On Tue, 17 Sep 1996, Del Ratzsch wrote:
> Well, if *truth* is the issue, then should ID turn out to be
> true one would think that it would have some value.
Tom Moore replied (28th September):
"If it's not distinquishable, it has no value. "ID" is useful
in very specific cases, but not supernatural ones (I quoted ID
because so-called design isn't always "intelligent"). I kept
asking for criteria for ID, but I could never get any that could
not be fully natural. So, what good is it beyond a theological
premise?"
My response:
To be distinguishable, I suppose that it will make a difference
to the way scientists operate. Here is my list of some of those
differences. Please note that these differences relate to
underlying philosophy and approach.
- reductionism is perceived as a emaciated way of researching the
cosmos, particularly the biosphere;
- scientific laws are recognised as descriptive of God's
providence rather than a discovery of fundamental truths;
- historical science is recognised as having a distinctive
philosophy/methodology which can handle the concept of
intelligent causation;
- changes needed in the biological sciences are recognised,
allowing a move from naturalism to a position where biology can
recognise intelligent design, and where organisms can be studied
with a philosophy/methodology that incorporates intelligent
design.
Del:
> Further, it offers at least potential explanatory resources not
> available to theories which proscribe any reference to
> intelligent design (at least, supernatural design).
Tom:
"In other words, you're filling the "I don't knows" with ID.
This is an extremely dangerous move. That's like saying "I
don't know how cancer forms, it must be ID." The simple fact
is if you don't know the answer, you can theologically fill it
in, but it doesn't contribute anything and worse it might deter
research from going in the _right_ direction."
My response:
I do not see how the "In other words" follows. I would say "in
other words, you are not locked into reductionistic straitjackets
which inhibit research". There are other avenues which may be
fruitfully explored - not the least that more holistic approaches
to the solution of problems become more accessible. Is it
possible that the reductionism in Cancer research has inhibited
progress?
Tom:
"Science does not preclude supernaturalism on a whim. It
precludes it because invoking supernaturalism contributes
nothing: no real predictions, no possibility of testing
supernatural influence, etc. If you can provide real objective
criteria for testing supernaturalism, science would be a bit more
willing. (but again, this is from a science view, which is the
whole discussion - philosophical/religious views are, of course,
another matter)"
This is classic demarcation in action. Examples of predictions
that ID advocates could make are:
* "junk" DNA is misnamed (it has a function);
* abiogenesis research will always reveal "gaps" in the chain of
natural cause and effect
* there is a phenomenon of "irreducible complexity" (and Behe
seems to have demonstrated effectively that this claim is
scientifically defensible).
* developmental biology will remain largely ignorant about why
one cell develops into an elephant and another cell develops into
a mouse until it drops its reductionistic fantasy about the role
of DNA.
* an understanding of consciousness will elude us until we
recognise that mankind can only be understood as being made in
the image of God.
A specific example which comes to mind concerns Verna Wright:
Professor of Rheumatology at Leeds University. In his talks to
various audiences, he takes the opportunity of saying how useful
it has been to him to START with a conviction that the human body
has been designed by God. He has been able to approach his
research in a holistic way and avoid both reductionistic
simplifications and non-productive avenues suggested by some
evolutionary interpretations of the various elements of the body.
There is no way that scientific techniques (which belong to the
physical world) can be used to explore the spirit world. If your
"objective criteria for testing supernaturalism" demands this,
then there is a fundamental misperception of the concept of the
"supernatural".
Tom:
"It takes a great deal of evidence to demonstrate intentional
design. Then it takes a great deal of evidence to demonstrate
the particular designer. I have yet to see any evidence of
either by ID'ers.
So, the question I asked, is it useful? If, and only if, there
is any chance of determining if it is design and who designed it
in an objective fashion. The alien hypothesis, at least, has the
potential to meet these criteria. ID, in the supernatural sense,
does not."
My response:
Although I am an advocate of ID, I am not setting out to
"demonstrate intentional design". I am recognising that God has
designed and created the Cosmos, and that life is a special
feature of his creation. That is a starting principle.
Naturalists have a different starting principle. They seem
unconcerned to "demonstrate" their starting point, and I would
argue that there is no necessity for ID advocates to demonstrate
theirs. It is a matter of presupposition. On these different
foundations, scholarly work is (or can be) undertaken. Is it
useful? I, for one, consider that it will take us away from
numerous impasse situations in current research, and will mean
that we avoid numerous blind alleys which others have gone down.
It will open up new avenues of investigation.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***