered opinion. I'm sure I'll hear lots of objections to that here. I've never seen the evidence that the knee is irreducibly complex, but I find it interesting that the scientist quoted has seen it that way. As I said, it's not proven yet, but the quick way in which people have written it off seems hasty to me.
it's not proven yet, but the quick way in which people have written it off seems hasty to me.
Agreed. I'm not asking for science to be turned on it's head, but for heaven's sake let's not rush to dismiss what might be a valid explanation. Frankly I'm disappointed by the extremists on both sides of the ID debate.
The problem atheists have with respect to the problem of evil is similar to one of the problems anti-IDers have with ID. Specifically, the charge that the designer is a horrible designer. The anti-ID people must borrow from ID in order to prove ID is false. The 'bad design' argument is doomed before it gets off the ground.
Agreed, SteveK. Note that our set of options does not read this way:
a) It evolved, and we don't know how, or
b1) It was intelligently designed, or
b2) It was stupidly designed.
Any entity that designed the knee was at least as intelligent as, say, Richard Dawkins. Or, even if the designer were (per impossibile) an idiot, even b2 would mean naturalistic evolution is not the whole answer.
Tom, I didn't say that we had more than two options, just that not proving one option doesn't lead to the other. But, if the knee is stupidly designed, isn't that evidence against an intelligent designer?
IDers say that the knee is so incredibly designed it had to be designed by an intellegence, whereas the anti-IDers say that the knee is incredibly designed, but is also so poorly designed in some ways that it couldn't have been designed by an intelligence.
We aren't led to imagine that the knee had to be designed by an intelligence just because we don't have the evolutionary pathway for it worked out because it has unintelligent design in it.
Paul:
You can't say the design is amazing (as in "wow") and also stupid. Unless you mean amazingly stupid. Still, the point remains: a "stupid" designer is nonetheless a designer.
You said:
"It is amazing *as far as it goes,* but, after that. . . ."
"But, if the knee is stupidly designed, isn't that evidence against an intelligent designer?"
Again, I don't know the evidence for this in the case of the knee. If someone says the knee must be designed because we don't know how it evolved, they're committing an obvious and basic fallacy.
If they're saying there is something about the design of the knee that makes it seem impossible in principle to have evolved, that's worth investigating. That's the claim Behe made about the flagellum and several other biochemical features of life. It's worth investigating.
SteveK, why can't one element or aspect of a design be brilliant and another stupid? I can easily imagine a house or a car designed thusly.
And, a stupid designer is still a designer, but if we think that the designer is the creator of time and space, that argues for a very small amount of stupidity. I understand that that "if" may be a very separate argument from ID per se.
Having not identified a pathway to evolve a knee is not evidence for evolution, against evolution, nor evidence for ID. But we've got other evidence for evolution (tons of it). And we haven't proved that a knee couldn't evolve. So what's the fuss, actually, beyond a very big "could?"
SteveK, why can't one element or aspect of a design be brilliant and another stupid? I can easily imagine a house or a car designed thusly.
That's fair. You can think of it that way.
But we've got other evidence for evolution (tons of it). And we haven't proved that a knee couldn't evolve. So what's the fuss, actually, beyond a very big "could?"
Think general relativity and special relativity. We had tons of evidence for one but it didn't answer all the questions. Sound familiar? ID may be the special relativity of evolution. Let's not dismiss it quite yet.
I'm not dismissing ID (here, at least). I'm merely questioning the point of bringing up the (presumed) fact that we don't have an evolutionary pathway for the knee. So what? That doesn't get us any closer to finding out if ID is true or not. We're only looking at one black crow.
Paul:
It's not an argument from ignorance anymore than your argument is one from wishful thinking. ID is an argument that stems from our understanding systems engineering and information theory (to name just two). If evolution can solve this on it's own then ID will go away.
When did I say that it was an argument from ignorance? I'm saying that the knee issue is an irrelevant argument.
You keep on bringing up straw men. I never tried to dismiss ID (here). I never said it was an argument from ignorance. Could you deal with what I write, and not your expansive interpretation of it?
When did I say that it was an argument from ignorance?
Your words....
Paul: Not being able to say how the knee evolved does not mean it was intelligently designed.
Paul: "We aren't led to imagine that the knee had to be designed by an intelligence just because we don't have the evolutionary pathway for it worked out because it has unintelligent design in it."
Paul: "I'm merely questioning the point of bringing up the (presumed) fact that we don't have an evolutionary pathway for the knee. So what?"
You are essentially charging ID with saying "Hey, evolution doesn't have an answer therefore ID is the answer". You are charging ID with making an 'argument from ignorance'. At least that's the way I'm reading your comments.
I'm pointing out that the ID argument goes beyond that point. If you're not making that point then I hereby retract my point. Get my point?
Allow me to retract any accusatory tone in my last post. The substance remains.
Evolutionists have not been able to explain how the knee joint evolved step by step. We cannot prove that an intelligent being designed these, but at present no one can prove that they evolved, either.
Let me ask you a question, Tom. Let's say next week some brilliant biologist unveils a plausible step-by-step mechanism that explains how the knee evolved. Will your reaction be to reconsider these types of objections to evolution, or will you just move on to the next item that hasn't been explained yet, in order to make evolution appear to be a flawed theory? Are you really interested in finding out how the knee evolved, or are you more interested in trying to prove the existence of God?
ID tries to pass itself off as a legitimate scientific theory, not just a collection of objections to evolution. And yet, what has ID been able to explain about the natural world, other than to claim it was designed?
Recently I asked the Discovery Institute the following:
According to your organization's FAQ:
"What is the theory of intelligent design?
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of
the universe and of living things are best explained by an
intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural
selection."
My question is--
What is your organization's alternate explanation for the
bacterial flagellum? According to the above, ID should be able
to provide a superior explanation than evolution does for the
bacterial flagellum, considered to be the "poster child" of your
movement.
The Panda's Thumb recently posted a video showing how the
flagellum might have organized according to evolutionary
principles, but I've never seen an alternate explanation from
DI. Since those that promote ID claim it is a valid alternative
to evolution, I think it's appropriate to ask you this question.
They gave me a long laundry list of objections to the mainstream explanation for the evolution of the flagellum, but they never did provide their supposedly superior explanation, even after I reminded them several times.
Let's face it: intelligent design really is nothing more than creation science relabelled, and I have no doubt that the same people who defend ID now defended creation science 15 years ago.
