Re: a couple of questions

Stephen Jones (sejones@ibm.net)
Thu, 30 Jan 97 20:02:34 +0800

Group

On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 21:06:47 -0800 (PST), billgr@cco.caltech.edu wrote:

SJ>Behe cheerfully admits that ID will not be able to identify the
>designer:
>
>"Inferences to design do not require that we have a candidate for
>the role of designer....we know that all of these things were
>designed because of the ordering of independent components to
>achieve some end." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box"p, 1996, p196)
>
>ID theory will never be able to show that the Intelligent Designer
is the Christian God. All it can show is that: 1. it wasn't the
`blind watchmaker of Darwinism; and 2. it is compatible with the
Christian God.

GB>OK, that's fair enough. It looks like I was correct, then, in
>noticing that naturalism *does* have recourse if it discovers that
>life couldn't have arisen by naturalistic processes on planet Earth?

Of course. The fact that naturalists can dodge the evidence
of the fine-tuning of the cosmos by recourse to multiple
worlds hypotheses, shows the lengths that non-theists will go to in
denying the obvious:

"But it should also be noticed that the Big Bang, although friendly to
a religious point of view, does not forcibly compel that belief. No
person is required by dint of logic to reach any particular
supernatural conclusion solely on the basis of scientific
observations and theories. This is seen initially in Einstein's and
Hoyle's attempt to come up with alternative models that would fit the
observational data and avoid the unpleasant thought of a start to the
universe. When the steady-state theory was finally discredited,
other theories sprang up that would obviate the philosophical bind of
an absolute beginning....The idea of a cycling universe seems to be
out of favor in physics these days. Insufficient matter to cause a
future gravitational collapse has been observed-and even if such
matter existed, calculations show that successive cycles would become
longer and longer, eventually ending with a non-contracting universe.
But even if this option is discredited, other ideas are available to
take the sting out of the Big Bang. A more recent proposal would
have it that the actual universe is enormously larger than what we
observe, and that the portion of the universe that we see is merely a
"bubble" in an infinite universe. And physicist Stephen Hawking has
proposed that although the universe is finite, it would not have a
beginning if something in his mathematical equations that he calls
"imaginary time" actually existed. Another idea is that infinitely
many universes exist, and that the universe in which we find
ourselves just happens to have the narrow conditions required for
life. This idea was popularized under the name of the "anthropic
principle." In essence the anthropic principle states that very many
(or infinitely many) universes exist with varying physical laws, and
that only the ones with conditions suitable for life will in fact
produce life, perhaps including conscious observers. So perhaps a
zillion barren universes exist somewhere; we live in the zillion and
first universe because it has the physical properties that are
compatible with life." (Behe, 1996, pp246-247)

Indeed, it would be a problem for Christianity if eventually divine
design was proved empirically, so that even an atheist like Dawkins
was compelled to believe in the Christian God. The Christian idea of
faith is a committment of the whole person, not just mere
intellectual assent, with no inner change of heart. It is therefore
to be expected that there is enough evidence for a believer's faith
to be strengthened, but not enough to connvince an unbeliever against
his/her will. There is a Pascal or Augustine quote that Brian might
post that states this.

>GB>That is, it seems to me that the goal of the intelligent design
>advocates is more ambitious than a demonstration that some
>biological features were designed purposefully by some person--

SJ>No. There is simply no way that "intelligent design" can be
>"more ambitious than a demonstration that some biological features
>were designed purposefully by some person". If you claim that
>ID is doing this, you need to supply quotes from their writings
>that they are. :-)

GB>That's why I said 'seems to me.' No claims. :-)

OK. :-)

>GB>I don't see how that aim is incompatible with methodological
>naturalism, as I stated above.

SJ>See above. "methodological naturalism" is *by definition*
>"incompatible" with "intelligent design". MN cannot, in principle,
>consider "intelligent design", because "naturalism" is the doctrine
>that nature is all there is:

GB>Nope. People (and aliens) are part of nature, and are
>intelligent. Ergo, intelligent design can be, and is, part of
>nature. This was the whole point.

Obviously I meant *super-natural* "intelligent design". Archaeology
and SETI are areas of methodological naturalist science that depend
on recognising "intelligent design" that is "part of nature".

