Reflectorites
-Original Message Text---
>From: Cliff Hamrick
>Date: 01 Sep 00 10:55:03 +0000
[...]
>BV>There
>>are a few Darwinists who seem to sincerely believe nature's complexity was
>>"created" by random mutation and natural selection. However, for the most
>>part, those involved in this emotional defense of the theory are more
>>interested in bashing religion. I don't think the public is yet completely
>>aware of this. I believe such awareness could be helpful when evaluating the
>>evidence.
CH>I've noticed that you've brought this idea up a few times. I think Steven has
>also. I was wondering, how do you explain myself and my collegues at
>Baylor and Calvin University, as well as many others, who are Christians (or
>any other religion), who also agree that Darwinian evolution is the best
>answer to the question of life's origins? Am I bashing myself? I've noticed
>that Dembski and other leaders of ID will consistently attempt to paint
>scientists as atheists, but ignore all of us who are scientists and have devout
>religious beliefs. In the case of the ID leaders, I think the misrepresentation is
>intentional. I think your case, it is just a hasty generalization.
Cliff's claim here is simply not true. IDers do not not "attempt to paint
scientists as atheists" (I note that Cliff in all these charges does not quote
where IDers actually say the things that he alleges).
Iders are well aware that many scientists are not atheists/agnostics, one
reason being that many *IDers* are scientists and theists. But the fact is
that surveys by Larson and Witham have shown that most scientists are
atheists/agnostics and this is much more pronounced in members of the
NAS. Biologists in the NAS have the highest rates of disbelief, about 95%:
"Our chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near
universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists.
Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists
was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical
scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics
on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage
of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in
immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief
(5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and
astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality)."
(Larson E.J. & Witham L., "Leading scientists still reject God,"
Nature, Vol. 394, 23 July 1998, p313).
ID's claim rather is that the *ideology* of modern science today is a
methodological *atheism*:
"Thus, despite the current impasse and a growing body of at least
highly suggestive evidence for intelligent design, discussion of the
design hypothesis has remained almost entirely out of bounds in
biology. Why? At least part of the reason for this reticence may not
be hard to discern. Biologists, and scientists generally, assume the
rules of science prohibit any deviation from a strictly materialistic
mode of analysis. Even most physicists sympathetic to design would
quickly label their intuitions "religious" or "philosophical" rather
than "scientific." Science, it is assumed, must look for exclusively
natural causes.
Since the postulation of an intelligent Designer or Creator clearly
violates this methodological norm, such a postulation cannot qualify
as a part of a scientific theory. Thus Stephen J. Gould refers to
"scientific creationism" not just as factually mistaken but as "self-
contradictory nonsense". As Basil Willey put it, "Science must be
provisionally atheistic, or cease to be itself." Most scientists who
are theists also accept this same conception of science. As
Raymond Grizzle wrote in a prominent evangelical scientific journal
recently, "God cannot be part of a scientific description....
[Further], any description that implies a creator will probably also
be looked at as improper by most scientists." Nancey Murphy, a
philosopher and Fuller Seminary professor, agrees. She wrote
recently in the same journal: "Science qua science seeks naturalistic
explanations for all natural processes. Christians and atheists alike
must pursue scientific questions in our era without invoking a
Creator... Anyone who attributes the characteristics of living things
to creative intelligence has by definition stepped into the arena of
either metaphysics or theology ... For better or worse, we have
inherited a view of science as methodologically atheistic" ... Grizzle,
too, appeals to convention to justify methodological naturalism:
"All modern science, not just biological evolutionary theory, by
definition excludes God.... There is no rule book that spells this out,
and indeed it has been argued that it is an arbitrary restriction.
Furthermore, this has become the case only in the last 100 years or
so. Nonetheless, this is one of the restrictions almost universally put
upon science by those who practice it, and it seems to me quite
desirable and likely that science will retain this restriction in the
foreseeable future."
