Re: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism

Peter,

I hope you don't mind my saying this, but I get the uncomfortable sensation
that you're not really listening to what I've said. You accuse me of
"special pleading" and "circular reasoning", but I can find no instance of
this in what I wrote, so you'll have to clarify what you meant there. Why
is your argument a "straw-man"? I would have thought that was clear from
what I said, but I'll attempt to elucidate for you.

A "straw-man" is where someone gives a deliberately ludicrous and false
description of something, and then knocks it down - the fallacy being that
they have knocked down their false description of the thing, and not the
thing itself.

You claimed that an adherent of MN might postulate that white noise input
into a Schmidt trigger would produce Windows XP out of the other end. That
is clearly a false description of MN and doesn't correspond to anything any
scientist would postulate, or would be encouraged to postulate. A favourite
criticism of evolution by creationists and ID folk is that such marvels of
life as we see couldn't have arisen by "blind chance", but that, too is a
straw man. As I explained it contains random elements and deterministic
elements (natural selection). Please explain to me where you think I'm
doing either special pleading or circular reasoning in what I said, because
I'm having a problem seeing it myself.

The musical instrument analogy was another way of illustrating that random
inputs plus deterministic laws could produce an ordered and complex output.
It could be argued that the way the resonating string on the violin picks
out the resonant frequencies from the random white noise signal and discards
the non-resonant frequencies are indeed a mini-evolutionary process.

You countered by saying that the violin points to a designer. Yes, of
course, but the process whereby the note is produced is entirely
naturalistic. And in any case, Darwin himself argued that maybe the laws of
the universe were designed, as in this excerpt from a letter to Asa Gray:

On the other hand, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful
universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything
is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as
resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to
the working out of what we may call chance.

For a more detailed examination of the musical analogy, see my blog posting
at

http://iainstrachan.blogspot.com/2007/02/gods-flute.html

I deliberately chose the title "God's flute" rather than the violin, to
resonate with Genesis ch 2, where God breathes the breath of life into Adam,
and the flute is played by blowing on it.

You ask repeatedly for "empirical evidence". The best thing to do is read
Francis Collins's book "The language of God" which gives practically
irrefutable empirical evidence that evolution has occurred from looking at
DNA sequence data of different species. Another pretty convincing argument
is this video by Ken Miller on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

The blurb says:

Dr. Ken Miller talks about the relationship between Homo sapiens and the
other primates. He discusses a recent finding of the Human Genome Project
which identifies the exact point of fusion of two primate chromosomes that
resulted in human chromosome #2.

I think that's pretty convincing empirical evidence. I ascribe the fusion
of the two chromosomes as a deliberate action of a creator, when the obvious
explanation is a naturalistic one makes God look like a deliberate deciever.

I should also add, in case you're wondering that I've been through just
about every position on this:

(1) Initially somewhat grudgingly accepting evolution without really
thinking it through.
(2) Avid Young Earth Creationist (phase lasted about six months during a bad
and depressed stage of my life due to pressure of work, when I wanted
something radical and new to cling on to).
(3) Intelligent Design advocate.
(4) Theistic evolutionist.

I don't consider myself about to evolve into an atheist.