SJ>..."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." (Murphy N., ...in Moreland J.P.
>ed., "The Creation Hypothesis", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove
>Ill., 1994, p69)

GB>Both you and Nancey should know better, it seems to me. As I
>pointed out (if I remember correctly, it may have been in this
>post), science 'qua science' does *not* seek naturalistic
>explanations for all processes. The process of constructing axe
>heads is not considered 'naturalistic' in the sense of not being
>intelligently driven, but is a crucial part of dating
>anthropological sites and tracking the flow of human technology in
>the ancient world. The point being, when we see an axe head in a
>pile of rock, we all think, "Ah, ha! The axe head is *designed*.
>Let's figure out who, how, why, when, etc." We don't think, "Boy, a
>bunch of designed rocks!" If life on the planet turns out to be
>designed the way it is, it would seem to be a trickier puzzle than
>axe heads. Same goes for rocks. "Naturalistic science" is more
>than capable of dealing with intelligent design when it thinks it
>sees a reason to appeal to it. It sees the reason for axe heads and
>does so. (Could be wrong, but that doesn't seem likely.)

Agreed, but we are using the word "naturalistic" differently.
I defined "naturalism" as "nature is all there is". Clearly
"human technology" and even alien technology is a part of nature, and
therefore it is by definition "naturalistic".

[...]

>GB>(I'd better stop before I ask more about why intelligent design
>theorists are interested in *this* particular method... :-))

SJ>What "method"? There is nothing unsual about recognising design.
>Behe calls it "humdrum":

GB>The method is some sort of instantaneous (or apparently so)
>process of design. That is, from what I've seen, ID people think
>that God designed life and 'put it here.' That is, didn't design it
>by making a few primitive cells, thinking, "Hmm. That's no way to
>proceed," making some random changes, thinking "Nope," and so forth.
>That is, he didn't proceed as a 'Blind Watchmaker.' I haven't met
>all ID people, though, so I'm prepared to be surprised. :-)

No. There is no need for "ID people" to claim "some sort of
instantaneous...process of design". Behe makes this clear:

"...Miller's argument misses the mark..It arises from the confusion of two separate
ideas-the theory that life was intelligently designed and the theory
that the earth is young. Because religious groups who strongly
advocate both ideas have been in the headlines over the past several
decades, much of the public thinks that the two ideas are necessarily
linked. Implicit in Ken Miller's argument about pseudogenes, and
absolutely required for his conclusions, is the idea that the
designer had to have made life recently. That is not a part of
intelligent-design theory. The conclusion that some features of life
were designed can be made in the absence of knowledge about when the
designing took place. A child who looks at the faces on Mt.
Rushmore immediately knows that they were designed but might have no
idea of their history; for all she knows, the faces might have been
designed the day before she got there, or might have been there since
the beginning of time. An art museum might display a statue of a
bronze cat purportedly made in Egypt thousands of years ago-until the
statue is examined by technologically advanced methods and shown to
be a modern forgery. In either case, though, the bronze cat was
certainly designed by an intelligent agent. The irreducibly complex
biochemical systems that I have discussed in this book did not have
to be produced recently. It is entirely possible, based simply on an
examination of the systems themselves, that they were designed
billions of years ago and that they have been passed down to the
present by the normal processes of cellular reproduction." (Behe,
1996, p227)

I personally think that God worked in biological history, much the
same way He worked in the history of Israel in the Bible. There we
find a lot of natural process and apparently aimless meandering,
punctuated by decisive interventions at strategic points to inject
new information and direction.

On Sat, 14 Dec 1996 22:13:33 -0500 (EST), brian d harper wrote:

[...]

>GB>First, I've seen it implied a few times (sorry, don't remember
>who), that methodological naturalism doesn't have recourse to
>hypothesizing intelligent design as an explanation for features of
nature.

SJ>It follows from the definition. Naturalism means that nature is
>all there is. So "methodological naturalism" means that the
>scientist, even if he/she is not a metaphysical naturalist (ie.
does not believe that nature is all there is) must *assume* that
nature is all there is in doing science.

>BH>I continue to be confused in the way that several use the term
>methodological naturalism. Can anyone point to some references
>wherein this term is defined?

Johnson defines MN as:

"A variety of terms have been used in the literature to designate the
philosophical position I call scientific naturalism. For present
purposes, the following terms may all be considered, equivalent:
scientific naturalism, evolutionary naturalism, scientific
materialism, and scientism. All these terms imply that scientific
investigation is either the exclusive path to knowledge or at least
by far the most reliable path, and that only natural or material
phenomena are real. In other words, what science can't study is
effectively unreal." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, p116).

But I would have thought that definition is hardly necessary in this
case - the words define themselves. The only *method* to be used in
science is *naturalism*, and "naturalism" is the assumption that
"nature is all there is".

BH>My understanding is that methodological naturalism does not
>require the scientist to assume that nature is all there is when
>doing science. Rather, it is a recognition that the methods of
>science are limitted. Further, these limitations are inherent, not
>arbitrarily specified. Methodological naturalism in my view is the
>recognition that science is limitted.

