Thinking Christian Comments
Original Post: My Position On Intelligent Design
Tom, why isn't methodological naturalism all that is required to undergrid evolution? Wouldn't evolution be just as strong (or weak) if all it had undergridding it was methodological naturalism? Why is philosophical naturalism required for it?
Or, maybe my question is, isn't MN sufficient to undergrid evolution?
Because MN just doesn’t pop out of the air and it cannot be assumed “axiomatic”—as DL amaturishly claims many things are. Any method must be based upon something—including the scientific method. The scientific method can’t be its own justification—that would be circular reasoning. You yourself make a similar mistake: your ontology is reductionist materialism… and yet, fallaciously enough, you desire [implies free will and purpose] a methodology to be sufficient without reflecting on (1) any justification for its basis, and (2) just what “methodology” is. Then, to avoid this issue, you hand wave all concepts (which includes methods) away as “it’s all neurons anyway.” Well, if it’s “all neurons” then why use the obfuscating abstract label of “methodology”? If free will and purpose are “phantoms,” then why are you trying to convince us of the validity of your reductionism? Your own question reveals the answer you seek… and yet you’re too wrapped around your a priori reductionism to pursue challenging your personal presuppositions. Comfortably numb: it requires little if any thinking.
H,
Comfortably numb: it requires little if any thinking.Yes, you are.
Natuarlism all comes back to explanation.
"X caused life to evolve."
"X caused the sky to be blue."
"X caused the physical constants to be what they are."
These are not explanations! Neither do they become explanations when we rename our variable from "X" to "God".
These are not explanations, they are questions! We get explanations when we can say something about X that goes beyond restatement. We need prediction.
Naturalism is necessary for explanation. If you think explanation is unnecessary (as apparently you do), then you won't have a problem with supernaturalism. Just don't pretend that your supernaturalism is always the rational conclusion. It isn't.
These are not explanations! Neither do they become explanations when we rename our variable from "X" to "God".How about when it goes from "X" to "Nature"?
We need prediction.If I remember correctly, you said the universe is deterministic and random - which is still deterministic BTW. You are begging the question by assuming nature is completely predictable in every aspect.
How can you possibly falsify your theory of randomness when every prediction that doesn't fall into the law-like, cause/effect catagory gets dumped into the "randomness of Naturalism" catagory? It's question begging.
Using your rules, your explanation of "Nature did it" explains nothing unless you can show that nature is predictable in every aspect - and you haven't done this - and you can't do this. The question that will always remain is "How do you know Naturalism is responsible for X?"
How do you propose solving the problem you have created by your own rules?
Naturalism is necessary for explanation.
It's necessary, but is it a complete explanation? How can you verify if Naturalism is the complete explanation?
How does Naturalism explain (using prediction) Jesus rising from the dead? How does Naturalism explain (using prediction) Naturalism?
Just don't pretend that your supernaturalism is always the rational conclusion. It isn't.Always? Nobody is saying always.
DL:
Incessantly repeating your demands for prediction doesn’t make it correct—which is an implied fallacy in your argument. We’re still waiting for you to predict something about the “necessity of prediction.” Can’t do it? Then why the absolutist tone of your assertion? This is not to mention the fact that you don’t know when and when not to apply prediction, and that you’ve locked yourself in your mind by asserting we can ONLY know patterns and ideas rather than things.
For that matter (and don’t be evasive), please tell us what is predictable about “naturalism” as a concept. Also, I noticed you carefully avoided saying “necessary and sufficient.” Hmmmm... probably because you know that would get you in hot water. Well, anyway, “necessary” for what? For explaining a ball rolling down a plane? Yes! But is that sufficient? Of course not: naturalism neither addresses what a ball is—what it’s nature is (if you say it’s a collection of certain molecules in the shape of a sphere, then you are a reductionist), nor WHY the ball rolls: naturalism can only say HOW the ball rolls. But this hasn’t explained much of anything.
“Naturalism is necessary for explanation.” Okay, I’ll bite: without circularly referring to naturalism (as allegedly necessary), what explains naturalism itself? What is measurable or observable about “naturalism”? Why can’t I put it in my pocket or see it through some instrument? Where is it? Why can’t I apply your positivist rules back against itself and against Naturalism? On what rational basis do you conclude there is no God if naturalism can’t even address these question? WHY won’t you answer these question simply and straightforwardly? The only claim we’ve heard from you (distilled) is that naturalism is “axiomatic” or some such silly thing, i.e, empty words… and you castigate others for not providing an explanation? Really, DL, there you go again: making a mistake and then trying to turn the tables on those who chase you for it to impute it to them! And you don’t even know what “explanation” means because you a priori limit it to description (material and efficient causes). Why, you can’t even tell me what is the essence of why you behave with a purpose or intention in trying to convince us of the validity of naturalism as an all-encompassing absolutism you pound down people’s throats.
Tom, I've been reading your blog for about a week or two now. Good stuff. I have a question related to that flowchart on one of your older posts that you referenced. I'm not sure if it's more appropriate to put my question there or here, but I suspect it'll have a better chance of being seen here.
I'm collapsing your two octagonal relationships in that diagram. You point out that the difference between Theistic evolution (which is empirically indistinguishable from Neo-Darwinism) and ID may only have theological implications. So, why is ID a scientific question? Seems purely philosophical to me. Why drag science into it? I've yet to hear any empirical means to detect "design" so we rely on aesthetic ones. That's not science. It's philosophy.
That being said, I'm all for arguing from aesthetics, but that's not my understanding of what science is about. I'm sympathetic to the philosophy of ID, but I just can't see it as science.
Paul, you asked,
Tom, why isn't methodological naturalism all that is required to undergrid evolution? Wouldn't evolution be just as strong (or weak) if all it had undergridding it was methodological naturalism? Why is philosophical naturalism required for it?