Regards,
Iain

On 7/18/07, Peter Loose <peterwloose@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Ian:
>
>
>
> Just briefly now if I may?
>
>
>
> Para 1 – seems to me to be circular reasoning and special pleading.
> There's no empirical evidence offered for your case. Why is my analogy a
> 'straw-man'?
>
>
>
> Para 2 – think about that carefully – your example backfires and tends to
> the exact opposite point of view. The bow was designed, the violin was
> designed, the strings were tensioned and tuned. BUT over and above all that,
> the violin / bow combination were designed for a purpose – to play music.
> I think it's a nice story – but where's the evidence it has anything to
> do with what actually happens in the Biological world?
>
>
>
> Para 3 if 'evolution' (understood in a Dawkins form) is true in anything
> like an accurately descriptive way, then bring forth the evidence. We know
> unequivocally how software and hardware is designed. Given that Evolution is
> the reigning paradigm in modern science, it seems terribly weak to have to
> resort to 'but it doesn't show it had to happen that way' kind of argument.
>
>
>
> Para 4 – again Ian, you are resorting to special pleading and you're
> putting that over against virtually every single experience we have of
> design. It is actually a meaningless question to pose that Evolution is
> God's creative algorithm. Yes, it could be in a theoretical sense. But God
> can do anything. So we make no progress. The question is 'Did God use that
> algorithm?' . If He did, then it is for empirical science to demonstrate
> that the process by which we 'create or design' is not relevant to the
> debate and that there is a way for Matter and Energy, acting as a unique duo
> to do what every other experience tells us requires pre-existing
> intelligence. As I read Biology and especially Genetics and the Encode
> Project – I think the current Evolutionary paradigm is a real God of the
> Gaps kind of approach. The gap is the evidence that Energy and Matter do
> beget intelligently designed systems that make even Windows XP look like a
> toy! It's faith in MN that sustains this quest to fill the evidential gap.
>
>
>
> Blessings indeed
>
>
> Peter
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* igd.strachan@gmail.com [mailto:igd.strachan@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 18, 2007 11:29 AM
> *To:* Peter Loose
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of
> Scientific Naturalism
>
>
>
> Peter,
>
>
> If, as another Brit, I may respond.
>
> Two points occur immediately to me. Your example of Windows XP coming out
> of white noise fed into a Schmidt trigger is, I think a complete straw man.
> Obviously no-one would expect such a thing to happen, but evolution is
> clearly nothing like that, and it is evidently not a totally random process
> - mutations may be random events, but natural selection is completely
> non-random.
>
> If you want an example of a random noise input producing a complex, but
> structured output, consider drawing a bow across a violin string - white
> noise is applied by the random distribution of particles on the horsehair
> bow, and the string, by a form of "natural selection" vibrates at the
> fundamental and multiples of the harmonic frequencies to produce a beautiful
> tone. Admittedly it's nothing like as complex as DNA code, but then it
> happens in a fraction of a second and doesn't take billions of years.
>
> The second point that occurs to me is that, as I'm also a software
> engineer, I'm also well aware of the intelligent design effort that goes
> into a complex piece of software. However, it seems to me that it is
> dangerous to argue from analogy - just because your software and my software
> gained their information via a design process doesn't prove that therefore
> the sequences of DNA arose via a similar design process. The best you can
> say is that a very intelligent programmer _could_ have programmed it in a
> similar manner to a software engineer. But it doesn't show that it _had_ to
> happen that way.
>
> Elements of the software I produce are empirical (data-derived) models
> containing thousands of numerical parameters. These parameters were
> certainly not individually programmed, but were discovered by an automated
> learning algorithm whereby an initial guess was adjusted by small amounts on
> each pass through the data. Although it's not an evolutionary algorithm, it
> bears quite a bit of similarity to the process. Yes, the algorithm was
> intelligently designed by a mathematician. But who's to say that evolution
> wasn't the algorithm designed by God to produce His creation?
>
> Regards,
> Iain
>
> On 7/18/07, *Peter Loose* <peterwloose@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Wow George – I am amazed! May I as a Brit make a comment?
>
>
>
> What is MN? It's a set of assumptions based around two poles – Matter and
> Energy. Any outcome must be bounded by those assumptions. Now suppose those
> assumptions are wrong in any absolute sense? Will that ever be discovered?
>
>
>
> Probably not – because MN is almost universally now come to be the only
> 'correct' way of doing science. And when MN fails, as it has manifestly, in
> any question about the origin of a single self-replicating cell or indeed on
> the increasingly vast matters shown up by the Encode project, those who
> operate by a commitment to MN fall back on another set of commitments. It's
> deep in the world-view of arguably virtually all scientists. That assumption
> is that MN is linked, to its logical precursor, Ontological Naturalism. So,
> if the answer to for example "the origin of life question" is elusive (it
> is?) then ON informs our Scientism and, by faith, we understand that the
> worlds were framed by MN. So we wait in faith, committed to MN, for the
> answer to the question of the origin of the single living cell.
>
>
>
> Now a third pole of science ought to embrace something akin to
> Intelligence or Mind. We know that Information is at the heart of life. No
> computer engineer can look at DNA without recognising that the cell is
> programmed for life.
>
>
>
> I've spent my life applying computers to Industrial Process Control
> problems. I've lived with the challenges of designing rugged software that