Yes - "limited" to *natural* explanations. This "limitation" is not
"inherent" - there is no experiment or law that forces science to be
methodologically naturalistic. It is self-imposed limitation.

BH>I promote it because it is very useful for weeding out
>metaphysical naturalism from science.

That's strange. "Science" is *full* of "metaphysical naturalism".
Every time science excludes the supernatural from *origins* it has
crossed over from "methodological naturalism" = "science is limited
to studying naturalistic causes" to "metaphysical naturalism" =
"there only exists naturalistic causes".

OTOH "methodological naturalism" is absolutely 100% effective in
"weeding out metaphysical" *theism* "from science"! :-)

BH>Another error is to say that if the methods of science cannot
>detect something then that something is not real, or to say that if
>something is real then it can be detected by the methods of science.
>This I would call scientism.

Agreed.

>SJ>So if there is an Intelligent Designer who is outside of nature,
>the methodological naturalist cannot admit it and still do science.

>BH>Steve, I think this statement is clearly false. This would
depend though on exactly what you mean by Intelligent Designer.
Taken in the broad sense, I believe there is an Intelligent Designer
who is outside nature, I'm a methodological naturalist and I still
do science.

Of course one can "believe there is an Intelligent Designer who is
outside nature" and be "a methodological naturalist and... still do
science." I specifically said that "methodological naturalism" means
that the scientist, even if he/she is not a metaphysical naturalist
(ie. does not believe that nature is all there is) must *assume*
that nature is all there is in doing science.".

But the point is that one cannot allow that personal belief "in an
Intelligent Designer" into one's "science", without risking derision
and even dismissal. The case of Dean Kenyon and Philip Bishop are
well known examples:

"..A biologist may believe in God on Sundays, but he or she had
better not bring that belief to the laboratory on Monday with the
idea that it has any bearing on the nature or origin of living
organisms. For professional purposes atheistic and theistic
biologists alike must assume that nature is all there is.' (Johnson
P.E., "Reason in the Balance", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove
Ill., 1995, pp8-9)

>GB>I am curious how this relates to panspermia hypotheses. It
>seems to me that such hypotheses *do* appeal to intelligent
>design--namely, that of aliens--and that they *are* contenders
>within the methodological naturalist framework. That is, I don't
>see anything about panspermia, even very aggressive panspermia where
>aliens land and unload dinosaurs, that is outside the framework of
>methodological naturalism. I would enjoy hearing more about this
>(perceived, at any rate) dichotomy.

>SJ>Good point! On one of his tapes, Johnson says that the Directed
Panspermia hypothesis is the naturalist version of supernatural
creation:

>BH>Shapiro gives an interesting slant to this: One motive behind
the publication of the book was to increase public awareness of the
>difficulties surrounding the origin-of-life question. Crick
>explained this to me in a private interview: "We thought of this
>theory but we're not all that sold on it ... The object [of the
>book] is to give the intelligent person an idea of what the
>_problem_ is, and this is just a tag to sing it on...." ...
Robert Shapiro, <Origins>, Summit Books, 1986, p. 227.

Yes. I read this in Shapiro, but I have got Crick's book "Life
Itself" and it certainly reads like a serious attempt to propose a
genuine scientific theory:

"Orgel and I were trying to construct a scientific theory, and it is not
scientific to wave one's hands about and proclaim that in the long run
all things are possible...What we should be concentrating on is not so
much the flavor of the idea but its status as a scientific theory in good
standing...The kindest thing to state about Directed Panspermia, then,
is to concede that it is indeed a valid scientific theory, but that as a
theory it is premature." (Crick F., "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature",
Simon & Schuster: New York, 1981, pp150-151,153)

>BH>In all my reading on the origin of life I'm really hard pressed
to think of anyone (actually working in the field) who takes it
>seriously.

It may be that of "origin of life" researchers (defined as those
"actually working in the field"), few indeed "take it seriously".
But the billions spent on SETI and by NASA on trips to Mars mainly to
find out if there was life there, are all taken "seriously". However
Thaxton, et al, report a revived interest in panspermia because of
intractable problems with terrestrial chemical evolution:

"More recently, however, major objections to terrestrial chemical
evolution scenarios, surveyed in the main body of the book, have
caused some to reconsider Panspermia, even though it does not purport
to bean account of life's origin. Why persist in looking to the
earth for the answer to life's origin, especially since the evidence
questioning terrestrial chemical evolution is quite substantial? As
Brooks and Shaw noted, `We must be interested in the truths of
matters and must not modify truths so that we can conveniently
express our origins in ways which for some reason or other give us
maximum satisfaction'...In spite of the problems with Panspermia, the
number of scientists ready to defend it is growing." (Thaxton C.B.,
Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of Life's Origin", 1992,
pp192,194)

>BH>The basic criticism that one hears over and over, and rightfully
so, is that this theory doesn't really deal with the origin of life
since it doesn't explain the origin of the green little women.