(Meyer S.C., "The Methodological Equivalence of Design &
Descent: Can There be a Scientific `Theory of Creation'?" in
Moreland J.P., ed., "The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence
for an Intelligent Designer", 1994, pp.69-70).
which even scientists who are Christians must abide by, on pain of being
ostracised by their peers and losing their grant funding.
>BV>True. Most IDs have nothing against "natural forces". In fact, many more
>>details of the design - whether it was designed by a god or "natural forces"
>>- will probably be revealed, once we get past this insistence that it had to
>>be "random mutation and natural selection". The Darwinists are the ones
>>obsessed about the designer; IDs keep saying forget the designer. They are
>>more interested in the design. If most of the IDs happen to be Christian,
>>that is merely an indication to me that they are apparently more open
>>minded than the religion bashers.
CH>I still think you're deluding yourself. Read ALL of the articles by members of
>the Discovery Institute. When they make statements like , "Design places
>front and center the wisdom of God in creation, but seems to allow for
>almost magical intrusions into the natural order that threatens to undo its
>integrity." (Dembski, 2000)
I would appreciate Cliff stating where exactly Dembski says this so we can
check the context.
CH>"The most important question is whether God is real or imaginary." (Johnson,
>2000),
The context here is:
"What are some of the major issues at stake in the debate over
naturalism? The most important question is whether God is real or
imaginary. Did God create man or did man create God? The latter
is the teaching of evolutionary naturalism, and even many Christian
thinkers tacitly assume that position. In Chapter Four of The
Wedge of Truth I ask whether theology has any access to
knowledge - as opposed to being mere subjective belief. These are
some of the most important intellectual questions of our time, and
also of all other times." (Johnson P.E., "Interview with Christian
Book Distributors, Inc., August 14, 2000, Access Research
Network. http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/pj_cbinterview800.htm)
BTW I would have thought if Cliff was a Christian he would agree that
"The most important question is whether God is real or imaginary"? If Cliff
is indeed a Christian but doesn't think that "whether God is real or
imaginary" is "The most important question" then perhaps he might
consider whether this is due to "the teaching of evolutionary naturalism"?
CH>and "The crucial breakthrough of the
>intelligent design movement has been to show that this great theological
>truth--that God acts in the world by dispersing information--also has
>scientific content." (Dembski, 1998)
I notice that Cliff leaves out the next sentence:
"Information, whether divinely inputted or transmitted between
creatures, is in principle capable of being detected via the
complexity-specification criterion." (Dembski W.A., "Intelligent
Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology," 1999, p.233)
CH>I don't have to guess who they think the designer is.
Of *course* Dembski, a committed evangelical Christian, *believes* that
the designer is the Christian God! But there still are two questions:
1. Is there empirically detectable evidence of design? and 2. who (or what)
is the designer(s)?
From reading Cliff's post, I have realised that there may in fact be a
third question: 3) how did the designer(s) realise the design? But only
the first question is the goal of the ID movement.
BTW, if Chris is a Christian, who does he "think the designer is"?
CH>It is not the ID opponents who are obsessed with the designer.
Berthajane's point was that IDers *prime* focus is the first question: 1. Is
there empirically detectable evidence of design? It is ID's opponents who
keep trying to focus on the second question: 2. who (or what) is the
designer(s)?
BTW I would hardly call a Christian theologian (which after all Dembski is
apart from other things), writing for primarily a Christian audience a book
whose subtitle is "The Bridge Between Science and Theology", and trying
to draw the theological implications for Christians if design is detected
(which he has spent most of the book arguing for), is being "obsessed with
the designer"!
CH>Again, if you believe that the intelligent designer is something else other than
>the Christian God, then you are fooling yourself in believing that that is the
>research being conducted by the leaders of the Discovery Institute.
The "research being conducted by the leaders of the Discovery Institute" is
the detection of *design*. The "leaders of the Discovery Institute"
*believe* that the designer is "the Christian God". But if design is detected,
they cannot *prove* that it was "the Christian God". Design does not come
stamped with "Made by the Christian God".