Irreducible complexity is still a live option, though many have written it off--they're doing so prematurely, in my considered opinion.
No, Tom--There are documented mechanisms that can lead from a cruder reducible state to an irreducibly complex configuration by loss of superfluous features. See: NCSE Reports "The Evolution of Biological Complexity" by Finn Pond for a nice example of how an amoeba culture got infected by bacteria & the two developed a symbiotic relationship, which led the parasitic bacteria to lose a few features & it became a new organelle. And removing the new organelle was fatal to the new amoeba, which means it was now IC, yes?
It's not that there is no such thing as IC--it's that IC isn't much of a problem for evolution.
New, more complex organism via undirected processes--designer optional, but not needed, thank you very much.
That's fine, Ron. I still think it's too early to write it off. Why cut off a line of research, except for reasons of dogmatism?
Ron, when you were asking the Discovery Institute for a "superior explanation," were you limiting your request to some kind of physicalist explanation? That's a common tactic that's philosophically illegitimate; it's begging the question.
Why cut off a line of research, except for reasons of dogmatism?
Why continue to fund it after it's been examined and rejected? Oh yeah...
Ron, when you were asking the Discovery Institute for a "superior explanation," were you limiting your request to some kind of physicalist explanation? That's a common tactic that's philosophically illegitimate; it's begging the question.
The Disco Inst. is making a claim--here, that the flagellum is better explained by invoking some conscious outside intelligence. All I said to those people was "Okay, you claim to have a better explanation? What is it?" Does it expand our knowledge of that organelle, its history, structure, anything?
Apparantly the answer is no, since they couldn't provide what they claim to have. It's that thin, Tom.
You didn't really answer my question, Ron, though I think you've implied what your answer would be.
Here's the deal:
1. Some people have a philosophical view that every explanation must be in physical, scientific terms. That's philosophical naturalism. It's a highly controversial and I think a quite unsupportable philosophical position. I've argued that at length elsewhere.
2. The explanations you seem to be asking for, reading between the lines, are just physical and material. You seem to be assuming that an explanation is only an explanation if it's in terms of philosophical materialism. (I may be misreading you, but then, you haven't answered my question directly yet.)
3. The alternative view is that there is something to reality beyond what we can "get at" physically. If the beginning of a physical chain of events was initiated by that something that is beyond physical reality, then the only accurate physical explanation we can ever hope to achieve is what happened after that beginning event.
4. Therefore it is indeed an explanation, if that is the case, to say that something outside the realm of science is the explanation, and to expect science to have nothing further to add.
5. Explanation then may move to the realm of philosophy and theology.
Of course this does not work for philosophical naturalists, including many of the chief spokespersons for evolutionary science.
But what if there is something beyond what is accessible scientifically? Science would not be able to tell us a thing about it--not even that it's impossible to be so, by the way. So insisting on a scientific answer would be insisting on a wrong answer in that case.
Reading between the lines, my guess is that is what you were trying to do with the Discovery Institute. They are positing that physical explanations go so far and no further; and you were trying to get them explain something beyond that in your scientific terms. They would be rationally and philosophically correct not to answer in those terms. Your demand is that thin, Ron.
As to your NCSE report, that group is one of those that are very guilty of an unsupportable philosophical naturalism. That doesn't mean their research is wrong; they have a philosophical agenda, and DI has a philosophical agenda (which I believe is more supportable). Philosophical agendas can drive research questions. The research itself will show what the facts are. The research is ongoing.
Tom,
You're missing the key point about naturalism as opposed to physicalism.
I have never seen this question addressed properly in this forum, so here's another opportunity for you to explain why you think the reasoning doesn't work...
I have an graph (could be multidimensional, but we'll use 2D for now). I plot my observations as points on the graph. I see patterns in the points, so I create an explanation by drawing a curve through points on my graph. The curve cannot help but predict interpolations and extrapolations. By drawing a curve, I have committed myself to expecting a particular outcome in a particular experiment, to at least some degree of precision. That's how a naturalist sees explanation.
But you don't see it that way. For you, it is okay to simply draw dots over your existing data points and call that an "explanation." Your drawing of dots over data points cannot be inconsistent with any future observation. Anything can happen, and your "explanation" holds. Indeed, you can revise your "explanation" just by drawing dots over the new data points. In what way is your "explanation" not just a restatement of your observations? And if restatements count as explanations, then is nothing unexplained?
Tom, I'm aghast.
1. Some people have a philosophical view that every explanation must be in physical, scientific terms. That's philosophical naturalism
No, it isn't, and that's a fundamental mistake. That's called the scientific method, Tom, and it's not the same as atheism at all. If ID has a problem with the scientific method then it has a problem with science itself. Just saying that "every explanation must be in physical, scientific terms" is not the same as saying that physical explanations are all there is. The SM requires that claims purporting to be scientific must rise to a certain level of rigor. This is one major reason why most scientists give ID no respect. It claims to be scientific but wants easier standards for itself than the rest of science has to rise to.
But what if there is something beyond what is accessible scientifically? Science would not be able to tell us a thing about it--not even that it's impossible to be so, by the way. So insisting on a scientific answer would be insisting on a wrong answer in that case.
Let me be clear here, Tom. What I'm telling you--and by extension your readers--is that:
1. Discovery claims to be able to provide what they call a better explanation for certain features of life than evolution does--see their FAQ.
2. Discovery uses the bacterial flagellum as an example of a feature it says can best be explained by ID.
3. But when asked to provide the explanation they claim to have, Discovery cries 'atheism' and asks to see their lawyer.
In fact, ask Discovery what their explanation for the flagellum is, and let THEM pick the kind of explanation they use. But ask them to show how the flagellum is more understood after their so-called explanation than before.
My personal prediction--they STILL won't be able to answer the question. ID is about as bogus as things get.
DI deserves the disrespect it gets. Most Christians don't have a problem with mainstream science and don't view it as a threat to their beliefs. To my view, believers that feel they have to defend their faith from established science display a certain fragility.
Ron, the mistake I think you're making here is this. In spite of your saying otherwise, you are indeed taking a stance that expects every explanation to be scientific. This is why I say that:
Discovery Institute provides an explanation, just as you have asked them to do. Their explanation is that, following the application of rigorous scientific method and rational consideration, there appears to be irreducible complexity that cannot be explained by naturalism.
So they explain these phenomena by reference to an intelligent designer.