Yes. Crick was obviously aware of that too, but thought that
conditions on another planet might be more congenial:

"...we have two types of theory about the origin of life on earth and
that they are radically different. The first the orthodox
theory-states that life as we know it started here all on its own,
with little or no assistance from anything outside our solar system.
The second Directed Panspermia postulates that the roots of our form
of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly
another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before
anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by
microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced
civilization. The two theories could hardly be more different, but
it is important to ask, does the difference matter? Since the
universe in its present form had an origin in time the Big Bang and
since any form of life at such early times was impossible, life must
have started somewhere at some time well after the Big Bang. It
could be argued that Directed Panspermia merely transfers the problem
elsewhere. This is partly true, but for all we know the location was
vital. It may emerge eventually that for one reason or another it
would have been almost impossible to start life on Earth, whereas on
some more favorable planet it could begin more easily and perhaps
evolve more rapidly. Perhaps our unusual moon will turn out to be
more of a handicap than an advantage. Thus, although we cannot as
yet give any powerful reasons why an origin elsewhere was much more
plausible, it is rash to assume that conditions here were just as
good as anywhere else. Whether life originated here or elsewhere is
at bottom, an historical fact, and we are not entitled, at this
stage, to brush it aside as irrelevant." (Crick, 1981, pp141-142)

Johnson points out that panspermia's unkonwn and unknowable
extraterrestrials are no more invisible than Neo-Darwinism's universe
of invisible ancestors:

"Those who are tempted to ridicule directed panspermia should
restrain themselves, because Crick's extraterrestrials are no more
invisible than the universe of ancestors that earth-bound Darwinists
have to invoke." (Johnson, 1993, p110)

Indeed, Johnosn points out that panspermia is just naturalism's
equivalent of supernatural creation:

"Crick would be scornful of any scientist who gave up on scientific
research and ascribed the origin of life to a supernatural Creator.
But directed panspermia amounts to the same thing. The same
limitations that made it impossible for the extraterrestrials to
journey to earth will make it impossible for scientists ever to
inspect their planet. Scientific investigation of the origin of life
is as effectively closed off as if God had reserved the subject for
Himself." (Johnson, 1993, p110)

[...]

>GB>Second, there is another question that the above raises. Suppose
>that intelligent design theorists are successful in proving that
some biological features exhibit design that could only be
'top-down' (that is, from some personal intelligent being)...How do
intelligent design theorists hope to argue that such intelligent
design is God's handiwork as opposed to that of some aliens? (Or do
they hope to argue that?)

>SJ>Another good point. Behe even discussed aliens as a
>possibility: "Crick also thinks that life on earth may have begun
when aliens from another planet sent a rocket ship containing spores
to seed the earth...The primary reason Crick subscribes to this
unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to
be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a naturalistic
explanation. For our present purposes, the interesting part of
Crick's idea is the role of the aliens, whom he has speculated sent
space bacteria to earth. But he could with as much evidence say
that the aliens actually designed the irreducibly complex
biochemical systems of the life they sent here, and also designed
the irreducibly complex systems that developed later. The only
difference is a switch to the postulate that aliens constructed
>life, whereas Crick originally speculated that they just sent it
here It is not a very big leap, though, to say that a civilization
>capable of sending rocket ships to other planets is also likely to
>be capable of designing life-especially if the civilization has
never been observed.

>BH>I wonder if I'm the only one floored by this? All this talk
about the immense complexity of life and then suddenly the design of
life is comparable to sending rocket ships to other planets?

I don't see why Brian is "floored by this". We are talking about an
*advanced* "civilization capable of sending rocket ships to other
planets", ie. around other *stars* even in other *galaxies*. I
would have thought that if and when we get to be able to do that with
precision and within a reasonable duration, we would also be able to
design "life". But of course we wouldn't need to -we have plenty of
"life" here, ie. bacteria and Michael Jackson :-) we could sent.

BH>One thing that has been bugging me more and more about ID is its
>reductionistic, mechanistic flavor. Are living organisms really
>just complicated machines like rocket ships?