If design is empirically detected it will be public property. *All* religions
and philosophies which claim there is design would find it confirmatory of
*their* position, including Christianity as only one among many.
Mainstream *science* would have to take on board that there is design, if
design is empirically detected.
Only those scientific philosophies which deny design (e.g. materialism,
Darwinism, etc) would find the empirical detection of design
disconfirmatory.
>>FMAJ
>>So natural forces can be definitely a form of ID? That does seem to reduce
>>the meaning of ID a little.
It only seems to "reduce the meaning of ID" to those who continue to
erroneously assume that ID is just young-Earth creationism in disguise.
But Dembski points out that ID would be compatible with "the most far-
ranging evolution" because "an evolutionary process can exhibit such
`marks of intelligence' as much as any act of special creation.":
"Where does intelligent design fit within the creation-evolution
debate? Logically, intelligent design is compatible with everything
from utterly discontinuous creation (e.g., God intervening at every
conceivable point to create new species) to the most far-ranging
evolution (e.g., God seamlessly melding all organisms together into
one great tree of life). For intelligent design the primary question is
not how organisms came to be (though, as we've just seen, this is a
vital question for intelligent design) but whether organisms
demonstrate clear, empirically detectable marks of being
intelligently caused. In principle an evolutionary process can exhibit
such "marks of intelligence" as much as any act of special creation."
(Dembski W.A., "Intelligent Design," 1999, pp.109-110)
Note well the reason for this: "For intelligent design the primary question is
not how organisms came to be... but whether organisms demonstrate clear,
empirically detectable marks of being intelligently caused."
>BV>Seems to me it expands it. All ID has said so far is that nature is the
>>result of a design, rather that random processes. The design obviously
>>includes "natural forces".
I would pedantically slightly disagree with Berthajane. Design does not
"obviously" include "natural forces". And intelligent designer *could*
realise his design 100% by supernatural acts of special creation.
But there is no requirement that an intelligent designer *must* realise his
design 100% by supernatural acts of special creation. It is possible that a
designer could realise his design 100% through "natural forces".
The *primary* issue is the detection of design. How the design was
realised and who (or what) the designer(s) is are secondary questions.
CH>ID means "intelligent design", not natural design. Of course natural design
>exists. A sand dune is a pile of sand that has been designed into a particular
>shape by the wind. A smooth round stone has been designed by running
>water. That is not what the leaders of the ID movement are talking about.
>They are talking about an intelligent agency that deliberately created life and
>put it on this planet.
Agreed. But this is not to say that *all* "natural design" is necessarily the
same as "a pile of sand that has been designed into a particular shape by the
wind".
It may be that some "natural designs" can be broken down into completely
natural components but the *whole project* could still appear to be
designed. The origin of life, the fish-amphibian, retile-bird, and ape-human
transitions spring to mind. For examples Taylor, a non-theistic evolutionist
engineer writes of the reptile-bird transition:
"In point of fact, the number of modifications in reptilian structure
which the birds have managed to effect in order to adapt themselves
for flight is so large as to constitute a real problem and deserves our
further attention. To begin with, many modifications serve to
reduce its weight. The bones are hollow, the skull very thin. It has
abandoned the heavy tooth-studded jaw for the light but rigid beak.
The body is condensed into a compact shape, the reptilian tail being
abandoned, as also the reptilian snout. The centre of gravity has
been lowered by placing the chief muscles beneath the main
structure. Where organs are paired, like the kidney, and the ovary,
one has been sacrificed. the pelvis has been strengthened to absorb
(allow me the teleology) the shock of landing. The legs and feet
have been reduced to minimum the muscles operating them have
vanished to be replaced by muscles within the body. The brain has
been modified: a larger cerebellum to handle problems of balance
and co-ordination, a larger visual cortex now that vision has
become more important than smell. Less obvious but even more
remarkable is the change in bodily metabolism. To produce the
energy for flight the bird must consume a lot of fuel and maintain a
high temperature. Not only do birds eat a lot, as anyone who grows
fruit or has seen the bullfinches systematically remove every bud
from a treasured shrub knows, but they have a crop in which they
can store reserve fuel. So that it can handle more blood, the
partitions in the heart have been completed. The lungs too have not
only been enlarged but are supplemented by air-spaces within the
body. In land creatures like ourselves, much of the air in the lungs
remains static; we exchange only a very small proportion of it in a
normal breath. The bird, by passing the inspired air right through
the lung into the air-sacs, contrives to exchange the lot with each
breath. This system also serves to dissipate the heat generated by
the muscles during flight.
