next »

[mythbuster]

If we just say "well, God did it" as the best explanation, then why do any scientific research at all? If we accept God did it in Science, then it's a steep and slippery slope to no scientific explanations at all.

[husqvarna]

If we just say "well, God did it" as the best explanation, then why do any scientific research at all? If we accept God did it in Science, then it's a steep and slippery slope to no scientific explanations at all.

Could you clarify how this has anything to do with the conversation?  If you're meaning to associate this with Behe, then you need to explain it in the context of his research.  I don't think this is what anyone is saying, thank goodness.

[chemchick]

Frankly, for a university department to post a disclaimer about one of its professors strikes me as rather unprofessional.  If they don't have reason enough to fire him, then they shouldn't go around ostracizing him as they do.  They should just get on with their work.  If Behe is simply not doing scientific work then he's not doing his job, and I think firing him would be perfectly appropriate.  To write sensational disclaimers, however, says more about institutional insecurity than anything else.

Anthroid, you can do better than this lame sort of response.  I've been shocked at how much this is resorted to on the forum.  And as I try to constantly say (because I imagine people misinterpret my defense) I'm not trying to argue that ID is right... I really am not very interested in that.  I'm trying to argue that the vast majority of dismissals of ID are simply ignorant.  When you have to resort to saying that someone "isn't a real scientist", you've stopped looking at their work and started focusing on the person.

I am not part of Lehigh's faculty, so I don't know why they felt it important to post the disclaimer, but here's my guess.  If this were a purely scientific argument, the person who held to an unsupportable premise would be simply ignored.  They wouldn't be invited to give talks at conferences, people wouldn't cite their papers, etc.  However the fact that "ID vs. evolution" has become a public issue changes things.  I could easily believe that the Lehigh faculty thought their silence would be seen as tacit approval, hence the disclaimer.

About "dismissals of ID" being ignorant....well for one thing, as I said, it is not science (no supernatural powers allowed).  Proponents of ID are trying to change the definition of science by putting it up as an alternative to the bona fide scientific theory of evolution and having it taught in science classes.  Furthermore, it has no hypotheses--a scientific theory doesn't merely explain natural phenomena, it makes testable predictions.  Also from what I've read the people who support ID spend an inordinate amount of time trying to debunk evolution (like Behe's failed irreducible complexity argument) instead of saying what's superior about ID.  Are these criticisms ignorant?

[chemchick]

But naturalistic in what sense?  Naturalistic in the sense that you can't cue God to answer the tough questions just because they're tough, but certainly not naturalistic as a matter of conclusive ontology.  Science has no credentials to speak on this one way or the other.  This is what confuses the matter more than anything... to say that science is naturalistic means nothing more than that it brackets out the God question for its particular inquiry.  This does not mean that it must be naturalistic in anything more than a penultimate sense.

What many people misunderstand is that just because gravity is a scientific law does not mean that there is no place for God as creator or sustainer of a creation that is defined by such laws.  I don't think finding a "scientific explanation" for something in any way competes with a religious explanation.  The problem comes when one tries to replace the other.

Hvernon,
    Sorry, I posted before checking new posts.  But I think we are in agreement actually.  It sounds like you are saying science and religion are separate, different entities.  I agree totally.  Science can't answer the big philosophical questions like "why are we here", it's not designed for that (ha ha).  It also isn't designed to say anything about god, so it doesn't and shouldn't.  So I suppose you could certainly say that god designed evolution and all the natural laws like gravity.  You just couldn't support that statement scientifically (there are no experiments that could be run). 

     Just as an aside, Dawkins is being a bit unscientific himself when he is so loudly atheistic.  Just as you can't prove god exists, you can't prove god doesn't exist either.

     I hope I'm not misunderstanding your point here.

[husqvarna]

The ignorant aspect of such criticism is the double standard of it.  Nothing about God or anything supernatural should be assumed by any scientific theory.  To assume a non-theistic grounding to a scientific theory is therefore inappropriate.  Scientists must do their work entirely apart from questions about God.  What the ID argument (as I understand it) is saying is that current evolutionary theory oversteps its boundaries in insisting on a non-theistic basis to its inquiry, which should only bracket out the question of God when doing empirical research.  

The ID people are certainly not innocent in this either.  I think a lot of what they do is just dumb, and I think it's right to criticize that.  To say that they're simply not doing "science", however, is to ignore the legitimate criticisms they have of the prevailing notion of evolutionary theory.  I think the point of ID is perfectly acceptable, and I think the responses to it have all focused on the introduction of God to the equation without recognition of the legitimate criticism that ID offers to militantly atheist scientists like Dawkins... we cannot assume that just because the method of a particular mode of inquiry is non-theistic, all matters related to scientific theory need to be conclusively non-theistic.  Sometimes this leads to less helpful scientific theory.  Their argument has been, whether or not it stands up to the test, that evolutionary theory not only bracketing out God for the sake of inquiry but also insisting on God's non-participation as a matter of conclusion simply does not explain evolution well enough.  Their criticism is not of evolution as a scientific theory or of any empirical work done in evolutionary biology.  Their criticism is in how the theory is interpreted and how this interpretation affects the reception of empirical results.

There is nothing wrong or unscientific about making this point.  That's what I find rather immature about the criticisms of ID.  I'm certainly ready to accept that ID has a lot wrong with it (though I'm not familiar with any of the literature).  But arguments against any substantive claims of the ID community have been few and far between in this forum.  Maybe the answer is to read some of the books and articles and then post about it.  I don't feel like bothering, and many other posters have expressed that they don't intend to dive into it either.  That's fine.  But that's no reason to dismiss the whole thing as "unscientific".

