Reflectorites
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:01:32 -0400, Steven P Crawford wrote:
I apologise that this is a bit late.
[...]
SC>I was sent a personal email from someone responding to one of my posts.
>I can only suppose the person is a list subscriber, but before I realized
>it was one-to-one, I had written a lengthy reply. I would like to send
>the reply for everyone to see, but of course I've deleted all references
>to the original sender. I want to encourage the person to send their
>message to everyone, since I think it was a good post. I've benefited
>from it, and I'm sure others would as well.
In responding to Steven's post, I wish to point out that his private
correspondent wasn't me.
>> 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.
>....
Agreed this is the minimalist ID position. If it turns out that the flowchart
for the origin of life from chemicals up to the first living cell can be
followed by a human level intelligence to create life in vivo, it may be then
realised that the task is far beyond the capacity of unintelligent causes. That
would be sufficient to establish Intelligent Design.
But it may be that in attempting to do this, it will be found it is beyond
human level intelligence as well. For example, I was reading the other day a
book by a molecular biologist who suggested this might well be the case:
"In these days of astounding advances in science and technology it
is perhaps rash to declare dogmatically that anything such as the
artificial synthesis of a living cell is impossible. Yet, on what sort of
microloom would a biologist weave the membranes of the
endoplasmic reticulum, or with what delicate needles could a
biologist fashion the intricacies of the cell nucleus? ...Will it ever be
possible for a living cell to be constructed from scratch under
controlled laboratory conditions? Perhaps it is pointless to continue
with such speculations because there seems to be a step beyond
which man cannot go-try as he may. (Price F.W., "Basic Molecular
Biology," 1979, pp.466-467)
If that is the case, and anyone who studies in detail the *fantastic*
functional complexity of even the simplest bacterial cell would have to
concede that it *might* be, then it would be even more beyond the
capacity of unintelligent causes. Then the only option left is a supernatural
level of intelligence.
And of course if the Designer is held to be the One who also designed and
executed the *fantastic* level of fine-tuning of the universe, then a
supernatural level of intelligence would be even more the best inference.
SC>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.
Unfortunately from what follows, Steven does *not* "believe the case for
ID" that IDers actually make. This will be evident when Steven finally
concludes that he has no scientific evidence for *his* version of ID.
SC>ID'ers seem to want very much to avoid the charge that they are making
>religious, metaphysical claims.
There is a basic confusion here. There is a difference between "religious"
claims and "metaphysical" claims. *Every* position on origins makes
directly or indirectly, "metaphysical" claims.
The fact is that the inference to design is not necessarily a "religious"
claim, at least in the sense that the US Constitutional doctrine of the
separation of Church and State seeks to preserve.
The concept of design can be, has, and is, believed by people on purely
philosophical grounds. The ancient Greek and Roman philosophers
formulated and debated design arguments, based solely on the evidence of
nature. In the ID movement there is at least one agnostic, philosophy
professor Todd Moody:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.christianityonline.com/ct/2000/006/1.42.html ... Christianity
Today May 22, 2000, Vol. 44, No. 6, Page 42 .... We're Not in Kansas
Anymore Why secular scientists and media can't admit that Darwinism
might be wrong. .... Nancy Pearcey
[...]
Even agnostics who believe the universe is in some sense teleological have
teamed up with the id movement--figures like Michael Denton, author of
the influential Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. His most recent book,
Nature's Destiny, argues that purpose pervades the universe at all levels.
"The power of ID is precisely its minimalism," says Todd Moody, an
agnostic and professor at St. Joseph's University in Philadelphia. "It travels
light, with no theological baggage."
[...]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC>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.
Actually it is just good, clear thinking: separating out the two basic
questions: 1) is there design?; and 2) who (or what) is the Designer?
SC>So how does ID
>maneuver around the charge of being inherently religious?
There in no need for ID to "maneuver". The simple fact is that ID is *not*
"inherently religious". The fact that ID even has non-theists like Todd
Moody in its movement shows that.
SC>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.
>.
Steven is simply wrong here. Berthajane (aka Bertvan), a member of this
List, believes the universe is designed, without believing in a designer. And
Todd Moody, as I have said, is a prominent member of the ID movement,
and he is an agnostic. Fred Hoyle seems to believe in design but he does
not believe in a designer- he thinks that the Universe itself is intelligent.
All these positions, as well as full-blown Christian theism, would be eligible
for membership in the ID movement. The basic ID claim is that there is
*detectable* evidence for design. There is no claim who (or what) did the
designing. Thus agnostics like Todd Moody who agree that there is
detectable evidence for design but are agnostic about who the designer is,
are welcome in the ID movement. But Christian theistic evolutionists who
deny that design is *detectable*, even thought they believe the Designer
was the Christian God, are not welcome in the ID movement:
"4.5 Not Theistic Evolution
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.