It strains the imagination to visualise so many beautifully apt
changes occurring by chance, even when one considers that 150
million years elapsed between the emergence of life from the sea
and the appearance of the first birds. For my part I can imagine that
each change might have occurred by chance during that time, what
I find hard to swallow is the accumulation of different changes
integrated into a single functional pattern."
(Taylor G.R., "The Great Evolution Mystery", 1983, pp.70-71)
CH>Now of course, this is just the most common definition
>of ID, because the leaders of the movement refuse to discuss exactly what
>they think happened, because they know that as soon as they start talking
>about God saying, "Let there be prokaryotic cells", everyone will recognize
>this as a religious idea and not a scientific one.
It would indeed be "a religious idea" and perhaps "not a scientific one" (I
don't necessarily agree that there is a dichotomy between religious and
scientific ideas) if members of the ID movement started "talking about God
saying, `Let there be prokaryotic cells'. But that is not what the ID
movement is about.
The ID movement is about detecting *design*, not speculating about who
the designer was and how the designer effected his design.
CH>When we speak of ID, we are
>talking about an intelligent, sentient, conscious entity.
Not necessarily. First, ID means "Intelligent *Design*". It is not
necessary to speculate about the designer, in order to detect design.
Second, if the next step to an inference about the designer is made,
the only necessary inference is that the designer was "intelligent"
and powerful enough to effect the design.
CH>To try to divorce the
>discussion of detecting design from the nature of the designer is ridiculous.
It is not "ridiculous" at all. The detection of design and the nature of the
designer are two different issues. SETI researchers aim to detect design
without necessarily knowing anything about the designers.
It seems pretty obvious that Naturalistic Evolutionists like Cliff want to
confuse the issue of design and the designer so they can dismiss ID as
"religion" and not "science" as they have always done for creationism.
But ID is not creationism, although many (though not all) IDers are
creationists. Creationism assumes the answer to the first question: 1. Is
there empirically detectable evidence of design? is "yes"; and answers the
second question: 2. who (or what) is the designer(s)? with "the Christian
God".
The main issue among creationists is the third question: 3) how did the
designer(s) realise his design?
But the main issue for *IDers* is the first question. There may of course be
times when IDers who are Christian creationists get the three questions
confused, but that is only to be expected in a new movement that is still
trying to sort itself out.
This may happen even among ID leaders, and it is understandable that
opponents of ID point out the inconsistency. But such opponents of ID are
unwittingly *helping* ID in this, and such criticisms like Cliff's are
*welcome*!
CH>Especially, when the Discovery Institute has already decided who the
>designer is.
See above. I don't know much about "the Discovery Institute" but if they
are all Christians it would go without saying that they have "already
decided who the designer is".
But that does not change the fact they are also endeavouring to show that
design is empirically detectable, i.e. a matter of public scientific fact and not
only a matter of private religious belief.
In fact if Cliff is a Christian, then it would be the same designer who Cliff
believes it is. Otherwise, if Cliff denies design absolutely, then that, as the
great Christian theistic evolutionist Asa Gray pointed out, is "tantamount
to atheism":
"The proposition that the things and events in nature were not
designed to be so, if logically carried out, is doubtless tantamount
to atheism." Again, "To us, a fortuitous Cosmos is simply
inconceivable. The alternative is a designed Cosmos... If Mr.
