If we suppose that something designed (at least) life on Earth, and if we
specify what that designer was, and if we allow either that the designers
designed life or the Universe and then let it go on from there on its own
or that the designers continued interfering with it, we get four basic
variants of ID theory, derived from the even-more-basic variant which
specifies that there was design but does not specify what did it or whether
it was done once or is ongoing. They are:
1. Deism: A God creates a universe and then lets it do its thing with no
further intervention (at least not relevant to the issue of the development
of life).
2. "Deistic" aliens: Aliens create either our universe and/or life on Earth
(or somewhere) and then let it go on without further relevant intervention.
3. Maternalistic Aliens: Aliens create life on Earth and keep on
intervening in it as suits their purposes.
4. Christian Theistic Design: God creates the universe, creates life on
Earth, *and* keeps on intervening to cross the macroevolutionary "barrier"
that supporters of this variant believe in.
The two "deistic" variants are compatible with naturalistic evolution. That
is, whether the designers know how life will turn out or not, once it's in
progress, it develops as naturalistic evolutionary theory would have it.
This is why naturalistic evolutionary theory is *not* incompatible with
theism as such, though some profess to be surprised or amazed that there
are *Christians* who support naturalistic evolution.
The maternalistic alien variant is naturalistic but not natural. That is,
it does not require any supernatural intervention, but the processes
involved are not ones that we would normally regard as natural (even
though, in an ultimate sense, we naturalistic types would say that there is
nothing any less natural about such beings (such as ourselves) and their
actions than there is about anything that might have existed without such
beings and their actions.
This variant has a *major* scientific advantage over the two deistic
variants. That is that, given certain reasonable views about the aliens
involved, it might be possible to *test* this version of the theory. For
example, unless the aliens are going to some trouble to *hide* their
actions from us, we should see various oddball *skewings* of genetic
statistics, skewings that actually conflict with what would have to happen
statistically if the laws of physics and chemistry and genetics are in fact
*true* or very nearly true.
The aliens *could* of course be hiding their activities by manipulating
genes in such was as to unskew the statistics while still yielding the
biological results they seek.
What results might they be? Well, crossing the "macroevoutionary barrier,"
of course. It is claimed that naturalistic evolution is insufficient to
enable a population of an organism to evolve into a sufficiently different
organism that ID theorists would describe the result as macroevolution.
I don't try to specify where or what that barrier is, because ID theorists
don't tell us where or what it is. They cannot even define macroevolution
in terms that are both empirically objective *and* incompatible with
repeated steps of microevolution. Thus, I leave it open as to where the
barrier is in each case and what it is. Nevertheless, the main excuse for
ID theory at all is that it is claimed that organisms cannot cross this
boundary between themselves and *sufficiently* new and different organisms
to warrant the use of the term macroevolution.
*If* the aliens are successfully hiding their activities, then this type of
ID theory becomes essentially equivalent to the fourth variant, which is
that of a God who creates life and who continues to intervene (without
skewing the statistics).
(Frankly, I don't know if it's logically possible to do this, though I
suppose it would be possible to at least make the skewing less obvious.
But, for the moment, I will assume that it *is* possible.)
But, for this last variant, there are some questions that don't have much
(or any) force with respect to the first three variants. Why, if God is
omnipotent, doesn't He just do what *creationists* claim He *did* do: Just
create the whole ball of wax all at once in a final state? Why take nearly
four *billion* years to do what could be done in an infinitesimal amount of
time? Or: Why, if He's so good at designing things, didn't he just design a
*universe* that would create and evolve life just the way us naturalists
claim happened? That is, why didn't he take the deistic approach (at least
with respect to the development of life)?
Both of these are clearly simpler than the approach that folks like Stephen
Jones are *claiming* He took. But, if these are clearly simpler, then why
to folks like Stephen Jones continue to hold onto the view that God created
life itself and has since been creating (if only by manipulating genes) new
organisms along the way (apparently to correct for the error of failing to
make the universe able to evolve life suitably *without* such intervention)?
