attached mail follows:
Hi Steven,
I read your post in the Calvin reflector and here is my reply. By the way, I am not a member of this forum and therefore can't post replies there. I don't even know if I would be allowed to join or how to do it.
Jack>> ID theory doesn't need to posit the supernatural in explaining how molecular machines may have been designed. All that is necessary is human-like intelligence and human-like intentions. <<
Steven>>Thank you for your message. After reading it, I am convinced that ID'ers and myself are almost unanimously agreed across the board. I fully believe the case for ID, but the one area where I am inclined to disagree is the nature of that case. Much of it has to do with the above statements.
ID'ers seem to want very much to avoid the charge that they are making religious, metaphysical claims. This desire on their part is no doubt due to their commitment to the scientific method, but it also makes good political sense since nobody wants to be labelled by the courts as actually following "religion" when doing their science. So how does ID maneuver around the charge of being inherently religious? <<
Jack>> ID makes no more metaphysical claims than does the blind watchmaker thesis. ID is about making testable hypotheses. Most of ID's proponents are religious but that doesn't automatically make ID theory inherently religious anymore than the fact that many evolutiontists think that evolution is God's way of creating makes evolution theory inherently religious.<<
Steve>>One could possibly make the astounding claim that design does not need a designer. But ID'ers realize that the logic here is inescapable. If there is the presence of design, then there necessarily is -- or once was -- the existence of a designer or designers. Thus, ID'ers do not entertain the thought of believing in a "design" where no one designed it. It would be intellectual suicide.
Instead of this, ID'ers shift up to the next gear. They choose to leave the identity of the designer or designers completely anonymous. And so, the designer(s) could be God, aliens, a powerful demigod, the tooth fairy, or what have you. He/she/it/they could be supernatural or completely physical. Using this tactic ID'ers hope to gain a certain measure of scientific recognition. "Look, everybody. We only claim that a designer exists or once existed. We do not make any claims as to the who, what, where, when, how, or why of this entity or entities. An existential claim is our only claim."<<
Jack>> I disagree that leaving the intelligent designer unidentified is a tactic used by ID'ers to gain scientific recognition. The fact is that a scientific ID theory is incapable of providing this identification. Identifying the intelligent designer is a theological enterprise, it's outside the realm of empirical science. ID is based on interpreting empirical data.<<
Steve>> Now, the rest of the world rightly asks if even this modest-sounding assertion has a certain sequence of its own inescapable logic. Can a non-supernatural designer truly be possible within ID theory? <<
Jack<< Yes. That's because ID theory is limited to researching the origin of life on earth not the ultimate origin of life in the universe. ID maintains that Darwinian processes haven't proved sufficient to account for the origin of life on earth. ID has no data to work with to make the same claim about planets in other parts of the universe. Perhaps life could have arisen through some yet to be discovered naturalistic process. How can ID prove this is impossible? <<
Steve>> This leads us to ask the question: does ID allow this undesigned designer to be a physical, material being? Again, the logic seems inescapable. If the undesigned designer is a natural entity such as an alien lifeform, then we come face-to-face with the startling conclusion that ID is just another form of evolution. Sure, ID'ers claim that evolution -- at least that of Earth's first lifeform -- did not happen here on this planet. But for ID'ers to believe in a natural undesigned designer they must inevitably conclude that some kind of evolution of a first lifeform did take place. It might not have occurred here, but it did happen at least somewhere in the Universe.
Jack>> You are correct. It's possible within ID theory to conclude that evolution might not have occurred here, but it did happen at least somewhere in the Universe. So what?
The point ID is making is that ID was required for the orign of life on earth. On some other planet in the universe there may have been completely different conditions wherein some kind of evolution was possible. It's also possible that evolution elsewhere was non-Darwinian. In other words, it involved processes other than random mutations and natural selection. ID is not anti-evolution. Many ID'ers believe that natural history reflects the action of both intelligent design and evolution. What ID'ers object to is the notion that random mutations and natural selection did all the creating without any intelligent direction.<<
Steve>> And so, in this scenario, we have a grand paradox: ID is against undesigned evolution on this planet, but not necessarily against it happening elsewhere. The driver of the car called Earth would indeed be designed, but somewhere in the backseat still sits evolutionary theory. We are thus tempted to label ID as simply a type of "removed evolutionism." There would be no significant difference between this kind of ID and the theories proposed by such men as Francis Crick or Sir Fred Hoyle.<<
Jack>> I don't see any paradox here. ID theory is claiming that based on data from the natural history of THIS planet that ID is a better explanation for some of this data than Darwinian processes. We have no data on the natural history of undiscovered planets so ID has to be open-minded concerning what might have happened there. If one is open to the idea that an undesigned natural entity designed life on earth I suppose that one could call this design process a type of removed evolutionism, however, there is still a big difference between life originating through the action of an undesigned mind and life originating though random mutations and natural selection. This is especially true if there were no evidence that this undesigned mind originated through random mutations and natural selection. It could have originated via a process we can't even imagine. ID is not in tention with evolution per se but with the hypothesis that random mutations and natural selection did all the creating without any intelligent guidance. <<
Steve>> However, the sine qua non of ID is inherently anti-evolutionary, or so
its proponents tell us.<<
Jack>> I disagree. ID isn't anti-evolution. Most ID'ers view ID as one expression of a teleological viewpoint (which has been helpful in the birth of modern science). And this teleological view can be expressed in many ways:
1. Every major biological feature was a consequence of intelligent intervention.
2. Key biological features were due to intelligent intervention.
3. Evolution was front-loaded with features.
4. Evolution was designed such that it could acquire new features over time.
5. Permutations of 2, 3, and 4.
The views of most ID'ers tend to fall in category #5.<<
Steve>> Therefore, we appear to have no other alternative than that the undesigned designer is something other than a physical organism. It is an entity that is not part of natural reality. If we truly want to avoid an infinitely old Universe and if we really want a theory that is substantially different from naturalistic evolution, then by all appearances ID must invoke a supernatural entity. Therefore, ID's undesigned designer does indeed fall under the category of a deity of some sort. ID's claim is found to be more than just existential. In order for it to make any sense, ID theory necessarily invokes an undesigned designer whose nature is spiritual and metaphysical.<<
Jack>> The designer of life on earth could be designed or undesigned it makes no difference. The nature of THIS designer is outside the realm of science. All ID theory is concerned with is showing that evidence for intelligent design on earth is empirically detectable and that ID make more sense of the data from earth's natural history than does a blind watchmaker. And that's enough. The nature of the designer is a side issue and is a metaphysical one.<<
Steve>> Everyone else sees ID for what it is: a supernaturalistic theory of origins. As I tried to point out with the concept of scientific undecidability, there is nothing inherently wrong with this. Science does not rule out the existence of the supernatural anymore than it rules out the existence of design. But I do think it is a mistake to claim that ID falls completely within the confines of the scientific method.
I for one am not afraid to identify the undesigned Designer. He is the Deity revealed in the Holy Scriptures, the God who is Three in One -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I realize this is quite unscientific of me. I know I have not the least shred of experimental data to prove it. I freely admit that it's the Bible, not science, that tells me this. And I do not fear if mainstream science or the courts rule this out from being a purely scientific option. If they do, then I would wholeheartedly agree with them.<<
Jack>> I agree with you that the designer of life on earth is the God of the Bible and I don't attempt to hide that belief, and all the big names in the ID movement are open about their religious beliefs, however, the conclusion that the God of the Bible is the designer of life on earth is not a conclusion that follows from ID theory. This conclusion is based on the Bible. Just because most of the proponents of ID are Christians and believe that the intelligent designer is the God of the Bible doesn't mean that ID is a supernaturalistic theory of origins. It's possible for an ID theorist to separate their science from their theology. This is evident from the fact that at least two members of the ID movement are agnostics.
ID theory doesn't posit that we can find evidence of supernatural activity in natural history. As far as I know that's not possible. Science can't detect magical, incomprehensible processes. What science can do, however, is detect evidence of human-like intelligent intervention in natural history. If there is evidence in natural history of bioengineering long before humans existed what should we conclude scientifically? In this case it's not unscientific to postulate that an entity with human-like intelligence did the designing. Now even if one believes that the designing agent is the God of the Bible it doesn't necessarily follow that God used supernatural processes in his designing of life on earth. God may have needed to use his supernatural power to cause the universe to come into existence, however, once he set up the natural order he may have chosen to work within this naturalistic framework and do his creating through what to our way of thinking would be a form of carbon based nano-technology and bioengineering.
ID is premised on the idea that the designing agent/agents left behind evidence of their activity. ID looks for patterns of data from life that can best be interpreted as traces of bioengineering from a human-like intelligence. The ID methodology is not capable of finding evidence of the supernatural. It's all about the empirical. That's why ID is a scientific theory. ID'ers make no claim as to the nature of the designer. This isn't a tactic to make ID appear scientific. The simple fact is there is no empirical evidence available for an ID theorist to test that will tell them anything about the nature of the designer. Most ID'ers believe the designer to be the God of the Bible but this is based on their theology and not ID theory.
ID does not entail a belief in the supernatural. As I mentioned before, at least two agnostics are part of the ID movement. ID is bigger than the theological views of its proponents. Religious people are free to interpret the designer as a divine being just as many interpret evolution as a divine process. We don't hold it against evolution when people interpret it through religious filters, but for some reason, we are supposedly obliged to hold it against ID when people interpret it through religious filters.
There are two aspects to ID. First, it can be employed purely from a non-apologetic angle. Secondly, it can be interpreted from an apologetic angle. I think that Dembski has written from both angles is the cause of this confusion. But this is really no different from evolution. Evolution can be approached from a scientific perspective, yet it can also be interpreted in a metaphysical way. Many theologians are convinced that evolution points to God. People like Dawkins, however, think the Darwinian mechanism makes it possible to be "an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Thus, that some in the ID movement like Dembski and Johnson have interpreted ID from a metaphysical perspective is irrelevant since nothing they write from a scientific perspective compels us to agree with the former.<<
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 02 2000 - 22:12:13 EDT