Or, maybe my question is, isn't MN sufficient to undergrid evolution?
I'm not all that opposed to MN, as long as it's taken to be a program that uses natural methods to explore nature; and as long as it doesn't make the jump of saying that such exploration can access all there is of reality that's worth exploring. Science can be understood as an enterprise of discovering all that can be discovered strictly in the natural world.
You'll note that I said that philosophical naturalism undergirds most evolutionary thinking. That is just a matter of fact, as far as I've seen in print and on the web. I don't see that many prominent evolutionists (other than Ken Miller, in a way) staying out of PN. So your question is fine; but the point I made seems valid still.
Greg, thanks for the good question.
Why is ID a scientific question? My diagram shows that, if the world is a certain way, then there are no "fingerprints of God" in nature. That is, there is no empirically detectable way to identify any intervention he has made.
(We're referring to God here instead of remaining mute about the characteristics of the designer as ID typically does. That's because of the specific diagram Greg is referring to.)
ID is a program that tests that question; it asks whether the world really is that way. It's asking whether there are indeed detectable interventions by something outside of nature. Whether or not such things empirically exist is a scientific question.
The argument for design is far more than aesthetic. It's based on irreducible complexity, complex specified information, and rigorous probability analysis. It also challenges the adequacy of evolutionary explanation. That's what makes it science. The key philosophical jump is when ID theorists suggest that we can make an inference to the best explanation: if we see features in nature that involve high levels of information, which could not plausibly have come about just by natural means, we should infer intelligence. That's an inference beyond the actual observed phenomena, but it seems quite justifiable. The alternatives would be far too improbable too imagine being true.
OK, Tom, I don't know if most or little evolutionary thinking is based on PN or not, so I can't comment on that. But I take it that you agree that PN is not necessary for evolution as a scientific theory, just MN. We've made the distinction between fact (as you have characterized evolutionary writing) and logical necessity.
Here's the more crucial point about MN: it seems that you and I would disagree about whether conclusions reached by means other than MN are reliable, valid, good, trustworthy, whatever. I say no, you say nay. Is that right? If so, can you lay out a few principles why? I'll try to do the same, but I'm backlogged with Charlie and the cruelty issue.
Greg,
I've yet to hear any empirical means to detect "design" so we rely on aesthetic ones. That's not science. It's philosophy.
On the one hand everyone admits to detecting design everyday of their lives, and on the other hand we have no way to empirically detect it.
We have the same problem in other areas of our life. Love, peace, justice, pornography, humans, marriage, cruelty, free will, etc. all fall victim to the same problem of empirical detection - yet here they are staring us right in the face.
It's a question of how we gain accurate knowledge. The scientific method is one way to do this, but as Holo will tell you (and DL will agree) there are other ways. Those other ways make the scientific method possible.
In other words, the scientific method owes its very life to non-empirical knowledge.
Question: What non-empirical knowledge should we let influence the scientific method?
SteveK,
You are begging the question by assuming nature is completely predictable in every aspect.I didn't say that everything is completely predictable. Naturalism does not demand that there are no supernatural events. It is simply the perspective that a supernatural event is an in-principle inexplicable event.
Declaring an event supernatural goes beyond saying that we haven't found an explanation for that event, and asserts that the event will never be explained. Not a very reasonable thing to do.
Also, Naturalism isn't an explanation. It's a defined standard for explaining things, namely that merely restating facts is inadequate to explain them.
How does Naturalism explain (using prediction) Jesus rising from the dead?As I said, Naturalism itself doesn't explain things. Are you asking for a naturalistic explanation for the story that Jesus rose from the dead?
Hi all,
Not much time today, but I gotta ask:
DL said, "Naturalism does not demand that there are no supernatural events. It is simply the perspective that a supernatural event is an in-principle inexplicable event."
Is this correct? This seems a doctor(logic)-tailored definition and far removed from any description of naturalism I have ever seen or heard, but I may be wrong.
Naturalism does not demand that there are no supernatural events.
I'm with Aaron here. Naturalism allows supernatural events?
First this:
It is simply the perspective that a supernatural event is an in-principle inexplicable event.then this:
Also, Naturalism isn't an explanation.
Supernaturalism isn't an explanation either, but God can be an explanation just as my neighbor Joe explains why his car is clean instead of dirty.
Philosophically speaking, what's wrong with saying "God did it" as a way of explaining something when "Joe did it" is enough to satisfy your curiosity with respect to my neighbor's clean car?
I suspect your main complaint is that both God and Joe are not the final cause that resulted in "X". That is true, but so what? They both initiated the sequence of events and this explains why the final cause resulted in "X" instead of "Y".
Declaring an event supernatural goes beyond saying that we haven't found an explanation for that event, and asserts that the event will never be explained. Not a very reasonable thing to do.
I agree that the final cause explains why an event happened, but how far removed from the final cause do you have to get before some "X" no longer explains "Y"?
a) ball C moves
b) ball B hits ball C
c) ball A hits ball B
Is it unreasonable to say that ball B explains why ball C moves or must we say a force explains why ball C moves?
Philosophically speaking, what's wrong with saying "God did it" as a way of explaining something when "Joe did it" is enough to satisfy your curiosity with respect to my neighbor's clean car?There are many reasons, Steve.
I can see Joe and ascertain his location. I can predict that he's not in two places at once. Seeing him in his garage allows me to predict that he's not in his yard. I can see how strong Joe is. I can predict what he is capable of doing. If his car is in a tree, I'm going to predict he didn't put it there unassisted. I can meet Joe and understand his needs and his personality. I can predict that he likes clean his car and will tend to wash it. I can see his biological makeup. I can verify that depriving him of air will cause him to fall unconscious. The list goes on. The common thread is that I have a predictive model of who and what Joe is, what Joe will do, and what he is likely to have done.