That said, intelligent design is incompatible with what typically is
meant by "theistic evolution" (or what is also called "creative
evolution," "teleological evolution," "evolutionary creation" or
most recently "fully gifted creation"). Theistic evolution takes the
Darwinian picture of the biological world and baptizes it,
identifying this picture with the way God created life. When boiled
down to its scientific content, however, theistic evolution is no
different from atheistic evolution, treating only undirected natural
processes in the origin and development of life. (Dembski W.A.,
"Intelligent Design," 1999, p.109)
SC>Instead of this, ID'ers shift up to the next gear. They choose to leave
>the identity of the designer or designers completely anonymous.
It is not that IDers "choose to leave the identity of the designer or
designers completely anonymous", the fact is that there is no way that one
can derive the Christian God from the facts of nature. If there was, there
would be no need for the Bible.
Indeed, as we shall see, Steven at the end of his post admitted that he
believed the Designer was the Christian God but he had no scientific
evidence for it.
SC>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.
If someone agrees that there is detectable evidence for design, but then
wants to argue that there is a Designer who is either "God, aliens, a
powerful demigod" or "the tooth fairy" they can. But then they have moved
beyond the scope of the ID movement which is to demonstrate empirically
that there is design in nature.
SC>Using this tactic ID'ers hope to gain a certain
>measure of scientific recognition.
I don't know how Steven knows this.
The IDers I know are not concerned with "scientific recognition." If they
were they would be evolutionists!
What IDers hope to gain is "recognition" that there is empirically
detectable evidence of design.
SC>"Look, everybody. We only claim that a designer exists or once existed.
Actually, all that ID claims is that there is right *now* detectable evidence
of *design*. It is the Intelligent *Design* movement, not the Intelligent
*Designer* movement.
SC>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.."
No. An *evidential* "claim is our only claim"!
SC>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?
*Any* "designer" is "truly...possible within ID theory". That is because,
strictly speaking, the identity of the Designer is beyond the scope of ID
theory.
SC>It seems that any potentially natural designer would have to be some type
>of alien lifeform, one that originated elsewhere in the physical
>Universe. Most of us are probably familiar with the plot of 2001: A
>Space Odyssey as well as the recent movie Mission to Mars. But, having
>taken this route, we must also ask if this entity itself demonstrates
>evidences of design. Is the designer of life on Earth likewise designed?
> There seems to be only two possibilities:
Indeed, those who from the evidence of design make the inference that the
designer is natural, have a problem of explaining who designed the
designer. But that is *their* problem.
A Christian theist who takes the evidence for design provided by the ID
movement and argues that the Designer was the Christian God (as I do)
would be much firmer ground.
SC>(1) Our own designer demonstrates design of its own. This would mean
>that the designer of Earth's life points the way to another designer
>existing someplace else. Once again, another alien lifeform seems to be
>the only recourse if we truly wish to avoid the supernatural. But this
>only begs the question more. Does that second designer also show
>evidence of design? If so, then a third alien designer needs to be
>postulated -- and so on.
>
>Thus, in this first case, the logic seems to lead to some fantastic
>conclusions. If we suppose that designers are themselves designed, then
>an endless recursion is set up. This would mean that, in order for ID to
>stay within the physical Universe, it must imagine an infinite sequence
>of alien lifeforms. It would essentially say that the Universe is
>eternal -- or at least some part of the Universe is eternal, namely all
>the designers.
Agreed. But see above.
SC>(2) This brings us to the second possibility that somewhere along the way
>we reach a designer that was not designed. This by far appears to be the
>more preferable scenario, both logically and scientifically. The
>evidence for a Universe of finite age is just too strong to overthrow.
>Furthermore, the notion of an infinitely recursive sequence of designed
>designers has all kinds of unlovely logical-philosophical problems.
>Therefore, for ID to make any real sense, it seems that we must sooner or
>later postulate a designer whose own existence was not implemented
>according to a pre-existing plan.
Agreed. But here the issue is the *inference* to a Designer from the
*evidence* for design that the ID movement provides.
There is no disagreement from me that the inference to the Christian God,
from any evidence for design, that the ID movement establishes, would be
the strongest.
Steven needs to separate another two (but closely related to the first two)
issues: 1) the *evidence* for design; and 2) the *inference* to a Designer.
SC>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.
See above. ID makes no claims about the identity of the Designer. ID's task
is to establish that there is empirical scientific evidence of design. If an IDer
(or indeed anyone) wants to take any evidence for design that ID provides,
and make his/her own inferences that the Designer is a "physical, material
being" they can do that. But it would be *their* personal position, not the
ID movement's position.
And it might seem "startling" to Steven, but there is nothing in ID per se
which rules out one believing in "evolution". Most evolutionists see
"evolution" as a *substitute* for design, but if an evolutionist agreed that
there was design and that it was detectable, then they could be a member of
the ID movement. Todd Moody is a member of the ID movement and he
believes in "evolution" but not the *Darwinian* variety.