> doesn't fall over and cause, in my case, Steel Mills to crash. What I know
> is how difficult that challenge is. I know that it costs incalculable hours
> to develop software that runs reliably. I know that any 'glitches' or 'bugs'
> in the software didn't get better overnight. No, we pored over the code to
> work out, intelligently, what was going wrong and how to put it right.
>
>
>
> Everything we know about Information tells us that it only arises from
> pre-existing Intelligence. It is neither matter nor energy. Those who hold
> to MN might as well postulate that Windows XP (or any other 'language' )
> could arise simply by squirting a long string of 'white noise' into a
> bi-level device (e.g. - a Schmidt trigger) and expecting as output a
> string of code that when married with an X86 Instruction set would suddenly
> become Windows XP or any other Operating System. The real world simply isn't
> like that. There seems to be a complete absence of empirical evidence to say
> that the biological world is any different. But because we've assumed MN we
> have formed an attachment to it that is so inseparably linked to science,
> that anyone who argues science can be done with an additional pole, such as
> Information, or Mind, then that person is ostracised - "he's not doing
> science".
>
>
>
> I am amazed too that one can set aside the enormous ramifications of 'The
> Resurrection' in a single sweep of the hand *"** But - bracketing off for
> a moment claims for unique historical events like the resurrection - we
> don't have any reason to believe that there are any such phenomena.*" What
> do you mean by your phrase "Any reason"? Most of the New Testament
> challenges that statement. While the Resurrection is clearly absolutely
> huge, it is by no means the only 'Singularity' in either the NT or the OT.
>
>
>
> Then we come to such themes as spelled out in Hebrews 1:3 (NIV) The Son is
> the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, *sustaining
> all things by his powerful word*. After he had provided purification for
> sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
>
>
>
> I am engineer, not a scientist or a philosopher – but I am old now and
> I've heard enough and seen enough to know than MN is a limit on science and
> is the territory of the a priori commitment to Naturalism. What's the
> difference between Naturalism and Atheism?
>
>
>
> Peter Loose
>
> Chelmsford
>
> UK
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *George Murphy
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 17, 2007 2:18 AM
> *To:* George Murphy; David Opderbeck; Ted Davis
> *Cc:* PvM; Gregory Arago; asa@calvin.edu; (Matthew) Yew Hock Tan
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of
> Scientific Naturalism
>
>
>
> After a long lapse, another of the typos you all know & love. Below read
> "Of course that doesn't mean that what it's able to study exhausts all
> reality, or that we may NOT encounter observable phenomena that such science
> can't finally explain."
>
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/ <http://web.raex.com/%7Egmurphy/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
>
> *To:* David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> ; Ted Davis<TDavis@messiah.edu>
>
> *Cc:* PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> ; Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> ;
> asa@calvin.edu ; (Matthew) Yew Hock Tan <tanyewhock@yahoo.com>
>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2007 1:16 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of
> Scientific Naturalism
>
>
>
> 2 comments -
>
>
>
> 1) Those who've been on the list for awhile may remember that Hunter was
> on it a couple of years ago & that some of us debated these issues then.
>
>
>
> 2) All the history, philosophy & theology involved in this discussion is
> interesting, but we shouldn't lose track of one crude empirical fact:
> Science operating within the constraints of MN *works* - it has been
> working for ~400 years & continues to work very well in explaining known
> phenomena & predicting new ones. Of course that doesn't mean that what it's
> able to study exhausts all reality, or that we may encounter observable
> phenomena that such science can't finally explain. But - bracketting off
> for a moment claims for unique historical events like the resurrection - we
> don't have any reason to believe that there are any such phenomena. Of
> course that's where ID raises it's distinctive objection, but the best it's
> done so far is to point to some phenomena that haven't *yet* been
> explained fully. There is simply no good reason for scientists, whatever
> their religious beliefs, to abandon MN as a presupposition for doing
> science: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
>
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/ <http://web.raex.com/%7Egmurphy/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
>
> *To:* Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu>
>
> *Cc:* PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> ; Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> ;
> asa@calvin.edu ; (Matthew) Yew Hock Tan <tanyewhock@yahoo.com>
>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2007 11:51 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of
> Scientific Naturalism
>
>
>
> Ted said: * I also believe it is much more accurate; the term MN itself**
> probably arose with Christian philosophical reflection on the limits of
> science and the reality of a "supernatural" God, and our definition
> reflects
> this.*
>
> But what Hunter seems to be saying is that what we now call MN is rooted
> in the epistemology and method of Bacon and Locke. For the Enlightenment
> empiricists, empirical study of the world is an effort to obtain unified
> knowledge about reality-as-it-is. If reality-as-it-is includes the
> empirically observable hand-of-God, then that observation properly falls
> under the umbrella of "science," or, to use an eighteenth century term,
> "natural philosophy." The gist of Hunter's argument -- at least what the
> book review seems to reflect -- is that "science" should return to this
> broader notion of "natural philosophy." The current restrictions of MN
> would reflect an improper, a priori skeptical elision of God from nature, as