Furthermore, if Joe claims to have washed his car, I can expect to find evidence of this. I can find car cleaning equipment and supplies in his garage. Or receipts from the car wash. Or impartial witnesses who saw Joe wash his car.
For God, none of this applies. You can't tell me what God is likely to do next, despite the fact that you claim to know his personality. He's as likely to spawn a tornado as save you from it. He's as likely to act as not act in any given scenario. You can't point to any physical evidence of God's actions. All you have are stories like the ones that all cultures manufacture.
Just ask yourself, what evidence counts against supernatural claims. Make a prediction like "if experiment X turns out with result Y, the claims of the Bible will be falsified or discredited."
If you can't do that you have no explanation. It should be easy to see why. If you couldn't predict that God would act in a special way today, how can you claim that he would have done so yesterday? God was capable of performing the act in each case, but what caused God to act in this way yesterday versus today? Belief in God's actions is the equivalent of saying that, while I cannot say that water and oil explode when mixed, I am content to blame yesterday's explosion on the mixing of oil and water. Would you accept this sort of explanation?
Consider Tom's discussion of prayer. When his prayer isn't fulfilled, either God has not acted yet, or God has an unknown (but presumably good) reason why he will not fulfill the wish. But what's the predictive difference between prayer and hope? If there were no praying, the outcome would be the same. All prayer is doing is focusing an individual's attention on successes while ignoring failures, skewing that individual's intuitive statistical analysis. It's a sort of anti-science in which, rather than removing personal bias from sampling, personal bias is amplified as much as possible. It's an invitation to superstitious delusion.
On the other hand, Joe's boss asks Joe to perform tasks, and ably monitors his compliance. He can tell when Joe answers requests and when he ignores or fails to fulfill them.
That's why "God did it" isn't explanatory and "Joe did it" is.
Aaron,
Under naturalism, we seek predictive (rule-based) explanations.
Does naturalism demand that there be no supernatural events, i.e., no events for which a rule-based explanation cannot be found?
I don't think it does. The signature of a supernatural event is that we can't find any predictive rule under which the event would have occurred. That is, the signature of the supernatural is the lack of any explanation. But the search for explanations is open-ended. You cannot prove that an event is supernatural. You can only say that no explanation has yet been found.
It is not a core tenet of naturalism that every event will be explicable in principle. That would be an unjustifiable (and unnecessary) demand, in my opinion.
doctor(logic):
This reveals a real blindness:
It is simply the perspective that a supernatural event is an in-principle inexplicable event.
Declaring an event supernatural goes beyond saying that we haven't found an explanation for that event, and asserts that the event will never be explained. Not a very reasonable thing to do.
It only means that you cannot explain it in naturalistic terms. But it's not inexplicable in terms of the personality and the intentions of a God.
We've been around and around on this in previous comment threads.
What you are saying is that if, hypothetically, a supernatural event happened, and if God explained it in terms of his purposes and his will and his intentions for humans in history, then God's explanation would not be an explanation. I would love to see you explain that to God!
For those of you who haven't been in previous discussion with doctor(logic) on this, he absolutely will not admit any "explanation" that does not include prediction. That's how he can try to argue as he did at 9:26 pm.
It's an incredibly limited, iconoclastic definition. We've written thousands of words back and forth to each other--including Charlie and Holopupenko and others--and he has never seen the truth even of something as basic as the hypothetical I just posted (again) at 10:02 pm.
Steve,
a) ball C movesYou can certainly say that a chain of events was caused/explained by a relatively remote event.
b) ball B hits ball C
c) ball A hits ball B
Is it unreasonable to say that ball B explains why ball C moves or must we say a force explains why ball C moves?
For example, we can agree that a button push could detonate explosives and be the cause of a piece of shrapnel being embedded in a tree.
This relies on a set of statistically predictive rules. We can run the experiment again and again and find that shrapnel is produced in such experiments well above background levels (which are, of course, near zero).
However, when there is no predictive rule leading from A to B or B to C, we're going to lose our explanatory power.
If we try to use the explosion to explain a subsequent earthquake on another continent, we're going to run into trouble if we cannot correlate button pushes and explosions with earthquakes. Note that we can't prove that the explosion didn't cause the earthquake per se. Yet, we can agree that the explanation fails if we cannot cause earthquakes above background levels by using explosions.
God fails to explain any facet of observation because God is only ever consistent with observation. That consistency is necessary but not sufficient for explanation. We have no reason to believe God incapable of causing some chain of events to occur, but we also have no reason to believe that he actually did so. As with the explosion/earthquake case, consistency isn't enough. You need discoverable rules.
The rules don't have to be physical. If you could say that God will always arrange to prevent chickens from coming into contact with Uranium, then you would have some prediction we could test. God could arrange for the vehicle carrying the Uranium for our experiment to run out of gas. Or the chickens in the lab to die of bird flu. Eventually, we could establish some non-physical rule under which chickens cannot touch Uranium. That's a good enough rule for naturalism. It's predictive. You can base future chains of explanation on the rule that no live chicken can touch Uranium, and you can reason from there.
There are no such rules for God. That's why God can't be part of any explanation. He will break any explanatory chain into which he is placed. God cannot explain fine-tuning because God isn't compelled to create fine-tuned universes over coarse-tuned ones. He's consistent with fine-tuning to be sure. But that's not sufficient for explanation.
Tom,
What you are saying is that if, hypothetically, a supernatural event happened, and if God explained it in terms of his purposes and his will and his intentions for humans in history, then God's explanation would not be an explanation.If God showed up, demonstrated his powers, demonstrated that there was a coherent plan behind his interventions and non-interventions, and then acted again according to these rules, then he would be explanatory. But God isn't here, doesn't communicate, doesn't explain, and has no coherent plan as far as anyone can see. It's precisely the issue I described with "Joe did it" versus "God did it."