And, of course, there's the issue of His *hiding* the nitty-gritty of his
actions and only letting us see each new organism. Why does He do this? I
don't know. But, I know why this type of ID theory has to *claim* that He
does it. If they don't claim that He hides this activity, then they have
to have *another* explanation for why there is no such skewing (so far,
anyway :-) ).
But the whole apparatus of introducing a vast multitude of special creation
events (or, at least, manipulations of DNA, etc.) *and* of God's hiding of
the detailed evidence for it really serves no *scientific* purpose at all.
In a sense the best of the bunch is "deistic" aliens (though, in my
opinion, even this one is not very good). It's the best because it
*neither* requires the bizarre twisting of thousands of items of evidence,
the ignoring of millions, or any other such shenanigans. So, why aren't
Jones and his ilk at least "deistic" alien ID theorists rather than
"ongoing Godly intervention" ID theorists? Or, if they still feel that the
macroevolutionary barrier cannot be naturally crossed, then why aren't they
"ongoing alien intervention" ID theorists?
Here's why: It would conflict with their *religious* beliefs, that's why?
God in their ID theory does not come from science, but from their religion.
But, they are not quite willing to be stupid enough to believe (against
vast geological and other evidence) that the Earth was created in six days
a few thousand years ago, so they compromise. God created the Universe, God
created life, God steps in, *as needed*, to get through the
macroevolutionary barrier.
In fact, the whole claim of the impossibility of macroevolution (however
they are defining it this week) is only needed to preserve some area of
activity for God in the development of life. Otherwise, they'd have just
said, "Yeah, sure, God created the Universe, but He was able to do it in
such a way as to continue evolving life without constant fiddling." But
they didn't.
Why? Because, if they admit that macroevolution (however defined) is
possible without ongoing intervention, the entire excuse for having a
design theory to begin with evaporates. In *that* case, there'd be not only
no need for God to hide his genetic manipulations, but there'd be no reason
to postulate a God involved at all. In fact, there'd be no reason to
postulate a designer of *any* type. The whole point of the exercise, as
Susan has pointed out, is essentially religious. It is an attempt to
"prove" the existence of God by first proving the existence of design
(despite the obvious lack of any *scientific* reason for postulating design
at all).
Thus, though they may occasionally pay lip service to the idea that they
are talking about *any* designers, and claiming that it just *happens* to
be the case that they believe that the designers are really just God alone,
*their* real goal is pushing religion. You can tell this by the way they
talk about nearly every aspect of the issue. By their blithering-idiot
attacks on naturalism. By the fact that they *always* assume that there is
only *one* designer. By the fact that they reject the possibility of
testing their theory via statistical means (because then they'd have to
*openly* assert that God -- er, the designers, are deliberately *hiding*
evidence of their activities. By the fact that they assume a
macroevolutionary boundary but cannot provide any evidence even for the
simple "fact" of its existence, let alone a meaningful theory of what it
is, how it works, where it came from, etc. (if there *were* such a barrier,
that *would* be evidence of design, of some designers intervening to
*prevent* naturalistic evolution from occurring at critical points -- but
such designers would hardly be the kind of designers they seek to claim).
In short, the "ongoing Godly intervention" theory is the *worst* possible
variant of the four, and yet it is the one supported by the vast majority
of ID supporters.
Bertvan's more primitive theory at least has the virtue of making *fewer*
major unsupportable claims, though neither she nor anyone else has yet come
up with any scientific basis for even such a severely limited version of ID
theory. Even in her case, it is obvious that it is held primarily for
*philosophical* reasons, not scientific ones, still, being severely limited
has good points. She only has to be dogmatic and unreasonable about *one*
idea. All four of the variants dealt with here involve further claims and
thus further burdens of proof and thus also further risks of failure.
Conclusions and Final Remarks
Can we expect that Stephen Jones and Phillip Johnson, upon being informed
of the above considerations, will slip into the "deistic" alien variant or
slide back to a Bertvan-like version? No. Why? Because they are selling
*religion*. It doesn't matter that their version has the *heaviest* burden
of proof and the *lowest* chances of being right (even if we assume that
some reasonable variant of their God is logically possible, which I won't
until I see one that is). It doesn't matter that it doesn't *explain*
anything at all, in a scientific sense. It doesn't matter that it excludes
testability by positing an omnipotent God who can do anything He wants
without leaving evidence behind (as aliens possibly *would*). It doesn't
matter that it has no predictive power at all.
