I don't see any way out of this conundrum: Dembski thinks he has
established a framework for ID, but it is totally unconvincing to
many. There is, it seems to me, a hidden agenda in the Dembski
approach - it has to presuppose the reality of miraculous creation in
order to justify including non-natural interpretations of phenomena.
On 19 Feb 97 at 13:57, Rich Knopp wrote:
> I see the argument as more of a "transcendental argument" which I
> take as different, and more potentially cogent, than a mere analogical
> argument. A transcendental argument begins with given states (e.g. data)
> and asks what would be NECESSARY in order for these states to be as they
> are? Pure chance and mutational selection are judged as insufficient
> explanations. What are the other options? Maybe something else is possible
> beside intelligent design, but intelligent design is offered as an
> hypothesis which posits the necessary condition for the existence of known
> states of affairs (e.g. specified complexity). It seems to me that this
> approach cannot be summarily dismissed because it is just an analogy.
I agree that there is a stronger philosophical base than drawing and
analogy. What I want to see is a greater emphasis on the role of
presuppositions in scientific work. The ID presuppositions need to
be much more overt - otherwise people who do not share those
presuppositions will always complain about the hidden agenda.
I've written a short article, which is at present at the draft stage.
I'm enclosing it in this message, as I hope it will contribute to
this exchange.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SEEING DESIGN IN NATURE
There is an old Irish joke in which some weary travellers stop to ask
a white-haired local the way to get to their intended destination.
The old man thought for a while, puffed on his pipe and mused: "If I
wanted to get to where you want to go, I wouldn't start from here!"
This little story provides a good analogy here with the much-debated
issue of design in nature: our starting place is of crucial importance
as to where we can go and where we end up.
We could start where Hume and Kant started: with Enlightenment
values. They demolished Natural Theology - but in doing so they
demolished just about everything else as well. Hume realised this
when he confessed (1739):
"The intense view of these manifold contradictions and imperfections
in human reason has so wrought upon me, and heated my brain, that I am
ready to reject all belief and reasoning, and can look upon no opinion
even as more probable or likely than another. Where am I, or what?
I return? Whose favour shall I court, and whose anger must I dread?
What beings surround me? and on whom have I any influence, or who
have any influence on me? I am confounded with all these questions
and begin to fancy myself in the most deplorable condition imaginable,
environed with the deepest darkness, and utterly deprived of the use
of every member and faculty." (Book 1, part IV, Section VIII).
Because the starting point was wrong, the intellectual pilgrimage of
Hume and Kant took them into darkness.
We could start earlier with Francis Bacon, and stress the distinctness
of the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture. These books were
considered separate and distinct, and the initial aim seemed
commendable: to free science from tradition, philosophical domination,
religious dogma and superstition. But it led to the development of
autonomous science, and this undermined everything that Bacon had been
seeking to do. Science has become the slave of rationalism and
naturalism. According to the main opinion formers in science, there
is no evidence of God in nature - and all alleged evidences of design
are fallacious! As Russell (1985) has said: "If you begin without God
in your assumptions, you will not find Him in your conclusions -
unless you cheat".
So where do we start if we want to develop a Christian mind on these
matters? How do we begin to think about this particular issue of
design in nature? Whilst the Scriptures do refer to God's revelation
in nature and God's revelation in Scripture (as, for example, in Psalm
19), there is no Baconian divide between the two. God's truth is a
unity: whatever is revealed in nature or in the Scriptures forms a
harmonious whole. Whilst the Scriptures reveal truths not found in
nature, it also reveals truths which are. Knowing God, the author of
all truth, is our starting point. The fear of the Lord is the
beginning of knowledge (Proverbs 1:7); Jesus said, "I am the Way and
the Truth and the Life" (John 14:6).
Scripture informs us that God has designed all aspects of his
creation. The sun is designed to provide light during the day, and
the moon and stars illuminate the night sky. The Earth is a prepared
planet - suited for the living things which God has created. In Job
38-41, God presents Job with a series of mental images relating to
the animate and inanimate creation, pointing out that he is
responsible for it all.
For example, in 39:13-18, God directs Job's attention to the ostrich.
What delightful images are here, as we think of her wings flapping
joyfully - she flaps because she is happy, and is not frustrated
because she is without flight. She cannot soar like the stork, for
she has not been designed for this purpose. Instead, she has quite a
different life style. See her laying her eggs in a hollow in the sand
and leaving them to hatch using the heat of the sun: not for her is
the business of brooding over them. She does not seem to care that
they might become damaged as they are trampled underfoot by some wild
animal. This is a strange feature of God's creation, for "He did not
endow her with wisdom or give her a share of good sense".
Nevertheless, she is not without compensating features - for when she
sets out to run, "she laughs at horse and rider". Here are explicit
references to God's design - and we need to do justice to this in a
holistic way. It is deficient to look at the ostrich as scientists
without recognising that the ostrich has been designed by God so that
her behaviour, although apparently curious, is actually coherent and
normal. We could go on with biblical citations. One more will
suffice: Proverbs 20:12 says: "Ears that hear and eyes that see - the
LORD has made them both". These complex sense organs are first
designed and then constructed by God.
This approach to design can be described as the "inverse teleological
approach". We are not starting out with Enlightenment empiricist
philosophy, not are we adopting Bacon's autonomous "Books" - because
these offer no methodology for recognising design. If science is in
any way "realist", then such starting points are deficient. They do
not lead us to true knowledge about design in creation. We need,
instead, a Christian approach to knowledge; a Christian philosophy of
science; a Christian foundation for our scholarly activities.
The "design argument" for the existence of God has had a chequered
history. It was never rigorously developed even when it was popular,
and its demise is entirely predictable, given the autonomy of human
reason adopted by the academic establishment. Consequently, the issue
is not the simple one of how we handle design in the living world, but
the more complex one of addressing fundamentally different
perspectives on the nature of science - complex because science is
supposed to be a "public" matter, independent of those who contribute
to the scientific enterprise.
Christians have taken a number of different approaches to the "design"
issue. Although there is diversity, some patterns are recognisable -
resulting from different perceptions of the methodologies of science.
These differences are being explored in this decade with much more
rigour than previously. In particular, Phillip Johnson (1993, 1995)
has focused attention on underlying presuppositions in the academic
world, particularly the biological sciences. Johnson has identified
naturalism as the prevailing orthodoxy in the academic world, and has
been exploring ways of challenging this orthodoxy and developing a
Christian alternative. This strategy is a crucial point for
Christians to address: do we need a Christian foundation for all
academic work, or is there a common platform we can share with non-
Christians?
There is a growing concensus that we do need a Christian foundation
for science. This may appear to some be undermining the "public"
nature of science. It may be thought that this might alienate
Christians from the scientific community. However, others (including
the writer) think that such a re-direction is desperately needed. We
need to get to the position where we can incorporate God's design and
creativity in our science, and where biological information is more
than signalling. We are looking for a holistic science, not one
which is anorexic because of defective presuppositions about the
nature of reality.
References
Hume, D. 1739. A treatise on human nature. 1961 edition by Doubleday
& Co., New York.
Johnson, P.E. 1993. Darwin on Trial (2nd Ed). Inter-Varsity Press,
Illinois.
Johnson, P.E. 1995. Reason in the Balance. Inter-Varsity Press,
Illinois.
Russell, R. 1985. Natural Theology: is it scriptural? Faith and
Thought, 111(2), 171-174.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Best wishes,
David J. Tyler.