God's "plan" is that humans in history play the role that humans in history have played. Talk about tautology!!!! This is true no matter what role we play.
Tom, what cannot happen tomorrow according to God's plan? If we destroy ourselves in a nuclear war, then, no doubt, God would have planned that we play the role of suicidal nuclear warmongers. If we decide to disarm and create world peace, then, no doubt, God's plan would have been that we should play the role of peacemakers.
Come on, Tom! You know that this won't work on anyone with the slightest skepticism.
Furthermore, if Joe claims to have washed his car, I can expect to find evidence of this. I can find car cleaning equipment and supplies in his garage. Or receipts from the car wash. Or impartial witnesses who saw Joe wash his car.
The stuff prior to the bold section only tells you Joe may have washed his car. It's called circumstantial evidence. Suppose his wife and his son told you they washed it? Suppose they are lying to keep a secret.
The bold section together with the stuff prior makes for a very solid case that Joe washed his car. We have similar evidence that Jesus died and rose again - circumstantial evidence and testimony.
For God, none of this applies. You can't tell me what God is likely to do next, despite the fact that you claim to know his personality. He's as likely to spawn a tornado as save you from it. He's as likely to act as not act in any given scenario. You can't point to any physical evidence of God's actions. All you have are stories like the ones that all cultures manufacture.
I got this far and about choked on my ice cream. Are you serious about the first bold section? Do you hold Joe to the same standard as God when it comes to prediction? No you don't.
Fill in the blank: "Joe is likely to do ____ tomorrow" Treating like as like, if you generalize it and say "go to work" then I should be able generalize it and say "allow my child to live" when speaking about God.
If you want to get more specific and say "email Mr. Smith about the invoice" then I would have to do the same for God like say "save me from a car crash".
Now here's the funny part and it relates to the second bold section. If you predict wrong and Joe decides to go snow skiing for the first time ever instead of "go to work", you simply chalk it up to "randomness" which means your prediction was really correct because people are known to snow ski.
If God allows my child's life to end instead of "allow my child to live", my prediction has failed in your eyes even though God is known to do this. Heads you win, tails I lose.
Your prediction test is suffering from a severe case of double-standard-itis. If Joe is an explanation then God is an explanation for the same reasons.
Tom--
I applaud you for posting a page like this, even though I disagree with much of what you say. If you're a blogger that discusses controversial subjects you ought to have a page outlining your own beliefs on the subject. It ought to be considered 'bad form' not to do so.
That said, one reaction I have is that it seems a bit unfair to flash that 'ResearchID' site as you have (more than once) as supposed evidence that ID really is scientific but when your readers take you up on the challenge & start looking at the site's claims closer you point them to this 'disclaimer' page, rather than examine your "evidence" closer.
In light of the above, your honor, I move that the 'researchID' webpage be disallowed as evidence, and all references to it in the comments section be stricken from the record.
The ACLU rests.
If you could say that God will always arrange to prevent chickens from coming into contact with Uranium, then you would have some prediction we could test. God could arrange for the vehicle carrying the Uranium for our experiment to run out of gas. Or the chickens in the lab to die of bird flu. Eventually, we could establish some non-physical rule under which chickens cannot touch Uranium. That's a good enough rule for naturalism. It's predictive. You can base future chains of explanation on the rule that no live chicken can touch Uranium, and you can reason from there.
More double-standard-itis. Will Joe always go to work when he wakes up at 6am, shaves/showers, puts on his work clothes and gets in the car? Most of the time he will, but not always. When he goes to a funeral or somewhere else, you say the prediction succeeds because it falls under the "set of statistically predictive rules" known as human behavior.
When God fails to prevent chickens from coming into contact with Uranium the prediction fails for some unknown reason. It falls under the set of statistically predictive rules known as Godly behavior so that can't be it.
Ron, thanks for the encouraging word.
I think just about every time Research ID has been "flashed," it was in a comment by someone else. I could be wrong; my memory might be all mixed up on that. But it doesn't show up in a Google search of the blog page or in a Haloscan search (which I have access to as administrator), with one exception.
I should add one thing to what I wrote, though, and I'm going to edit it in to the post. Here's a preview:
I'm not saying I will avoid all areas of empirical science altogether. I may point to information on other sites that I think may be relevant, and I may even bring up empirical topics here for discussion. When I do that, it will be in areas where I am fairly confident I know the issues well enough to present them accurately and assess opposing views knowledgeably.
Hi Tom,
I think it's been linked to twice: once by you and once by SteveK ( well three times now, with your post above).
Each time, as you say, in the comments (and one time in the mail) - the first being the thread on Philip Johnson's recent article.
Thus said Charlie.
Steve,
Fill in the blank: "Joe is likely to do ____ tomorrow" Treating like as like, if you generalize it and say "go to work" then I should be able generalize it and say "allow my child to live" when speaking about God.This doesn't work, Steve.
There are laws of nature. I'll assume that the laws aren't God, for that would be pantheism.
Suppose there's a train derailment, and we find the cause was a bad railroad tie. The manufacturer to save money and use substandard materials. Where was God? God isn't breaking the laws of physics as far as we can tell. No violation of those laws has ever been found (not that it's impossible, or that new laws aren't found from time to time). However, there are many chance factors. We don't precisely know the health of each individual on the train, their posture at the time of the crash, the exact train speed to within 1mph, the exact ambient temperature, all of which might make the difference between life and death in a borderline case.
So is that where God works? In the gaps? In the places where we have a lack of information that would confirm his existence and interference?
Don't you see this is different from Joe who is labeled, and whose actions can be observed and monitored? Joe doesn't act in the gaps between our measurements. He's directly measured, and it's pretty clear what he causes and what he doesn't.
In contrast, you don't even have reason to believe God exists, let alone that he acts to do anything. Not unless you are defining God to be the variable in the question "X which allows my child to live." And in that case God isn't an answer, God is a question.