I think Brian is being "bugged" by his own dislike of "ID"! :-) In
this context "ID" is not talking about "living organisms" like whole
animals or plants, but about *molecular sub-systems* of those "living
organisms". At that level the analogy with "complicated machines" is
strikingly apt:

"It has only been over the past twenty years with the molecular
biological revolution and with the advances in cybernetic and
computer technology that Hume's criticism has been finally
invalidated and the analogy between organisms and machines has at
last become convincing. In opening up this extraordinary new world
of living technology biochemists have become fellow travellers with
science fiction writers, explorers in a world of ultimate technology,
wondering incredulously as new miracles of atomic engineering are
continually brought to light in the course of their strange adventure
into the microcosm of life. In every direction the biochemist gazes, as
he journeys through this weird molecular labyrinth sees devices and
appliances reminiscent of our own twentieth-century world of
advanced technology. In the atomic fabric of life we have found a
reflection of our own technology. We have seen a world as artificial
as our own and as familiar as if we had held up a mirror to our own
machines." (Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", 1985, p340)

Indeed, it is customary even for non-"ID"s to speak of biomolecular
systems as machines. For example. here is Crick, the co-discoverer
of the structure of DNA, likening the cell to a "factory", and its
activity as an "assembly line, with proteins as "machine tools":

"The cell is thus a minute factory, bustling with rapid, organized
chemical activity. Under suitable molecular controls, enzymes busily
synthesize lengths of messenger RNA. A ribosome will jump onto
each messenger RNA molecule, moving along it, reading off its base-
sequence and stringing together amino acids (carried to it by tRNA
molecules) to make a polypeptide chain which, when finished, will
fold on itself and become a protein. Nature invented the assembly line
some billions of years before Henry Ford. Moreover, this assembly
line produces many different highly specific proteins, the machine
tools of the cell, which themselves shape and reshape the organic
chemical molecules in order to provide raw material for the assembly
lines and also all the molecules needed to build the structure of the
factory, provide it with energy, dispose of the garbage and a host of
other functions." (Crick, 1981, pp70-71)

>SJ>Designing life, it could be pointed out, does not necessarily
>require supernatural abilities; rather, it requires a lot of
>intelligence. If a graduate student in an earthbound lab today can
>plan and make an artificial protein that can bind oxygen, then there
>is no logical barrier to thinking that an advanced civilization on
>another world might design an artificial cell from scratch. This
>scenario still leaves open the question of who designed the
>designer-how did life originally originate? Is a philosophical
>naturalist now trapped? " (Behe, 1996, pp248-249)

>BH>I think Behe traps himself with this last statement. Either ID
>suffers the same drawback as Panspermia or the intelligent designer
>really is the Intelligent Designer which Intelligent Design
>supposedly doesn't require.

No. "Behe" doesn't "trap himself" at all. All "ID" claims is that
life evidences design. Who the identity of the designer is
impossible to prove. It could have been aliens, time-travellers from
our future, or god(s). In particular, it cannot be proved that the
designer was the Judeo-Christian God. Living proof of this is
Denton, who is a leading ID theorist, yet is an agnostic.

[...]

>GB>That is, it seems to me that the goal of the intelligent design
>advocates is more ambitious than a demonstration that some
>biological features were designed purposefully by some person--

>SJ>No. There is simply no way that "intelligent design" can be
>"more ambitious than a demonstration that some biological features
>were designed purposefully by some person". If you claim that ID
>is doing this, you need to supply quotes from their writings that
>they are. :-)

>BH>How about this: "So if there is an Intelligent Designer who is
>outside of nature, the methodological naturalist cannot admit it and
>still do science." -- Steve Jones

I really cannot follow Brian's reasoning here at all. Greg is
claiming that "the goal of the intelligent design advocates is more
ambitious", I presume to show that the Designer was the
Judeo-Christian God. The above quote concerns the limitation of
methodological naturalism in admiting "an Intelligent Designer who is
outside of nature." These are two different issues and I cannot see
their connection. Perhaps Brian will clarify what he means?

>GB>I don't see how that aim is incompatible with methodological
>naturalism, as I stated above.

>SJ>See above. "methodological naturalism" is *by definition*
>"incompatible" with "intelligent design". MN cannot, in principle,
>consider "intelligent design", because "naturalism" is the doctrine
>that nature is all there is:

>BH>why the switch from MN to N mid-sentence?

I had already explained it before. Here it is again:

"It follows from the definition. Naturalism means that nature is all
there is. So `methodological naturalism' means that the scientist,
even if he/she is not a metaphysical naturalist (ie. does not
believe that nature is all there is) must *assume* that nature is all
there is in doing science."

I presume the "N" in methodological naturalism is the same "N" in
metaphysical naturalism? If it isn't, perhaps Brian can explain the
difference between them.

God bless.

Steve

-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------