SC>Sure, ID'ers claim that evolution -- at least
>that of Earth's first lifeform -- did not happen here on this planet.
If IDers claim that, it is not as IDers, but as creationists or anti-
evolutionists. The problem is that people wear multiple hats, and it difficult
to separate out what hat they are wearing when they make statements.
If we are to avoid what Del Ratzsch calls "four alarm messes" we each
need to try hard to define our terms clearly and unambiguously and state
which hat we are wearing at any particular time.
SC>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.
See above.
SC>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.
See above. Somehow Steven has slipped in "undesigned evolution" when
previously he was talking about an "undesigned designer". ID is
*definitely* against "undesigned evolution", which is just another term for
Darwinism.
If there is design *anywhere* in the causal chain then "undesigned
evolution", i.e. Darwinism, would be annihilated. This is because
Darwinism relies *absolutely* on the faith that all mutations in the 3.9
billion-year history of life have been random with respect to adaptive
improvement. Once design is conceded anywhere in that 3.9 billion years of
life's history, then Darwinism would unravel.
SC>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."
Steven has got himself tangled up in the web of his own reasoning. He
starts of describing one possible version of ID, and he ends up making it
the *only* version of ID.
ID could accept "evolutionary theory" in its "backseat" as indeed even the
strictest versions of young-Earth creationism can:
"Darwin's argument certainly seems logical. Is there any evidence
that Darwin was right? Can nature select as well as man? Answer:
There is considerable evidence that Darwin was indeed correct
about natural selection." (Parker G.E., "Creation: the Facts of
Life", 1980, p.46)
Steven needs to be clear what he means by "evolutionary theory". The only
"evolutionary theory" that matters in this debate is the dominant
*Darwinian* "evolutionary theory" which claims that it renders design as
an illusion, and thus there is no evidence left to make any inference to a
designer.
If there was a version of "evolutionary theory" which held that the origin
and development of life was directed, it would not only be an ally of the ID
movement, it would be regarded as an enemy by the dominant Darwinian
scientfic establishment.
SC>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.
See above. Crick's "Directed Panspermia" and Hoyle's "Intelligent
Universe" might indeed be acceptable hypotheses under ID. But they
would not be the *only* acceptable hypotheses under ID!
SC>However, the sine qua non of ID is inherently anti-evolutionary, or so
>its proponents tell us.
The "sine qua non of ID is inherently anti-" those positions which are anti-
*design*. Only those "evolutionary" positions which rule out design (e.g.
Darwinism) or even rule out only *detectable* design (e.g. some versions
of Theistic Evolution), are anti- ID.
SC>TTherefore, 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.
See above. Steven is confusing ID itself, which is about detecting empirical
evidence for *design*, and the inferences that may be made from that
detectable evidence for design, to a *Designer*.
SC>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.
That might be *Steven's* inference from the evidence for design but it is
not the only one. Steven's chain of reasoning ending in "necessarily" is only
as good as its original premises. And in this case Steven's original premises
are flawed because he misunderstands what ID is about.
SC>Everyone else sees ID for what it is: a supernaturalistic theory of
>origins.
Not "everybody". Todd Moody doesn't for starters!
SC>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.
If "ID" is defined as the hypothesis that life on Earth is at least partly the
effect of intelligent causes, and that this is empirically detectable, and
empirical evidence is provided that meets all the normal standards of
empirical scientific rigour (as for example already exists in archaeology and
SETI), then ID *is* "within the confines of the scientific method".
But if ID is then extended beyond that empirical evidence of detectable
design, to inferences about who or what the Designer must "necessarily"
be, then that is not "within the confines of the scientific method".
SC>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.
So, at the end of all this, Steven has no *scientific* case to make as a
positive alternative to Darwinism?
And if that is the case, what is Steven's position going to be on this
Reflector?
He might find it a wee bit difficuolt trying to debate against evolutionists
with a case that has "not the least shred of experimental data to prove it"!
However, I thank Steven for his post and I hope he sticks around long
enough to find out what ID *really* is about.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"That Darwin's question is universal, wherever there is life, is surely
undeniable. The feature of living matter that most demands explanation is
that it is almost unimaginably complicated in directions that convey a
powerful illusion of deliberate design. Darwin's question, or rather the most
fundamental and important of Darwin's many questions, is the question of
how such complicated "design" could come into being. All living creatures,
everywhere in the universe and at any time in history, provoke this
question. It is less obvious that Darwin's answer to the riddle-cumulative
evolution by nonrandom survival of random hereditary changes-is
universal." (Dawkins R., "Darwin Triumphant: Darwinism as a Universal
Truth," in Robinson M.H. & Tiger L., eds., "Man & Beast Revisited,"
Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington DC, 1991, p.24)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 03 2000 - 19:03:54 EDT