Don't you see this is different from Joe who is labeled, and whose actions can be observed and monitored? Joe doesn't act in the gaps between our measurements. He's directly measured, and it's pretty clear what he causes and what he doesn't.
It's one thing to observe Joe in the moment and see what he does. It's quite another to predict what Joe does as a means of explanation.
That's your point, right, prediction leads to explanation? Joe is predictable, and God is not. Joe is an explanation for "X", and God is not.
doctor(logic), you're just saying the same thing over and over again. Your complaint at 10:30 pm yesterday boils down to this: We cannot use our knowledge of God to make predictions. Since we can't make predictions, God is not an explanation.
I repeat: if God does it, and if God explains it in terms of his purposes and wills and intentions, then it is explained. Sure, that leaves a lot that can't be predicted; and it may even leave things unexplained, because God isn't opening up that kind of revelation on a regular basis. But remember it was a hypothetical: I asked you what you would do in a hypothetical instance where God did provide that kind of explanation. You seem to be saying it's not an explanation.
By the way, there's a danger of getting sidetracked. This little course of discussion is not primarily about what God does or does not do in the world. This is primarily about what does or does not qualify as explanation. I brought God in here as a prime illustration of the fact that an explanation need not be predictive to qualify as an explanation. In my hypothetical case, we have an effect with a cause, the cause being God himself, acting according to his purposes and intentions. That's explanatory.
I brought God in here as a prime illustration of the fact that an explanation need not be predictive to qualify as an explanation. In my hypothetical case, we have an effect with a cause, the cause being God himself, acting according to his purposes and intentions. That's explanatory.
Exactly! My neighbor Joe is also a prime illustration of this fact. This is the truth that I keep trying to hammer home but DL can't see it.
Tom,
In my hypothetical case, we have an effect with a cause, the cause being God himself, acting according to his purposes and intentions. That's explanatory.
Don't we have just a little bit more than this type of hypothetical? How about fulfilled prophesy? And, I just can't wait for all the 'proof' that this is just a figment of our wish fulfilment imagination.
Tom:
It's not that DL can't see it: he won't see it. He never dares to pose questions beyond his MES-only presuppositions. He has declared all such questions either "irrelevant" or "meaningless" or "subjective" simply because they are much to big to be caught up in his limited, subective, trapped-in-the-mind view of reality. He has also declared them as "unverifiable" per his own scientistic rules or "unpredictable" when predictability doesn't even apply. He has set himself up as the dogmatic guard dog of naturalistic reality—thinking yapping long and hard enough will force reality to his understanding of truth.
David, you're right, we do have more. But I was trying to present the fewest possible hurdles to doctor(logic) in the course of the current discussion; that's why I posed it as a mere hypothetical.
Steve,
That's your point, right, prediction leads to explanation? Joe is predictable, and God is not. Joe is an explanation for "X", and God is not.Not quite, but close.
Saying that A happened then B happened doesn't mean that A caused B. That's an inference which requires that there be some mechanism connecting the occurrence of A with the occurrence of B.
If I sneeze, and then my car engine stalls, my explanation cannot be that "I sneezed, and my car engine stalled."
I have to propose a connection between the two events that goes beyond restatement. For example, I have to propose that "sneezing causes engine failure."
It is also not enough to say that this one sneeze caused this one engine failure by virtue of its location in history. That just turns history into a chain of one-time coincidences.
This is exactly the kind of false explanation you introduce with God. God causes a one-time sequence of events that are unique by their location in time. God saves one child from a tornado today, and kills another tomorrow, and you can't point to rhyme or reason for it other than to say that the two events were totally unique.
I have a question for you. When you claim "God did it," how do you know it was God rather than Nature? Or that it wasn't Joe?
Surely, nature and human activity, being independent of God, form an explanatory background. When I start my car, that isn't God. That's human engineering and physics. When the Hindenburg blew up, that wasn't God. That was physics, engineering and meteorology. There has to be a point at which you say that X wasn't God, but something other than God.
As I see it, you're trapped between a rock and a hard place. Either you say that everything that happens is an act of God (e.g., what I'm typing now), or else you say that you have no way to establish what was God and what wasn't except by elimination of naturalistic alternatives (God of the gaps).
This is exactly the kind of false explanation you introduce with God. God causes a one-time sequence of events that are unique by their location in time. God saves one child from a tornado today, and kills another tomorrow, and you can't point to rhyme or reason for it other than to say that the two events were totally unique.
Humans cause one-time sequence of events all the time so what's the problem? Mike saves one child from a tornado today and murders another tomorrow - never to do either again. False explanation???
I have a question for you. When you claim "God did it," how do you know it was God rather than Nature? Or that it wasn't Joe?
You're all over the place here. First it was a "predictive rule" that explained something, now it's a "connection" that explains.
The same question applies to you regarding Joe. You see his car is clean and claim "Joe did it". There's no prediction involved here so it's about time you dropped that line of argument.
On to connection. There's a potential connection between Joe and the clean car, but there's a potential connection between any number of people and the clean car. We know people wash cars so the connection is valid. The only question is who did it.
Did God do it? I doubt it. I've never known God to wash cars, but as they say, there's a first time for everything.
When I start my car, that isn't God. That's human engineering and physics. When the Hindenburg blew up, that wasn't God. That was physics, engineering and meteorology. There has to be a point at which you say that X wasn't God, but something other than God.
Back to my ball A, B, C example. The initial movement of ball A explains why ball C moved. The ball is the explanation, not the physics causing it. You said that was a valid way to explain why ball C moved.
Instead of balls A,B,C let's substitute using God, Joe and a car. God 'moves' Joe who 'moves' the car causing the event.
It's not a question of "Can God be used to explain an event?", it's a question of "Who caused the event?"