Now, if they are correct (and that's not what's at issue here, please note), then that is an explanation that does provide greater understanding than any other model. The reason it provides greater understanding than other models is not because it is more detailed, or because it demonstrates reproducible or visible pathways, but because the others are wrong. That's a pretty good reason, isn't it?
I think you're rejecting their explanation because it doesn't fit philosophical naturalist assumptions.
Now, if you want to press them for further explanation beyond that, they rightly say, "that's a matter for philosophy or theology. We've gone as far as we can with the science." If they answered differently than that, someone would (as has happened) accuse them of mixing their science with their other beliefs and conclusions. Why would they want to do that?
By the way, you wrote (more loudly than I will reproduce it here):
[quoting me] 1. Some people have a philosophical view that every explanation must be in physical, scientific terms. That's philosophical naturalism. [end quote of me]
No, it isn't, and that's a fundamental mistake. That's called the scientific method, Tom, and it's not the same as atheism at all.
Well, yes, actually if you insist that every explanation must be in physical, scientific terms, you are excluding all other explanations. That's philosophical naturalism.
It's not the same as atheism, agreed: but it does entail atheism or some kind of deism, because it excludes any explanatory power for God.
doctor(logic), I see I almost missed your comment, but I used up my time this morning on the other responses. Sorry; I didn't intend to do that, and I'll come back.
Ron:
I concur with Tom: you are incorrect—it is clear you don't know what the scientific method is, what it applies to, or its limitations. That you may be able to apply it yourself to material entities and physical phenomena does not indicate an understanding of the nature of the scientific method... which, I repeat, is clear from your assertion.
If you are so confident, please apply the scientific method back upon itself to (1) see whether you can "observe" the scientific method using ONLY your five primary senses (i.e., show me where it is, how big it is, what color it is, how it smells and feels, and how loud it sounds), and (2) please "prove" the scientific method using the scientific method. Hint: with respect to the latter, you won't be able to (go ahead and try)... and even if you could, that would be circular reasoning, wouldn't it?
SteveK, sorry, I've been busy, let's try to pick up the thread from your 02.09.07 - 7:55 pm post.
I guess one could interpret the ID case for the knee, but I wasn't trying to do so. It's not crucial to my point that the knee case doesn't move anyone anywhere, so what's the big deal?
I'm not trying to bring down ID in general, I'm just talking about the knee case.
Paul:
For the record, I don't want ID thrust into mainstream science or the classroom right now. It will do that, or not, on it's own merit. I simply think it's a reasonable theory worthy of serious investigation. It has the potential to be more scientific than it is at the moment. Right now it's more political than anything else. Perhaps private groups will help fund the investigation.
If you are so confident, please apply the scientific method back upon itself to (1) see whether you can "observe" the scientific method using ONLY your five primary senses...
Yeah.
If you have a prob with the scientific method, that kind of puts you outside the bounds of any reasonable discussion of science, I think. Nice talking to you, H.
Ron, this is getting outrageous. Holopupenko asked you to consider a question about the scientific method. It's a good question with a lot of support from within the community of thinkers about science.
His point was not that the scientific method is a bad thing, but that the scientific method is not the exclusive route to all knowledge. The way he approached that, if I may paraphrase, was to ask you whether your knowledge about the value of the scientific method was gained by applying the scientific method to the scientific method.
I think he may have been guilty of assuming too much with you; he has argued this in more detail previously. The point he (and many others) have made in the past is this: the scientific method is valuable, but its value is based on certain epistemological considerations that cannot be proved scientifically. There is no scientific proof that what we investigate scientifically is actually real. There is no scientific proof for Occam's Razor. And then there are the five-senses questions he asked this time. I'll let him take it from there if he wishes.
But again, he's not questioning whether the scientific method is good for what it is good for; he's trying to help you see that it is not good for every purpose. I urge you to think carefully and patiently, because he's on the right track with this.
doctor(logic), I'm not sure how to approach your earlier comment; the one that I have been slow getting back to. This is because I don't see myself, or ID, doing what you say we do with this willy-nilly ignoring of interpolation or extrapolation. ID follows the scientific data just as far is it can take us, same as everyone else.
There is one exception to that, though. If the curve you are describing has to do with the proportion of all human questions that have scientific answers, you might assume that this currently increasing function could, in principle, increase all the way to 100%. But you know as well as I do that extrapolation is a dangerous thing, and this, in particular, is false:
The curve cannot help but predict interpolations and extrapolations.
The curve may imply extrapolations, as we interpret it, but you know better than to think we can rely on just that for our whole view of how the world works. Every introductory statistics book contains examples of apparently smooth, monotonic curves that turned out differently than expected when more data was acquired.
But again, he's not questioning whether the scientific method is good for what it is good for; he's trying to help you see that it is not good for every purpose. I urge you to think carefully and patiently, because he's on the right track with this.
I second your comment, Tom. I'd wager to say that this line of thinking is at the heart of nearly every Christian's "criticism" of science. Our comments are not meant to tear down the scientific method, but an attempt to put it in its proper place alongside non-scientific knowledge.
There's an entire world of knowledge outside the reach of the scientific method. Most would consider the knowledge gained outside of science to be more important/valuable than any knowledge that science can deliver. My "Top 10" would certainly fit into that category.
Ron:
Yes, indeed you missed the point—as Tom and SteveK point out. Tom is probably correct in my assuming too much because you were not part of the many previous discussions on this very topic. Nonetheless, what you said was truly outrageous. At the very least you should have realized that from the defense of science I put up against Jacob's anti-truth campaign. I'm also an MIT Ph.D. nuclear engineer with years of experience in that field—including at a U.S. national lab and internationally... and I have formal philosophical training as well. Please don't whine about my allegedly being against the scientific method just because I'm pushing you to try to see its limitations.
Now, with that out of the way, please address my challenge to you.
Tom,
ID isn't following scientific data because ID advocates have proposed no scientific theories that predict the data. If I claim X, and I cannot devise a specific experiment, E, which tests X, then X is not a scientific theory.
The rest of your response seems to be saying that any given proposed explanation could be wrong. I don't see the relevance of this. I am saying that a mere restatement of the data is not an explanation, wrong or otherwise. Don't you agree?
It's like "fate" (the non-predictive variety). If there is a train derailment, is it explanatory to say that the accident was fate? No. Why? Because the train could have failed to derail and then that would have been fate just as much. Fate is just a restatement of what happened.