None of this matters because *science* is not what's important to them.
Their highly specialized variant of *theism* is what is important to them.
Many (possibly most) theistic religions can accept naturalistic evolution
as the means by which life developed and came to the state it's in today.
But *theirs* cannot, and so very bizarre things must be done to support it.
It is true, as Bertvan says, that ID is not creationism (two of the
variants I described above are not even theistic).
But, consider, if you will, that creationism *is* a form of ID theory. God
designed and created the universe all at once (well, He did manage to drag
out the instant task to six full days, I guess). And just what form of ID
theory is supported by most supporters of ID theory? You guessed it: A
modified creationist version. In fact, *many* of the same arguments used by
the creationists have been taken over and used (equally unsoundly) by this
brand of ID theorist.
I don't think it's at all any wonder that many people regard the ID
"movement" in general as merely a retooled attempt to sell creationism via
a step-by-step process. "First sell the suckers on design, then sell them
on theistic design, then claim that the Earth is only six thousand years
old after all."
But it doesn't really matter. What matters is that the same *basic*
mentality is at work, the same willingness to squeeze reason aside to
maintain faith and to try to make their variant of theism plausible to
people to whom it might not otherwise be plausible. What matters is that it
is a concerted effort to cripple science and scientific thinking (and
rationality and objectivity in general, actually, since that's *necessary*
to preserve personal-God theism).
As I said in a previous post, ID theory, in itself, is no threat to science
(or anything). But it's supporters *are* a threat, especially to the extent
that they actively seek to get others to share their beliefs, because they
*must* do so with bad arguments and attempts at subverting or bypassing
reason, or by focusing on people who are ignorant of the facts and/or
unable or unwilling to examine the arguments and claims closely before
accepting them. Johnson has chosen his audience well; people who are
strongly fact-oriented, and who *have* developed a habit of critically
examining such claims before accepting them will simply *not* accept them
(at least not without overriding emotional problems that lead them to set
reason aside in such matters). If people like Johnson actually focused
their arguments on working scientists or others who take reason seriously
*and* who are knowledgeable about the field, he would *never* get enough
supporters to force state governments to institute school prayer or to
achieve a religion-based government.
Bertvan wonders why I care that these people disagree with my views. I care
because, at least as a group, they are *dangerous* people. Someone quoted
recently in someone's sig line said something to the effect that the people
most willing to commit heinous evil cheerfully are those who believe they
are doing it for their God. Will these people all rise up and trample the
rest of us? No. But, given the opportunity, they and the people who live by
the same epistemology *will* destroy civilization, and create another Dark
Age. They've done it at *many* times and places in history, and there is
nothing about their beliefs now that suggests that they will not do it
again, God willing ( :-) ). They gave us the Dark Ages, Nazism,
Communism, and nearly every other monstrous horror of human history. Yes,
the details of their beliefs were different in each of these cases, but the
underlying *mentality* and philosophical premises were the same in all of
them, without exception.
*This* is why I care that others disagree with reason and science. Bertvan
pretends, in her simple way, that it's merely a matter of them disagreeing
with *my* particular views. But, as I pointed out, *many* people disagree
with my views, and it doesn't bother me at all (or at least, not so's I
notice it). What *bothers* me is persistent and systematic *irrationality*
being painted up as reason and sold to the general public with the obvious
ultimate social goal of making their particular religious beliefs
effectively *required*. Why do you think Johnson (and Jones) puts so much
emphasis on the pretense that supernaturalism is getting a raw deal in our
society and in our science classes? If they had a *scientific* case, they
would not *need* to try also to push blind acceptance of the metaphysical
premises underlying their beliefs, and they would not need to lie at great
length about the alleged evil consequences of naturalistic philosophical
beliefs as such (rather than merely the evil consequences of a few
irrational variants of naturalism).
Does the above answer your question, Bertvan?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 06 2000 - 02:20:39 EDT