As I see it, you're trapped between a rock and a hard place. Either you say that everything that happens is an act of God (e.g., what I'm typing now), or else you say that you have no way to establish what was God and what wasn't except by elimination of naturalistic alternatives (God of the gaps).
Purely as a way of explanation, I certainly can say that everything that happens is an act of God. That's a valid explanation as I've demonstrated above. It may be factually incorrect, but it's a valid explanation nonetheless.
As I said above, it's a question of "Who caused the event?". You are confusing the explanitory power with the truth of the explanation.
As I see it, you're trapped between a rock and a hard place. Either you say that everything that happens is an act of God (e.g., what I'm typing now), or else you say that you have no way to establish what was God and what wasn't except by elimination of naturalistic alternatives (God of the gaps).
No, that's a false dichotomy. God is behind everything that happens, and has established nature to run by orderly, regular processes. There are two exceptions: one is human decision making, which is not bound to physical causation, and the other God's occasional intervention in the natural order. It need not be just one or the other, though.
And you're still not addressing my hypothetical. In that example, we had God himself communicating that he was the explanation. What will you do with that?
Tom--
I'm not saying I will avoid all areas of empirical science altogether. I may point to information on other sites that I think may be relevant, and I may even bring up empirical topics here for discussion. When I do that, it will be in areas where I am fairly confident I know the issues well enough to present them accurately and assess opposing views knowledgeably.
So this either means you're not prepared to discuss the examples put forth by the ResearchID website or you are. If the latter, then perhaps you're prepared to answer the question I put to you previously (in a related thread, if I recall):
Just what are your favorite pages on that 'ResearchID wiki' site you guys like to link to so much--and why do you think so?
I'm not planning to go into the ResearchID wiki here at this time.
Wow. There's been some discussion going while I've been too busy to stay in touch these past 24 hours. Thanks for your response, Tom. I think I see what you're getting at, thought I still can't agree. It's probably based upon what we mean by 'science'. To me science is the study of nature -- the interactions of matter and energy. Anything supernatural is by definition outside of it's sphere of interest.
By this meaning of science, I can't help but conclude that ID is using the scientific method applied to a philosphical question. Then again, I'm coming to this question from a theistic evolutionary bias and a graduate degree in physics. I don't have the philosophical background to keep up with some of these discussions here, and you've expressly said that you're not prepared to discuss the nitty-gritty science aspects. I'll probably head back to lurking for a while. Thanks for the discussion. It has helped me put a finer point on my opinion at least 
Greg, I'm intrigued by your thought that ID is using the scientific method applied to a philosophical question. I'd be interested to know more about what you're thinking. If you're willing to de-lurk, that is .
Tom, I'm happy to participate if I can add value and have time. I'm not quite sure how much I can expound on my idea. I suppose it is rooted in understanding "science" and "the scientific method" as separate ideas. Science defines what is studied. The scientific method defines a means of study. Not all scientific knowledge has been the result of the scientific method. I can't think of a good example, but there's probably non-scientific knowledge that has resulted from the scientific method.
Some people may think that just applying the scientific method is doing science. It may even be the popular perception, but I never saw that from within the physics community. If that is one's definition, then sure, ID is science. I'm even playing fast and loose with the term "scientific method" here. Technically it includes forming a hypothesis, devising an experiment to test that hypothesis, measure reults, refine, lather, rinse, repeat. Evolution itself is not really experimental in this sense (cosmology is another example). We can't create a controlled experiement based on the theory and measure its results in a controlled environment. I once heard this sort of investigation called "forensic method" as opposed to "empirical method". It's forensic like the TV show CSI. There was a singular event that can't be experimentally repeated (either theoretically or practically), so one has to analyze the outcome and work back to a theory of the event's cause. I'm willing to deal with a broadened definition of "scientific method" that includes not only the classical experiment driven method, but also the post-hoc forensic analysis. The end goal is a theory with predictive power whether the forensic or empirical method is used.
From the standpoint of science as defining the subject of study (nature) then animosity towards ID as science from the scientific community makes sense. ID is hypothesizing the supernatural. I guess this ties back in with how my mind started this path (your flowchart). Neo-darwinism is empirically indistinguishable from Theistic evolution, so it's all one as far as science and the scientific method is concerned. And you point out in your flowchart that Theistic evolution and ID may only have theological implications. That's a question science does not intend to study. I also can't see any sort of predictive power that could be gained from ID.
I guess that sums up my basic viewpoint. ID is about using the forensic style of scientific method to try to answer a question of philosophilcal/theological interest, and is therefore of no interest to science (but quite important to scientists). Scientists oppose ID on one of two grounds 1) the hypothesis being tested is beyond the realm of science, or 2) they philosophically oppose that hypothesis. This probably ties into those big philosphical words above that I'm sure I'm only catching part of the subtleties of. 1 is a methodological naturalism objection. 2 is a philosophical naturalism objection. Group 2 makes the most noise, but group 1 has a better argument.
I must have written my chart wrong; I did not mean to say that ID and theistic evolution have only theological implications. They are empirically distinct. In one, there are empirically identifiable "fingerprints" of God's activity in nature, and in the other, there are not.
For that reason, starting from that basis, I would have to disagree that "D is about using the forensic style of scientific method to try to answer a question of philosophilcal/theological interest, and is therefore of no interest to science (but quite important to scientists)."
If there is some detectable intervention in natural history by an intelligent agent (God or otherwise; ID as science does not and cannot say), then this is of utmost importance to science. For one thing, it corrects a misconception, that naturalistic evolution is a sufficient and correct answer for the questions it addresses. For another, it marks out some limits to science. For another, it's knowledge, pure and simple; and knowledge of the empirical world is of interest to science.
The hypothesis being tested is not what you have stated, although I can see why you think it is; it's all over the popular media. The hypothesis ID tests is:
Some features of the natural world are best explained by reference to intelligence rather than to unguided natural processes.