ID isn't scientific today because its adherents refuse to ask "what could the designer not have done?" If they would just specify the goals of the designer, the limitations of the designer, and the utility of the designed to the designer, they would have a scientific theory. For obvious reasons, they won't do that. Instead, they can only argue that the world is the way it is because that was the intent of the designer that it be how we find it.
Consider some experiment, E. What does ID say about the outcome? It says that the outcome of E will be whatever God wanted the outcome to be, but ID can't say precisely what that outcome is.
ID purports to show that alternative explanations are less probable than an explanation featuring an intelligent designer. This is and will remain impossible for them to do until they produce an ID explanation.
doctor(logic), which way do you want it? Do you want to be able to censure the ID scientists for mixing religion into science, or do you want to excoriate them for not being specific enough about the designer, as you're doing now? Because I'm quite sure if they did what you're asking now, you'd be jumping all over them for putting religion where it doesn't belong.
Let me say it again (is this the hundredth time, or more?):
ID as science is about detecting natural phenomena that could not, or could not by any reasonable probability, have arisen by just natural processes. Alternatively, it's about showing that just natural processes do not suffice as explanations for the natural phenomena that we see.
Got it yet?
By the way, if ID as science did inject that supernatural approach that you advocate here, and if you did jump on them as I predict you would, then you would be right. Because ID as science can only go as far as science can go.
Non-scientific knowledge, eh?
Let's look at what science is and see what axiom of science we would like to sacrifice.
Well, consistency is vital to science. I'll not discuss that one because I'm sure you guys will agree that logical consistency is worth hanging onto.
Then there's induction. The assumption that patterns persist into the future. This one may not seem so obvious, but without it, nothing you know would be valid. Your mother loves you? How do you know? Experience? But experience wouldn't be a guide to the state of the world without induction.
How about the reliability of memory? You just read 5 Ohms on the meter. Or did you? Your wife likes Diet Pepsi. Or does she? You've met thousands of people in your lifetime. Or have you met any? You added 1+1 to get 2. Or was the first operand a 9?
How about the idea that experiences are axiomatic? That is, we at least trust that our experiences are real, even if we're just brains in vats.
These are the axioms of science, but they are also the axioms of rationality. We all accept consistency, reliability of memory, induction and trust that we are experiencing what we are experiencing.
Where does prediction enter? Via induction. We create expectations about future experience based on past experience.
Knowledge? Knowledge is often defined as justified true belief. Beliefs are justified by induction (some set of conditions in the past point to some set of present or future conditions). Furthermore, the truth test of justified belief must be future experience.
So, I would like to know how you plan to justify beliefs outside of some predictive, inductive framework (aka science). I'm sure you can have beliefs outside such a framework, I just don't know how you find the justified and true ones.
Tom,
Because I'm quite sure if they did what you're asking now, you'd be jumping all over them for putting religion where it doesn't belong.I would certainly be uncomfortable with claim, but if the claim is based on prior observations and predicts new ones, you can't argue with that.
Alternatively, it's about showing that just natural processes do not suffice as explanations for the natural phenomena that we see.You haven't answered my question. ID does not present an alternative explanation.
Let's suppose that ID was explanatory (which it isn't), and that it claims with scientific validity that the test of ID is that all natural explanations do not suffice. Well, have we looked at all natural explanations? Do we understand 100% of the physics, biochemistry and genetics? Do we even understand 5% of it? I mean, considering that we haven't been able to create life artificially, or cure diseases, or even understand something as mundane as metabolism.
It does present an alternative explanation--an intelligent designer, whose identity and nature are subject matter for theology and philosophy--but I'm not going to go down the road of trying to persuade you that it's sufficient. Been there, tried that, you didn't agree before, you won't agree this time. We'll have to agree to disagree instead.
And with respect to your second-to-last comment, those four epistemic virtues are all wonderful. Science is not their only owner, though, nor do they exhaust the entire set of epistemic virtues (you forgot deduction, for one).
I'm afraid I'm not going to get tangled in that question with you again either, though. We went round and round earlier about what constitutes knowledge. I never thought you came up with an answer that was not self-defeating. But you kept on holding to what you were saying. I'm sure the same thing would happen this time.
Tom--
Ron, this is getting outrageous. Holopupenko asked you to consider a question about the scientific method. It's a good question with a lot of support from within the community of thinkers about science.
His point was not that the scientific method is a bad thing, but that the scientific method is not the exclusive route to all knowledge.
You know what, Tom: H's comment might have been more appropriate if any party to this discussion had been making the claim that scientific knowledge is all there is. But nobody was, so no, his comments were inappropriate to the discussion. H is trying to turn this into a defense of atheism, which is a side issue, and I'm not biting. (And FWIW, he's on the wrong track at any rate, since application of the scientific method to scientific questions is fundamental, and anyone who has a prob with that has a prob with science itself. And no, doing that is no more atheistic than insisting on physical causes when troubleshooting your car.)
And just as a personal note, may I point out that I found H's comment about another blogger's "anti-truth campaign" to be a bit snarky, I'm surprised you didn't find that outrageous.
Actually, I think we've arrived at a great reflection point in our discussion. We've established a lot.
We've arrived at a point that compares the quality of ID thought with that of--shall we say--more mainstream biology. I was kidding about printing a poster, of course, but a graphic like a panel split down the middle vertically, with your explanation on one side:
Discovery Institute provides an explanation, just as you have asked them to do. Their explanation is that, following the application of rigorous scientific method and rational consideration, there appears to be irreducible complexity that cannot be explained by naturalism.
So they explain these phenomena by reference to an intelligent designer.
and mine on the other:
1. bacteria infects amoeba, 2. they develop symbiotic relationship, 3. this renders key gen. info in bacteria superfluous, since bact is parasitic to amoeba now, 4. allowing bact. to lose unneeded genetic material, 5. becoming new organelle, increasing complexity of amoeba with new IC organelle, 6. falsifying a key ID claim (IC), so 7. designer optional.
and underneath maybe the question:
Science is all about increasing human understanding of the natural world. Which explanation leaves you knowing more about the organelle in question than before?
That would sum up a lengthty discussion pretty accurately, I think and leave the viewer with a good way to compare the strengths of the relative explanations of our two camps. Of course, another reason I like it is that my side comes off much better than yours.
Well, your side certainly does come off looking better, if your side is right, and especially if the poster is limited to what can be known just by the methods of science. In the end, though, it's not about which one is more impressive, but which one is more accurate.
