It wasn't all that long ago that I was a creationist, thus I think
I can still appreciate your situation. I am still irritated by
what passes as an argument for some who seem to take great pride
in their abilities to expose the poor arguments of others :). Here
is a pop quiz:
Quiz: If design is useless then what, pray tell, is apparent design?
Answer to quiz at end of my post.
But, I decided a long time ago to try my best not to be influenced
by faulty arguments. Some time ago I was lucky enough to stumble
across a book by the great C.H. Waddington in a used book store,
picking it up for the outrageous price of 30 cents :). This book
has, IMHO, the clearest presentation of the reasons that scientists
put aside the design argument.
Just before the quoted material below Waddington discusses things
designed by humans. He argues that we generally want to go
"...beyond the detail of the working of one kind of machine to
a general picture of the whole range of such mechanisms". Waddington
then argues that the most natural way to categorize and understand
engineered things is in terms of "...the purposes which animated
the designer".
Next, he moves to the world of living things and argues that
here, as with engineered things, we strive to have a broad
view of the wide range living things that we find instead
of just a narrow, detailed view of how this or that particular
system works. He then states that "...there is no human designer
of the natural world of living things" and continues:
#"We can postulate a super-human designer, a creating God.
#If he is conceived of as outside the Universe, then his
#purposes are not open to our understanding as are those of
#the human designers of vehicles, and it becomes senseless
#to try to use them as a framework for a general rational
#understanding of the world as we find it. On the other
#hand, if the Creator's purposes are expressed in the world,
#then we have to examine it to see what they are, since
#we have no possibility of interrogating him as we can
#interrogate a human designer. Thus, an appeal to a purposeful
#Creator as an explanation for the nature of living things
#either abolishes the possibility of rational biology, or
#leaves us just where we were before, faced with the need to
#account for the phenomena of life in terms of the happenings
#which we can see preceding in front of us."
#-- C.H. Waddington <The Nature of Life> Atheneum, 1962.
Now I would like to argue that at least some Creationists have
recognized the problem addressed by Waddington above. For this
I will turn to the NTSE Final Report prepared by the organizer,
Rob Koons [NTSE = Conference on Naturalism, Theism, and the
Scientific Enterprise held at the University of Texas at Austin,
February 20-23, 1997]
#"If theistic science or intelligent design theory is to become
#a progressive research program, it must do more than poke holes
#in the evidence for Darwinism: it must acquire auxiliary hypotheses
#about the intentions and preferences of the designer from which we
#can generate specific, testable predictions and informative
#explanations." --Koons
OK, first let me reiterate the main point, i.e. this quote
recognizes the validity of Waddington's argument in the sense
that if a design approach is really to be a design approach,
then it needs to consider "...the intentions and preferences
of the designer."
Ever since reading this paragraph I have wanted to ask whether
this statement by Koons is one generally agreed upon by people
associated with the ID movement. So, I guess here is my chance.
Any takers? Quite honestly, that statement sends theological
shivers down my spine. But, from a scientific point of view,
I'm not going try to limit an approach because I'm queasy about
it theologically.
David:==
>I see ID being useful in that it has a richer view of information
>than non-ID paradigms, it does justice to design in living things
>(in a way that neoDarwinism never has), and it explains the design
>features of the Cosmos far better than the multi-universe hypothesis.
>
I would like to understand more about this "richer view of
information". Can you briefly outline what this is?
>> Now, let me offer another paradigm which might overcome some
>> problems encountered by the reductionist approach. This paradigm
>> would be based on nonlinear dynamics. One reason that a reductionist
>> approach might fail methodologically is that it is tied to linearity
>> and most complex biological systems are most likely highly nonlinear.
>> [snip]
>> Is it possible then that a failure of methodological reductionism
>> reflects only the fact that complex biological systems are
>> highly nonlinear? How would an ID approach be better than just
>> trying to gain a better understanding of nonlinear dynamical
>> systems?
>
>It is possible. I approach your hypothesis in the same way as you
>have approached mine: "If the approach you are suggesting turns out
>to be useful, for example it yields some advances in the knowledge
>and understanding of developmental biology say, then I think many
>people will start to change their minds."
>
This is a good answer :).
David:==
>Let all rational approaches to these matters be permitted an
>opportunity to show what they can do. ID folk still face an uphill
>struggle against people who will not permit this approach within
>academia.
>
As a believer in academic freedom, I have to agree. But I'm
not agreeing grudgingly, science thrives with a variety of views.
Besides that, it gets really boring if everyone agrees :).
Let me return to the NTSE report by Koons:
#Good science consists in working within research programs that are
#progressive in the following senses: (1) they generate empirically
#testable, novel predictions, (2) they generate explanations of a wide range
#of phenomena on the basis of a simple, spare system of postulated entities
#and relationships, (3) they deal with anomalies and predictive failures
#without resorting to ad hoc repairs or epicycles. The inspiration for a
#scientific research program can come from anywhere, including religious
#conviction, but the evaluation of an existing program must be rigorously
#empirical. -- Koons
This I agree with. Anyone should be free to take whatever approach
they want, but they have to take their lumps also if they cannot
live up to the final statement "...the evaluation of an existing
program must be rigorously empirical."
===============
Answer to quiz: Apparent design is only apparently useless, thus
acceptable in science :).
===============
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"All kinds of private metaphysics and theology have
grown like weeds in the garden of thermodynamics"
-- E. H. Hiebert