And much of the work of ID today is in defining what that hypothesis entails, i.e., how it can be operationalized for empirical purposes. I think it can be; probably not to the extent that it's absolute apodictic proof of intelligence behind nature, but to the extent that intelligence becomes the best or most plausible explanation.
Of course many scientists philosophically oppose even that much. That's the part of the ID discussion where I do the most work. I think that philosophical opposition can be challenged, on the grounds that it is incoherent and self-defeating. But I won't try to rewrite that whole bit here.
I misremembered your chart and didn't take the time to double-check. My apologies. Your chart says that TE and ID are "Theologically Indeterminate?"
I suppose that ties into some of my biases too. I have sympathy with ID as a theistic apologetic, but I don't see the possibility of unambiguous "detectable intervention in natural history by an intelligent agent". At best, I suspect it would be probabilistic arguments of no greater strength than naturalistic evolution. And overall it would be weaker scientifically because it had no predictive power.
I could also come from a different direction that I don't have time to fully elaborate today and I will be away from the computer for the weekend, but I'll give a taste. (We could shift to email if you like.) I could argue from a theistic perspective about God's economy. Why would he violate natural laws, when He Himself set them up with a backdoor He can use at any time?
I hold that the burning bush miracle did not violate physics as we know it. Fire is the result of heat, which is inherently statistical in nature (average kinetic energy of a collection of molecules). It is possible (though so HIGHLY unlikely that it should be dismissed at first until pushed on the subject) that there was a highly localized collection of hydrogen and oxygen molecules that collided only with each other and not the bush, and that they heated to the point of producing flame. Similarly, HIGHLY unlikely statistical pressure waves in the air of Moses' ear canals could create a voice. Neither of these violate fundamental laws. Miracles (God's intervention in nature) does not have to imply the violation of scientific laws. (I purposely avoided going into quantum mechanical examples because things get very weird very quickly, but fundamentally they are statistical in nature too.)
Based upon this, and my understanding of faith, I don't believe God has left any ironclad scientifically detectable fingerprints. If He did, then no faith would be required to believe.
Perhaps I should back off on the ID as science point until I can read how to operationalize the ID hypothesis, though I remain highly skeptical. Still, from my Christian and scientific background, I think it's a fools errand. Strong enough evidence will not be found to convince those who don't want to believe.
Greg, I think we agree on one important point: ID will not become something that will convince people to believe in God, if they don't want to. If that's the objective, it is a fool's errand as you said.
But if the objective is to see what the empirical situation is, then it's a pretty interesting project.
And I'm not saying I will avoid all areas of empirical science altogether. This being a personal blog, I reserve the right not to be 100% consistent about it!
This made me smile. Hey, at least you're honest!
But still, you should strive towards 100%, isn't that so? And even tho it's your blog, it's still cheating to cite websites as support but point to a disclaimer page when our side wants to retort.
Ron:
Speaking of honesty, how about providing those clear and verifiable references which you claim show Dembski supports embryonic stem cell research... It's been about a week now, and you still haven't come through--this is the third time you're being asked to put your money where your mouth is.
Sorry about that, H.
I wasn't trying to suggest that he was deliberately supporting embryonic stem cell. Rather, I was making an amused comment that his "breakthroughs" in "biosteganography" are being used by a company that touts a line of products that employ embryonic stem-cells.
Kind of ironic, don't you think?
Oh, Holo--Can you find a non-creationist resource that discusses BIOsteganography? So far, all I see are pro-ID resources for it, which kind of suggests it's not really a recognized field of biology. If this is supposed to be an example of the research ID scientists are supposedly doing, it's no wonder ID is so reviled by 99.9% of all scientists. It's kind of like Duane Gish announcing a big breakthrough in bariminology.
Ron:
Well then, why didn't you make that clear in the first place? Your gleeful "I'm going to tell on him" attitude was uncharitable to say the least, and a non-starter. Given that you probably use Google and Yahoo!, should I "tell on you" for supporting the Chinese regime?
I'll tell you what: I'll provide you with the references you request when you provide me with a verifiable reference(s) for ID being "reviled" by your quite precise figure of "99.9% of all scientists." You may be in for a big surprise... and I doubt there'll be any need for me to come through on your attempt to get off the subject on just what ID is all about.
And, please keep clearly distinguished the difference between "creation science" and ID: if you feel a deep need to use these as synonyms, then don't expect to be taken seriously my much of anyone. The fact that you are using these two interchangably speaks volumes about you not knowing what ID is in the first place.
Hey again, Holo--
Well then, why didn't you make that clear in the first place? Your gleeful "I'm going to tell on him" attitude was uncharitable to say the least, and a non-starter.
Non-starter? Okay, fine. [Sulks]
Uncharitable? Maybe.
But tasty.
I'll tell you what: I'll provide you with the references you request when you provide me with a verifiable reference(s) for ID being "reviled" by your quite precise figure of "99.9% of all scientists."
Well, here's an admittedly unscientific one, but fun anyhow:
The Disco Inst. claims to have "over 700" scientists who dissent from Darwin. Knowing them, that probably means they have 702 signatories. But let's say they have 799 names on their list.
Now, by way of comparison, over at the NCSE's site, we've got 795 scientists named Steve signed up for 'Project Steve'. Steves are roughly 1% of the general population--so the site says--so multiply my 795 by 100 and divide by your 799. The result is: 99.499% [Yeah, I know--it's not quite 99.9%, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming 799 when it was probably 702.]
Mwa-hahahaha.
Okay, now you--Your turn.
Have you found a non-creationist resource that discusses biosteganography yet? Note: Not Steganography. Biosteganography. Just point me to a Journal of the American Academy of Biosteganography or something that didn't come from a church, ministry, 700 Club, Campus Crusade for Christ, Discovery Institute or their ilk.