I still don't think you understood H correctly. Most importantly, while you never made the claim in so many words that scientific knowledge is all there is, I have inferred that was your belief, based on your report of your interaction with DI. See above for more on that; I don't need to write it again. I haven't seen you say anything that really convinces me otherwise, at least not so far. So it was quite appropriate for H to make a point about the scientific method not being the sole route to knowledge. As always, if that was a misinterpretation on our part, you're welcome to let us know what you really believe.
[Grins] 'Huffy' works, too.
Edited By Siteowner: If this comment doesn't make sense, it's because it was given as a reply to someone else's comment that violated the comment guidelines and was deleted.
Tom--
I haven't seen you say anything that really convinces me otherwise, at least not so far.
That's what troubles me about all this.
You: IC makes evolution impossible and ID is right
Me: No it isn't, and here's a specific example straight out of 40-yr old biological literature
You: No, you don't understand. IC makes evolution impossible and ID is right.
But maybe I'm being unfair, so let me ask you--What about the example I cited did you find unconvincing? And please, be specific.
Ron, you're still not getting the message. You think this is about the (speak loudly in bold type!) 40-yr old biological literature, and that I'm arguing IC and that it proves ID is right.
What I'm talking about is something else. There are times when I talk about that, but this isn't one of them.
I'm talking about your apparent unwillingness to allow the possibility of non-physical explanations. "You haven't said anything that convinces me otherwise:" that is, you haven't said anything that convinces me that you would entertain the possibility of a non-physical explanation, under any circumstances. That, I think, is why you see the DI as offering no explanations: because they offer explanations in a category that you reject.
Again: It would be one thing if DI offered no explanations at all. That's what you've accused them of. It's another thing if they offer explanations, but you don't accept them as being explanations because you don't accept that category of explanation. I think that's what's going on in fact.
I'm not even talking (here) about whether the DI is right or not. I'm talking about whether it's true that they do not offer explanations, as you have charged.
I'm talking about your apparent unwillingness to allow the possibility of non-physical explanations.
Tom, you're not being reasonable.
The entire idea of science is to understand how nature works. My explanation does that; what does your explanation offer by way of contrast? How is it reasonable to ask me to even remotely entertain your supernatural explanation (which says what exactly?) when mine actually explains something about how complexity can be generated naturalistically?
You know, Tom--If you're really serious about giving the supernatural equal consideration to atheistic, naturalistic explanations, maybe the next time you get sick you should go to a good faith healer. Remember--When your doctor is diagnosing you, drawing bloodwork, looking at x-rays, etc, he's temporarily engaging in atheism, since he's not considering evil spirits might be behind your elevated white cell count.
The whole problem with ID is that its goal isn't increasing our understanding of nature. ID has an agenda--to establish the existence of an unnamed designer (in public) AKA God (in private).
Another of the blogs I read accused ID of having "science envy".
Just priceless. Yup, that sums it up pretty well.
doctor(logic),
Have you had occasion to review Reason to Believe's testable creation model (www.reasons.org)? I know it's not ID per se (they're creationists), and ID supporters probably wouldn't endorse it fully, buth I thought it was worth asking you about, since you claimed:
ID isn't following scientific data because ID advocates have proposed no scientific theories that predict the data. If I claim X, and I cannot devise a specific experiment, E, which tests X, then X is not a scientific theory.
This seems to be in fact what they are doing - attempting to provide a model that makes predictions. Just curious - how would you view such a thing?
Ron:
You still haven’t addressed the challenge I posed to your absolutist view of the MESs and the scientific method as sufficient in and of themselves to cover all possible human knowledge. I provided you a straight forward example (using the scientific method against itself), but I can also provide more: apply the scientific method against “the day after tomorrow”; apply the scientific method to understanding the injustice perpetrated against young women forced to undergo cliteroctomies (we’ll let DL explain to us why, since he believes morality is relative, that there may be cases in which forced cliteroctomies on a normally healthy teenaged female are a “good” thing); apply the scientific method to the rules of chess—not the game of chess as someone may be playing it but to the rules themselves; apply the scientific method to free will—which means you’ll have to tell us what free will is before you try to “measure” and “predict” it.
Second, you state: The entire idea of science is to understand how nature works. My explanation does that. Not quite regarding the first, no you haven’t to the second. Science is mediate intellectual knowledge obtained through demonstration—which means philosophy and theology are sciences in their own right, although they employ different tools and methods to obtain new knowledge, just as astronomy employs tools and methods quite different from, say, sociology. The modern empirical sciences (MESs) tell us how nature works, but they don’t explain why this is so or why nature is here in the first place. (DL believes the question “why?” is irrelevant, but he’s dipping into metaphysics at the point, isn’t he?) Also, you beg the question on what nature is: if the scientific method is a part of nature, you should be able to explain it... yet, as just noted, you cannot do so by merely relying on the MESs. Free will is a part of nature, so why can’t you explain it beyond pointing to certain patterns on a CAT monitor? (Telling me “this is a watch” doesn’t explain what a watch is.) So, first tell us what nature is without circularly referring to it a narrow, physicalist interpretation—which is, by the way, not doing MES-work but philosophizing.
The ultimate problem you’re facing, Ron, is you cannot explain—using (1) your personal understanding of naturalism as a philosophical worldview and (2) the MESs as well as the scientific method—why you believe the MESs are the epistemological arbiters of all human knowledge.
H--
Ron:
You still haven’t addressed the challenge I posed to your absolutist view of the MESs and the scientific method as sufficient in and of themselves to cover all possible human knowledge.
Tell you what, H--
You provide a direct quote from me wherein I make the claim that the scientific method is the only path to human knowledge, or that scientific knowledge is the only knowledge there is, and then I'll enter into this discussion with you.
If you cannot provide such a quote from me, then you're simply trying to lure me into defending a claim I never made in the first place, in order to hijack this discussion and lead it down a blind alley.
Ron, to answer your challenge to H, your last post to me is strongly implying that the sciences are the only route to knowledge.
Regarding that comment to me: you commit several logical fallacies there. First,
The entire idea of science is to understand how nature works. My explanation does that; what does your explanation offer by way of contrast?
You have failed here to note that I agreed your explanation is more richly detailed in its physical descriptions than ID's is. The only defense ID has against that is the one that comes if it is in fact correct and yours is incorrect. If yours is not the correct explanation, then all the detail and richness in the world will not explain it.
