On Mon, 30 Sep 1996, David J. Tyler wrote:
> Summary: response to Tom Moore with a defence of some ID concepts.
>
> 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;
Hmm, there are very few, if any "laws" I'd call fundamental truths -
since I know the history behind the term and why it's almost never used
on anything new.
> - historical science is recognised as having a distinctive
> philosophy/methodology which can handle the concept of
> intelligent causation;
How is this different? Oh, we demand a higher standard to invoke it, I
guess.
> - 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.
>
What difference would it make?
> 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?
ID, in the form of YEC, certainly inhibited the study of geology (my field)
and indeed continues to do so.
>
> 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);
Oops, more IDer assumptions buried here. Why can't an IDer make DNA with
no function. Indeed, why can't the natural systems really use "junk"
DNA. Researchers are still looking into "junk" DNA in anycase - no need
to invoke ID to look.
> * abiogenesis research will always reveal "gaps" in the chain of
> natural cause and effect
Of course, that doesn't disprove it. Nor does the untestability of ID
disprove that either. But at least abiogenesis actually can be
approached scientifically in the form of organic geo-biochemistry.
Now, what about the ID knowledge gaps? Please state the exact method
this IDer created anything. I predict the ID knowledge gaps will also
always exist.
So, what happens if the both always exist?
> * there is a phenomenon of "irreducible complexity" (and Behe
> seems to have demonstrated effectively that this claim is
> scientifically defensible).
In fairness, I haven't read this book yet. However, even if things
in nature are "irreducible," then you must also prove that it can't
happen in nature. If you just use some probability argument, you lose.
So, you're stuck left trying to show me a direct connection between the
designer you're arguing for and the designed thing - an you must link
process to it's outcome.
> * 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.
of course, this line of science is more than just 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.
Oh, so now we have an assumption regarding the nature of the IDer.
Please demonstrate that these assumptions are accurate and why others are
not.
>
> 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.
>
Hmm, lots of researchers do different kinds of "holistic" medicine
without that assumption. Indeed, where is his medical studies stating
exactly that he's really improved his medical treatment and that is not
pschological? There's a lot more to do that just pointing to someone and
saying that that's proof of anything.
> 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".
>
Ah, now we're getting into it. How do you make the assumptions about the
IDer without invoking your personal religious beliefs? And is there
anything that can be found, potentially at least, that would work against
ID?
Science isn't wholely reductionistic. I don't think I have talked to
anyone in a long time that subscribes to anything like that. Nauralistic
methodlogy does not equal reductionistic.
> 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.
A religious one with clear religious bias.
> 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.
Well, we know for a fact ID (i.e. religious influence on science) has
indeed caused impasses before, which eventually broke down once that
interferrence was broken. But as I pointed out, "junk" DNA is still
being researched. It might not be junk, but people are still researching
it. Abiogenesis too might be impossible, but people are still reserching
it. Should we give up experiments regarding abiogenesis which has
increased our knowledge about biogeochemistry just because you have
religious beliefs? Should we stop research on "junk" DNA because someone
thinks it's junk? If your answer is "no" on both of these, what's your
problem? Research is doing just fine without ID.
Tom