Darwin believes that the events which he supposes to have occurred
and the results we behold around us were undirected and
undesigned; or if the physicist believes that the natural forces to
which he refers phenomena are uncaused and undirected, no
argument is needed to show that such belief is atheistic." (Gray A.,
"The Atlantic Monthly," October 1860, in Noll M.A. & Livingstone
D.N., eds., Hodge C. "What Is Darwinism?", 1994, reprint, pp156-
157)
I would point out here that I have some empathy for Cliff, and others like
him. If he is a Christian, he finds himself in a profession, biological science,
the leaders of which are 95% atheist/agnostics. In order to even become
qualified in such a field, and to survive in it, Cliff would have had to
achieve some sort of personal compartmentalising of his science with his
Christian faith. That is, in his public intellectual life (i.e. his science) Cliff
would have to demonstrate he is 100% naturalistic. But in his private (i.e.
spiritual) life Cliff, could be a fine Christian.
This accommodation works when Cliff can keep his public and private lives
separated. However tensions arise when Christians (like Dembski) appear
who have reached a different accommodation between their science and
their Christian faith, namely rejecting the materialistic-naturalistic
philosophy underlying modern science in general, and biological science in
particular.
The tensions get even worse when those Christians (like Dembski), argue
that there is independent scientific evidence from nature for design and
hence those scientific positions which claim there is no design, ie.
Darwinism, are false.
Those tensions reach breaking point when those Christians (like Dembski),
actually set up shop on Cliff's own campus, Baylor University, ostensibly a
Baptist Christian university, and then host a conference on Intelligent
Design which attracted Nobel prize-winners like Stephen Weinberg and
Christian de Duve, a leading philosopher John Searle, as well as other
leading scientists like Simon Conway Morris and Alan Guth.
Then those like Cliff feel the need to resolve this tension by trying to make
out that the ID movement is 100% in that private domain called "religion"
and 0% in that public domain called "science".
But unfortunately for Cliff, that solution, which might have worked in the
case of YECs who quite clearly based their science on the Bible, simply
won't work in the case of ID.
ID, while it is heavily represented by Christians is not exclusively so. Some
IDers are Jewish and at least one is an agnostic. Also those IDers who are
Christians are not all opposed to common descent (Mike Behe and myself
for example). And IDers seek to find evidence for design not from the
Bible (ie. the argument to design) but on *nature* (ie. the argument from
design).
My suggestion to Cliff, and other Naturalistic Evolutionists who happen to
be Christians, that they ponder what the Bible warns about in Colossians
2:8:
"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and
deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the
basic principles of this world rather than on Christ."
That is, they should ask themselves whether the fact that they spend their
time and energy attacking their fellow Christians who are arguing against
anti-Christian philosophies like materialism, naturalism and Darwinism, and
defending their atheist/agnostics colleagues who hold those philosophies, is
not good evidence that they themselves have in fact been taken captive by
those "hollow and deceptive" philosophies?
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I, for one, in spite of all the benefits drawn from genetics and the
mathematical theory of selection, am still at a loss to understand why it is
of selective advantage for the eels of Comacchio to travel perilously to the
Sargasso sea, or why Ascaris has to migrate all around the host's body
instead of comfortably settling in the intestine where it belongs; or what
was the survival value of a multiple stomach for a cow when a horse, also
vegetarian and of comparable size, does very well with a simple stomach;
or why certain insects had to develop those admirable mimicries and
protective colorations when the common cabbage butterfly is far more
abundant with its conspicuous white wings. One cannot reject these and
innumerable similar questions as incompetent; if the selectionist explanation
works well in some cases, a selectionist explanation cannot be refused in
others." (von Bertalanffy L., "Chance or Law," in Koestler A. & Smythies
J.R., ed., "Beyond Reductionism: New Perspectives in the Life Sciences,"
[1969], Hutchinson: London, 1972, reprint, p.65)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 10 2000 - 01:43:25 EDT