My argument has always been: not that I'm persuaded entirely that IC etc. will prevail in the world of science, but that the research should move forward. Then we'll find out which theory is more correct.
Second fallacy:
...mine actually explains something about how complexity can be generated naturalistically
That's what is at issue here, so you're begging the question; ID is saying your approach cannot explain it. The research should move forward until an answer is complete. (I understand that you believe the answer is already complete. Is that a good enough reason to shut down a research program led by people who disagree with that?)
Third fallacy: false dichotomy:
If you're really serious about giving the supernatural equal consideration to atheistic, naturalistic explanations, maybe the next time you get sick you should go to a good faith healer.
Nobody in ID says that there are no regular natural processes. I do pray for healing from illnesses, and I've seen and experienced instantaneous healings in cases where the doctors could do nothing. So that really wasn't such a bad idea, was it? But I also rely on medicine. That's not in the least contradictory. ID's point is not that there are no regular processes, but that regular processes are not the entire story in natural history.
Next fallacy--Straw Man:
Remember--When your doctor is diagnosing you, drawing bloodwork, looking at x-rays, etc, he's temporarily engaging in atheism.
That's not a tenet of any belief system I know of except perhaps the religious group called Christian Science, which I certainly do not adhere to. My doctors (some of whom are Christian, some not) are not engaging in atheism, they're engaging in medicine, in science. Science assumes that the world generally follows regular processes. That's a very theistic kind of belief, though it would take too long to go into that right now.
Next Fallacy: The Genetic Fallacy (a belief is wrong if it comes for the wrong reason):
The whole problem with ID is that its goal isn't increasing our understanding of nature. ID has an agenda--to establish the existence of an unnamed designer (in public) AKA God (in private)
Also in there is a false dichotomy. ID's goal actually is to increase our understanding of nature; this goes along with their openly acknowledged philosophical agenda.
Also in there is an error of fact. Some people in ID do believe it helps point toward God; I'm one of them. But what ties ID together philosophically is the belief that a) neo-Darwinism is not providing good enough answers, and b) the philosophical materialism driving much of the neo-Darwinist program is poor philosophy.
Now, I think that on consideration of those things, I can hold the position that I do and still be reasonable.
You may think it's "unreasonable" that I don't fully accept the majority science view. But I think at least provisionally we need to support ID in its research program, because it's based on a more reasonable philosophical foundation than most of the neo-Darwinian program is. And most of the potshots taken against it are rife with fallacious reasoning and argumentation. Like this was.
Ron:
My statements stand--especially in light of Tom's, Charlie's, and SteveK's follow-ups. Your response is still, nonetheless, evasive: I'm suggesting you examine the apparently unquestionable naturalistic presuppositions you bring into the discussion of the immediate ID issue, because it appears to me you are the one who would like "to hijack this discussion and lead it down a blind alley."
Let's see if I can make this a bit more palatable: Do you believe the MESs are the sole epistemological arbiters of all human knowledge (yes or no)... and if no, for what subject areas are other forms of intellectual inquiry superior to the MESs? (2) Following upon the second, if Tom has clearly and directly stated that philosophy and theology investigate subject areas outside the competence of the MESs, then why are you arguing against ID when it attempts to point out not only the weaknesses of the various neo-Darwinian theories (for which it employs good science) but also calls for a broader explanatory basis for how life appeared and (likely) evolved on earth (for which it relies on philosophy to point out why philosophical naturalism fails)?
Aaron,
Yes, I have heard of Reasons To Believe. In fact, I confronted Hugh Ross in person in the Q&A after one of of his presentations. His presentation was total BS. His position was interesting, though, I'll grant that. He was willing to stake his faith on scientific evidence. As soon as he admitted this, the crowd (mostly local churchgoers) dropped him like a hot potato.
What kinds of "predictions" did he make? That modern humans would not be found to be more than 200,000 years old. That's really daring of him considering that it is known that modern humans are 80-150,000 years old (probably to two standard deviations or more).
RTB's strategy is to blind with science. For example, in Ross' presentation he quoted the odds of a DNA molecule instantly coalescing out of a gas of its constituent atoms! Of course, the number had a huge number of zeros in it, giving Ross more opportunity to draw analogies with more zeros and so on. I saw no one else in the room who even cottoned on to the ridiculousness of his statements. There should have been a thunderous "clang" as everyone's jaw dropped to the floor in simultaneous disbelief at the stupidity of such analogies. No one believes DNA coalesced out of primordial gases, so in this case and in others, Ross spent his time trying to persuade without having any case whatsoever. It's just that no other scientists were there so he thought he would get away with it.
Look at what his organization does. They mine scientific papers for tidbits that laypeople will not understand. Then they interpret the results from an ID/creationism perspective, and publish their interpretations in official paper-like form. But it's total BS. They've got nothin'. When they are challenged on falsifiability, they respond by saying that if firmly established science is wrong, then they are wrong. They're not taking any risks.
Like the claim about the age of homo sapiens. That simply doesn't follow from the Bible. The Bible isn't that specific. Their predictions don't follow from their premises.
H--
Couldn't find that quote I asked for, could you? Why do you suppose that is?
Provide me with the quote I asked you for earlier and we can start this discussion.
Ron, you didn't state it in bald terms so there isn't a "quote." It's an inference from everything you've said, and as far as I can tell, it's justified inference. I answered this already, at the beginning of my 7:30 am post.
Now, if we've misunderstood you, then we've misunderstood you. That happens. The best way to help clear out a misunderstanding is to explain things more clearly. Otherwise we have no new reasons to reconsider what we've already gleaned from what you've said.
Tom--[bold/italicized just emphasis, not shouting]
...your last post to me is strongly implying that the sciences are the only route to knowledge.
For the record: I recognize that not all knowledge is accessible to science. I have never made that claim. Not in a single post.
The only defense ID has against that is the one that comes if it is in fact correct and yours is incorrect.
I think you might be missing the larger point, Tom--You're continuing to endorse ID even though the visible evidence & even the stuff we've discussed up to this point pretty clearly toward a naturalistic explanation being very likely. That kinda looks like agenda.
Tom--Try to remember that most Christians don't have a problem with science.
You're continuing to endorse ID even though the visible evidence & even the stuff we've discussed up to this point pretty clearly toward a naturalistic explanation being very likely.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life, the pre-DNA and pre-RNA portion of life. On the other hand, ID is trying to explain this part. ID is asking questions about how it all got started. I don't see any reason why the two can't co-exist. I think the Discovery Institute even admits to that, though I could be wrong.