> well as an improper turn away from "empirical," observational,
> inductive Baconian science towards more speculative deductive methods ala
> Popper.
>
>
>
> But my first question about this is how to return to Bacon and Locke after
> Darwin, Einstein, and Heisenberg -- in other words, do Bacon and Locke work
> after Newton's mechanism has been dethroned? And my second question is how
> to return to Bacon and Locke after the collapse -- or at least undermining
> -- of foundationalist empistemology's naive view of culture, history and
> language.
>
>
>
> On 7/16/07, *Ted Davis* < TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:
>
> >>> PvM < pvm.pandas@gmail.com> 7/15/2007 5:01 PM >>>quotes Wikipedia on
> Methodological naturalism, as follows:
>
> <quote>Naturalism does not necessarily claim that phenomena or
> hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural do not exist or are wrong,
> but insists that all phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the
> same methods and therefore anything considered supernatural is either
> nonexistent, unknowable, or not inherently different from natural
> phenomena or hypotheses.</quote>
>
> Then, Pim adds the following comment:
>
> If all Hunter is interested in is pointing out that there may have
> been some who had religious motivations to restrict science, such
> should again not be confused with a methodological approach. Science
> neither approves nor disapproves of the supernatural, which for all
> practical purposes is the logical complement of natural.
>
> Here are my comments:
> First, this is not an adequate definition of MN, IMO. In fact,
> ironically,
> it lends support to the incorrect argument from ID advocates, that MN
> simply
> collapses into metaphysical or ontological naturalism. Thus, I'm
> surprised
> that Pim quoted it. Note the language: " all phenomena and hypotheses can
> be studied by the
> same methods and therefore anything considered supernatural is either
> nonexistent, unknowable, or not inherently different from natural
> phenomena
> or hypotheses." Here is my paraphrase, aimed at making my point: If
> scientific methods (ie, naturalism) can't detect it, it ain't real, it's
> only a figment of one's imagination. Am I missing something here? If so,
> please be explicit about what I'm missing. I do think this is the tone
> and
> intent of this very poor definition.
>
> Second, Pim, the definition you cite from wiki contradicts your own
> comment, when you wrote: "Science
> neither approves nor disapproves of the supernatural, which for all
> practical purposes is the logical complement of natural." If the
> supernatural is "nonexistent" or "unknowable," (see wiki), then the latter
>
> part of Pim's sentences is entirely emptied of content. If the
> "supernatural ... is not inherently different from natural phenomena or
> hypotheses," then it collapses into the natural, and I fail to see how it
> becomes "the logical complement of natural." Please have another look at
> that wiki definition, Pim, and clarify your own view in light of it.
>
> Third, I offer a much better (IMO) definition, taken from the entry on
> "Scientific naturalism" that I wrote with philosopher Robin Collins for
> the
> Garland encyclopedia of science & religion
> (http://www.amazon.com/History-Science-Religion-Western-Tradition/dp/0815316569
> ),
> a shorter version of which (essays unabridged, however) from JHU press
> ( http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title_pages/2308.html). Here is our
> definition of MN: "the belief that science should explain phenomena only
> in
> terms of entities and properties that fall within the category of the
> natural, such as by natural laws acting either through known causes or by
> chance (methodological naturalism)."
>
> Why do I believe this definition is much superior? First, it spells out
> that MN is a belief; one might even call it a belief about beliefs, in
> terms
> of its implications. Our definition leaves ample ground (as it should)
> for
> one to make reality claims about a God who really is bigger than "nature,"
> and who actually interacts with "nature," which is better called "the
> creation." It simply affirms, properly, that inferences about God go
> beyond
> what science itself can claim. It in no way rules out the legitimacy of
> such inferences. Second, when read in context (our definition of part of
> a
> much longer definition of four types of naturalism), it is clear to people
> that MN does not equate to or collapse into overreaching forms of
> naturalism. Thus, e.g., we define "scientific naturalism" (our term for
> the
> most wide reaching kind of naturalism) as follows: "the claim that nature
> is
> all that there is and hence that there is no supernatural order above
> nature, along with the claim that all objects, processes, truths, and
> facts
> about nature fall within the scope of the scientific method." Our
> definition of MN is designed, properly, to leave this type of speculation
> aside entirely. Whereas the wiki definition, IMO, strongly suggests or
> implies precisely that nature is all there is--at least, all that is
> genuinely meaningful to discuss, which is the spirit of the logical
> positivism that still underlies efforts to ridicule belief in God and keep
>
> it out of the academy.
>
> The definition Robin and I give, in what is frankly a far more reliable
> and
> academically serious publication that wikipedia, is (I believe and I hope
> others agree) a definition that is much more appropriate to consider on
> the
> ASA list. I also believe it is much more accurate; the term MN itself
> probably arose with Christian philosophical reflection on the limits of
> science and the reality of a "supernatural" God, and our definition
> reflects
> this.
>
> Ted (ASA member, and glad of it)
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.6/902 - Release Date: 15/07/2007
> 14:21
>
>
>
>
> --
> -----------
> After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
>
> - Italian Proverb
> -----------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.8/906 - Release Date: 17/07/2007
> 18:30
>

-- 
-----------
After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
- Italian Proverb
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.