And, please keep clearly distinguished the difference between "creation science" and ID: if you feel a deep need to use these as synonyms, then don't expect to be taken seriously my much of anyone
Hard to do, because the difference is subtle. What if I were to tell you there is evidence that initial drafts of 'Of Pandas and People' referred throughout not to Intelligent Design but Creation Science, but in later versions of that "textbook" nearly all the verbage remained the same except that the phrase "creation science" was replaced with "Intelligent Design". The 2 phrases were used interchangably between the earlier and later versions. What would that tell you?
What if I told you that the earlier definition of "creation science" was identical to the later definition of "intelligent design" in Pandas?
All this was introduced into evidence at Kitzmiller by none other than the mighty ACLU, to devastating effect.
In the "textbook" all you creationists want to see in the school libraries, 'Of Pandas and People', the definition of 'creation science' is the same as the definition of 'intelligent design.'
If the folks that wrote Pandas can't tell the difference between CS and ID, how do you expect me to?
Ron:
Your inability to distinguish between "creation science" and "ID" is, frankly, intellectually repugnant... and very lazy.
Your providing a "non-scientific" response to your precise claim? Sorry, doesn't cut it--even if I accept your loaded source. BUT, what's saddest of all is you missed the ENTIRE point of why I posed the challenge, and why I knew you'd never--even in principle--be able to respond: you missed, lock, stock, and barrel, the fallacy you promulgated of numbers defining the truth. So what if 99.9% of a certain group of people believed someting? Does that define the truth of the matter? No. Truth is correspondence with reality, and hence demands reasoned argumentation--not fallacies--to gain certain knowledge. I really can't believe you missed that--after I laid it out so blatantly, in fact. Would you like it on a silver platter with "Danger, Will Robinson!" signs warning you next time? You've got some work to do, Ron.
Finally, another reason why I won't provide you "creation science" references is that I reject "creation science" for philosophical, theological, and MES reasons. You're barking up the wrong tree with me on this one, Ron... and you're labeling me a "creationist" is foolish... but it was interesting to watch you falter over your own claim, fallacy, and general ignorance of ID. By the way, as betrayed by your bandying about the term "creationist," it's also clear you can't distinguish between creation as such and "creation science." Like I said, you have a lot of work to do, Ron--almost as much as DL.
Ron:
Your inability to distinguish between "creation science" and "ID" is, frankly, intellectually repugnant... and very lazy.
Right. Like I said,
If the folks that wrote Pandas can't tell the difference between CS and ID, how do you expect me to?
I love the ACLU.
...you missed, lock, stock, and barrel, the fallacy you promulgated of numbers defining the truth. So what if 99.9% of a certain group of people believed someting? Does that define the truth of the matter? No.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The majority is sometimes wrong. Does that mean that it's insignificant that the vast majority of biologists, geologists, etc. support evolution and loathe ID? No, it doesn't.
It took the Discovery Institute something like 15 years to establish their 1st 'research' institute devoted to ID. In that same approx. time frame, the guy who discovered prions went from being roundly rejected by his peers to winning them over, and he did it by publishing something on the order of 250 peer-reviewed research articles. He won a Nobel prize for his diligence, while William Dembski is reduced to doing fart noises for online flash animations ridiculing Judge Jones.
There's the difference between ID and real science right there.
Truth is correspondence with reality, and hence demands reasoned argumentation--not fallacies--to gain certain knowledge.
That's true, and by those very methods biologists have established that it took 3 billion years for life to progress from single-celled to multi-celled form, just as they have established that all life shares common ancestry and that evolutionary mechanisms are responsible for this.
Finally, another reason why I won't provide you "creation science" references is that I reject "creation science" for philosophical, theological, and MES reasons.
I think you misunderstood me. I already have creationist references discussing biosteganography. What I asked you for was
Have you found a non-creationist resource that discusses biosteganography yet?
Reason I'm asking you, I think that ResearchID website is nothing but creationist propaganda if it tries to pass off as 'empirical evidence' for ID some spurious 'breakthrough' by Dembski in a field that is recognized only by other creationists.
Just remember, Holo--While creationists were putting together bogus websites like ResearchID, the guy that discovered prions was winning the Nobel prize.
Ron,
You're replaying an old scenario with this Pandas and People thing. Essentially, you're saying that ID is equivalent to creationism. Now, if this is your only evidence, you would probably consider that to be rather weak. At least, you should.
What other evidence do you have that ID is equivalent to creationism? I remind you that if you want to tell us what we really think, in contradiction to what we say, you ought to have good grounds.
Hey, Tom--
You're replaying an old scenario with this Pandas and People thing. Essentially, you're saying that ID is equivalent to creationism.
Aaah, no, not quite. What I'm saying is that the people who wrote the 'flagship' creationist textbook supplement Of Pandas and People used the terms "creation science" and "intelligent design" interchangably, and even defined both terms in precisely the same way.
What I'm telling you is that the above constitutes a tacit admission that CS and ID are equivalent.
Now, if this is your only evidence, you would probably consider that to be rather weak. At least, you should.
You can't be serious. Early Pandas used the term "creation science" all over that book, and later Pandas substituted the term "intelligent design" in the same places with very few other changes in context. That pretty much proves that either (1) ID and CS are synonymous, or (2) Pandas isn't an ID textbook.
You haven't even come close to refuting this little gem.
What other evidence do you have that ID is equivalent to creationism? I remind you that if you want to tell us what we really think, in contradiction to what we say, you ought to have good grounds.
I'll never knowingly misrepresent your side, Tom. And if I ever do so thru carelessness I'll correct it. What I've told you above doesn't contradict what you say at all. It's your movement's own words, come back to haunt them.
ID and CS are essentially the same.
Then you have unknowingly misrepresented our side. I appreciate your willingness to listen. In a few minutes I'll post a new blog entry that will help you on that.
Okay, Tom--Meetcha there.
Commenting by HaloScan