Tom,
You could maybe tie a string around your finger.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life, the pre-DNA and pre-RNA portion of life. On the other hand, ID is trying to explain this part. ID is asking questions about how it all got started. I don't see any reason why the two can't co-exist. I think the Discovery Institute even admits to that, though I could be wrong.
Well, the sciences are trying to explain the origin of life, but you're correct that evolution itself doesn't try to explain how life came about. Where I disagree with your statement is when you stated that ID is trying to explain abiogenesis. The problem with ID is that it is not a serious attempt to explain nature or expand human understanding of it. Proponents of ID--well meaning though they may be--don't care a whit about how the mamalian knee or the blood-clotting cascade evolved. They are interested in these features solely if they can provide an example of something that evolution cannot explain in principle. Once that feature is explained, they lose all interest in it and retreat to the next so-called unexplainable feature, like a polar bear moving closer and closer to the center of a melting sheet of ice.
As I've pointed out to Tom, the vacuity of ID can be demonstrated by asking yourself what would you have accomplished if one fine day you were to prove beyond doubt that the flagellum--to use their favorite example--were in fact consciously designed. Will you have increased human understanding of how the flagellum works, why it appears in this configuration v. some other configuration, what it's made of, anything? No on all counts.
ID is all about proving the existence of God, not learning how nature works. In fact, at its core, ID is the Watchmaker argument taken to the level of the microscopic, and the Watchmaker argument is an explicitly religious apologetic. ID is, in fact, little more than creation science relabelled, a fact that was brilliantly documented at the Dover trial using the movement's own documents, in particular the 'Of Pandas and People' "textbook" the creationists were trying to slip into the curriculum.
Personally, I have no prob with people who want to continue to fund the Discovery Institute, so long as public money isn't used. But if it is to be taken seriously as a science, then it needs to meet the same standards that every other science has had to meet. And it must be kept miles away from the public school science curricula until it has established itself as a legitimate science. You don't get to have your textbooks issued to school kids before you've even established your legitimacy as a science.
Ron, thank you for the clarification. We have apparently interpreted you wrongly.
You mention here that you've pointed something out to me:
As I've pointed out to Tom, the vacuity of ID can be demonstrated by asking yourself what would you have accomplished if one fine day you were to prove beyond doubt that the flagellum--to use their favorite example--were in fact consciously designed. Will you have increased human understanding of how the flagellum works, why it appears in this configuration v. some other configuration, what it's made of, anything? No on all counts.
Let me ask you some questions about this. It's a continuation of the response I gave you before on the same topic, only before I made statements, this time I have questions.
If, as you wrote hypothetically, we were to "prove beyond doubt that the flagellum...were in fact consciously designed,"
1) Would that be significant knowledge?
2) Would that be an increase in knowledge?
3) Would it be better to have gained that knowledge than not to have gained it?
4) Would we know more than we do now, or know more accurately, how nature works?
5) Would any of these be good things?
The tenor of the way you put this above (using the word "vacuity," for example) implies that you would answer "no" to all of those questions. But I've misinterpreted you before, so I want to give you a chance to let us know.
Ron:
Sorry, but not so fast with your “clarification.” I’ll grant you that on the surface your may have been misinterpreted... but that’s why I gave you the opportunity at 02.12.07 - 8:00 am to expand a bit: the devil is in the details, as it were. Stephen Gould and DL will say the same thing you’re saying, but from there the direct or implied NOMA game begins. If you believe that not all knowledge is accessible to the MESs, then what this says is you don’t buy into hard scientism. Great! (We’ll leave aside for now how you know that.)
But consider the following: if you believe the MESs provide the best form of knowledge over all fields of inquiry, then that’s soft scientism... and it’s the same game Gould played. It’s the same game Jacob recently played. It’s like saying: you people of faith and philosophers (recall the derogatory “yawn”?) may have your [alleged] subjective knowledge that science can’t address, we “serious folk” will stick with the only [alleged] form of objective knowledge, i.e., MES-based knowledge.
On what basis am I asking you to clarify? Your condescension toward faith and philosophy. Your not understanding the limitations of the scientific method, as well as my earlier purpose for drawing that out. Your [deleted] profanity. Your not addressing the opportunity for you to expand in order to clarify. A fear I sense (as with most atheists) that Darwinism is cracking—at least in its explanatory strengths (1) as a science, and (2) the imposition of philosophical naturalism upon scientific data in order to illicitly support presuppositions. Tom’s comment immediately prior to this. Etc., etc.
So, based on this, do you believe MESs knowledge is the most valid form of knowledge obtainable by human beings? Do you understand that answering such a question in a certain way will directly challenge atheism, i.e., if the MESs cannot say anything about the nature of faith, God, etc., then what basis can there be for being an atheist?
Here science is using ID-like inference techniques to reject a natural formation in favor of an intelligent formation. I'll list modified versions of Tom's questions at the end.
Researchers Unearth 4,300-year-old Chimpanzee Technology; 'Stone Hammers'
"The stone hammers that the team discovered, essentially irregularly shaped rocks about the size of cantaloupes — with distinctive patterns of wear — were used to crack the shells of nuts. The research demonstrates conclusively that the artifacts couldn’t have been the result of natural erosion or used by humans. The stones are too large for humans to use easily and they also have the starch residue from several nuts known to be staples in the chimpanzee diet, but not the human diet."
Follow the link to see the pictures and tell me if they are rocks or tools.
1) Is this significant knowledge?
2) Is this an increase in knowledge?
3) Is it be better to have gained this knowledge than not to have gained it?
4) Do we know more than we did before, or know more accurately, how nature works?
* Hi Tom--
Ron, thank you for the clarification. We have apparently interpreted you wrongly.
No problem, Tom. Let me hasten to add, though--I am a staunch atheist, and I'm highly dubious of claims the supernatural is real, but I'm trying to 'relate' to believers rather than trying to 'conquer' them. However, I don't try to claim that scientific knowledge is all there is, because that would be a pretty stoopid thing to say--what, there's no ethics, music...?
OK, on to the good part:
1) Would that be significant knowledge?
2) Would that be an increase in knowledge?
3) Would it be better to have gained that knowledge than not to have gained it?
4) Would we know more than we do now, or know more accurately, how nature works?
5) Would any of these be good things?
Answers:
1. Discovering the existence of God would be enormously significant,
2. Yes, it would increase our net sum of knowledge--prior to such an achievement we were unsure that God exists and now we are certain,
3. Would it be better to know? Probably, but not necessarily. What if the deists should turn out to be right? Yeah, you've established that God exists, but He still doesn't seem impressed;
4. No, or at least not beyond the knowledge that it was designed, and therein lies the rub. Compare my explanation given prev. to yours again. That's the problem with ID--It's in essence an apologetics argument, and sheds as much light into the mechanical workings of nature as you'd expect an apologetics argument to shed--none.
5. Of course.
Tom, it's not really a question of whether or not searching for a Creator is a legitimate endeavor--I'll grant that it is, even if the evidence points away from a God.
What I'm suggesting is that using ID as a vehicle to get there is a bad idea, because its central tenants have been examined and discarded. It is--in principle--improper to continue support of design once the evidence begins to point against it--and it has in a major way.
Remember--the AAAS and the National Academies are unequivocal in their support of evolution and just as unequivocal in their opposition to ID being taught as if it were in any way comparable.
You seem like a decent sort, so all I can do is ask that you give serious consideration to theistic evolution.
ID isn't just lousy science--it's lousy theology, too. When the church hitches its wagon to ID's spurious claims, and the claims are one-by-one refuted, it naturally raises the question "What else is the church wrong about?"
For a very articulate theistic evolutionary viewpoint, check out Ken Miller's website He's been very gracious to me with his time, even though he's a busy man indeed.
Talking to Dr. Miller is far more profitable than talking to me.
Ron:
Sorry, but not so fast with your “clarification.”
Are you demanding to see my papers?
On what basis am I asking you to clarify? Your condescension toward faith and philosophy.
Sorry, guess I just can't help it.
Still, I am going to hell shortly, so could you at least extend the basic courtesy you'd extend to the condemned? Thanks.
Your not understanding the limitations of the scientific method, as well as my earlier purpose for drawing that out. Your [deleted] profanity. Your not addressing the opportunity for you to expand in order to clarify.
[****]. That's a lot.
You forgot to mention my "anti-truth campaign". No wait, that was somebody else.
A fear I sense (as with most atheists) that Darwinism is cracking—at least in its explanatory strengths (1) as a science, and (2) the imposition of philosophical naturalism upon scientific data in order to illi...
[BOOM] (Best Samuel L. Jackson voice) Oh, wait. You were done? Then allow me to retort:
Evo-Devo.
*Click. Dial tone.....Fade
Ron, calm down 
.
Actually, that was pretty humorous. I don't agree with you, but I got a genuine (not sarcastic) laugh out of the way you said it.
Ya kind of hate to admit it, but that really was a pretty good movie.
Sorry, H--Not trying to bust your chops; just messing with you.
My best short answer to most of what you have to say is that I consider the scientific 'way of knowledge' supreme in matters of science. In other areas--chess, ethics, what have you, different reasoning applies, and no less important sometimes. It's no less important to be able to wisely decide if/when to use the Bomb as it is to be able to make one.
Ron:
First, I also enjoyed the humor... so don’t worry about “bustin my chops.” Rhinos have thick hides… and laugh a lot (behind their brooding “public consumption” faces).
Second, your candor in briefly following up is appreciated. NOW, I can admit you were misunderstood earlier.
Third, very interesting response. NOTA BENE: my next point is NOT to start an alternate theme here... just want to plant a seed. You note, In other areas—chess, ethics, what have you, different reasoning applies, and no less important sometimes. Comment (1) Actually, the reasoning is the same: it must be because the logic (as the art and science of guiding reasoning to truth) must be consistent across all fields of intellectual inquiry. Comment (2) It’s not the reasoning and logic that vary across the various fields of inquiry but the tools and metholodies employed—see my “asterisk” point below. Comment (3) Philosophy and theology are fields of inquiry: they are, in fact, sciences given that they also provide mediate intellectual knowledge by means of demonstration. Now, given these three points, don’t you think it would unwise to fully apply the tools and methodologies of the MESs to, say, theology or metaphysics?
NOTE: That is NOT to say the MES are unimportant—quite the opposite is true, in fact. Since we humans obtain all our knowledge through the senses (direct infusion by God through mystical experiences notwithstanding, but which won’t be pursued here), the MESs are vitally important as sanity checks regarding knowledge about the material/physical world around us. BUT (and this is a BIG “but”), just because all knowledge is obtained through the senses does NOT mean all knowledge is sensory knowledge. (Your knowledge and understanding of the concept of “the day after tomorrow” was reasoned to from your sensory experiences, but it itself is not sensory knowledge. How can it be, i.e., which of your five primary senses can observe “the day after tomorrow.” None of them, of course. Which of your five primary senses can observe and injustice committed? None, of course: you may see a man stealing candy from a baby, but that data MUST be interpreted by your capacity to reason.) Did you know that St. Augustine—way back in the 5th century—with great determination scolded those who use the Scriptures to interpret natural events? He came flat out to say that if our knowledge of the physical world seems to contradict our interpretation of the Scriptures (say, the creation account in Genesis), then it is most likely the case that the interpretations of the Scriptures is incorrect, not the sciences. The Catholic Church (with admitted fits and starts and mistakes) has accepted that as the way to proceed.
ASTERISK: Philosophy develops in a different way than mathematics or physics. It is a distinct science. Mathematicians and physicists do not need to study the past apart from historical context (I overstate, but only to draw out a point), for in the MESs knowledge is highly contingent on new discoveries: each new discovery presents a “course correction”—redefining the field of knowledge of this or that natural science. For philosophy, on the other hand, the past is always important. The methods used in philosophy do not depend upon technological development as in the natural sciences. Philosophy has a different object of study (being in its widest sense) and studies its object under a different aspect (as being). The object of study of physics is material being and physical phenomena, and it studies these as changeable being. Philosophy is a difficult subject because of its breadth and depth: it demands excruciatingly careful use of terminology while also demanding a thorough command of the history of the development of ideas in order to avoid errors when past philosophers have already found proper solutions. The mistakes DL and Paul and Jacob make have been made in the past, and addressed very well. Ignorance of the history of philosophy and theology (because of crude historicism or out-of-hand dismissal because they’re not natural sciences [thank goodness!]), while understandable, is nevertheless not excusable.
Commenting by HaloScan