[husqvarna]

Just as an aside, Dawkins is being a bit unscientific himself when he is so loudly atheistic.  Just as you can't prove god exists, you can't prove god doesn't exist either.

This is certainly true.  The question is, why isn't he ridiculed like Behe?  I haven't seen their bibliographies but I'm quite sure that Dawkins' is much more impressive... in this sense people have a point, and of course Dawkins is simply much more of an established scientist than Behe or any in the ID camp are.  But that doesn't change the fact that in this review, in his recent books, and elsewhere, Dawkins is acting like just as much of a fool as any ID apologist.

[mythbuster]

current evolutionary theory oversteps its boundaries in insisting on a non-theistic basis to its inquiry, which should only bracket out the question of God when doing empirical research. 

When you say this, do you mean Dawkins explicitly? I ask in relative ignorance as my understanding of evolution does not inherently posit God one way or the other.

I agree that Dawkins' extremism should not be held up as the beliefs of all scientists.

[husqvarna]

current evolutionary theory oversteps its boundaries in insisting on a non-theistic basis to its inquiry, which should only bracket out the question of God when doing empirical research. 

When you say this, do you mean Dawkins explicitly? I ask in relative ignorance as my understanding of evolution does not inherently posit God one way or the other.

I agree that Dawkins' extremism should not be held up as the beliefs of all scientists.

I say it as my assumption of what ID people are saying.  So I suppose I don't say it with Dawkins specifically in mind, although he would certainly fall into that.  The point of Behe et al. is the randomness issue, isn't it?  That's what the idea of "irreducible complexity" counters, at least.  Because whether or not someone consciously says something about God, to say that it is random says that there is no order (or order-er) behind it.  So they may lump you in with the rest- I'm not exactly sure.

But you are right to bring this up in that my characterization of ID may be skewed by the extent to which Dawkins is a part of this discussion.  Really this is the blind leading the blind, as none of us seem to have any first hand experience with ID.  Wish I could tell you more.

[helpful]

Do the evolutionary theorists ever say what caused the Big Bang? Do these theorists talk to astrophysicists about this?

[chemchick]

I say it as my assumption of what ID people are saying.  So I suppose I don't say it with Dawkins specifically in mind, although he would certainly fall into that.  The point of Behe et al. is the randomness issue, isn't it?  That's what the idea of "irreducible complexity" counters, at least.  Because whether or not someone consciously says something about God, to say that it is random says that there is no order (or order-er) behind it.  So they may lump you in with the rest- I'm not exactly sure.

But you are right to bring this up in that my characterization of ID may be skewed by the extent to which Dawkins is a part of this discussion.  Really this is the blind leading the blind, as none of us seem to have any first hand experience with ID.  Wish I could tell you more.

Although I am neither a philosopher nor a biologist, I have read a bit about what the ID people say.  Hvernon, their arguments are not nearly as nuanced as yours.  You seem to want an "a-theist" approach (as in amoral) rather than a flat-out "non-theistic" approach.  The ID people have problems with:

--"gaps" in the fossil record and, related to this, the descent of macro-organisms from more ancient macro-organisms
--the idea that randomness can lead to something as complex as humans or the eye (this is the argument that Behe is known for)

The latter is the bigger issue, I believe, than the former.  Some years ago creationists focused on gaps...where was the "missing link" and things like that.  Well, archaeologists have found "intermediate" species, such as archeopteryx.  So now you don't hear so much about this.

The randomness argument is essentially that we humans and other complex beings didn't arrive here by the randomness that seems to dominate mutations and natural selection.  The problem with this argument is that natural selection--the driving force behind evolution--is not random.  If a being has some mutation in its DNA that makes it weaker--let's say a lion is born with a mutation in its DNA that impairs its sight--it isn't going to be a successful hunter, will therefore die without leaving many offspring.  That mutation is hence selected out.  If another lion is born with a mutation that improves its sight, it will be a better hunter and live long enough to produce enough offspring that might inherit this genetic improvement.  So the ID argument that complex beings can't evolve through random mutations rests on a misunderstanding.

[chemchick]

Do the evolutionary theorists ever say what caused the Big Bang? Do these theorists talk to astrophysicists about this?

I don't know if evolutionary theorists talk about the Big Bang, evolution is (from my perspective) in the field of biology and I don't think there's a whole lot of cross-pollination.

There was an earlier post about how life could arise on earth from the primordial soup...and how this relates to the Big Bang.  Well, I believe the current understanding is that at the start of the universe there was all this energy/mass in a small amount of space.  This energy/mass then expanded outward--the Big Bang.  I don't know what constituted this energy/mass, but I can say that the universe is/was mostly hydrogen, the simplest of the elements.  Hydrogen can be fused into heavier nuclei forming the elements helium, lithium, etc....all the way to the "elements of life" such as carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and phosphorus.  In fact, you can find carbon-containing molecules around nebula and (I think...) the interstellar medium (the empty space between stars and such).  I think the current understanding is that comets sweep through some of these areas and some of these carbon-containing molecules stick.  Then all you need is for some of these comets to smack into an early earth and have it spew all those molecules into the atmosphere.  Throw in some lightning and you can get ammonia, methane, and so on.

I don't know if this is what you were looking for....sorry to blather if not.

[anthroid]

hvernon's original point (or one of them) is that ID is not about science but the philosophy of science.  No, sorry, but it is not.  ID is political, and it is Biblically based ultimately, and its proponents claim to be scientists.  It is therefore absolutely legitimate to examine whether, in fact, what they are doing is science, and whether its proponents are in fact scientists.  Behe is not doing science as defined by his peers, or by me, and ID is not science as defined by scientists or by me.  ID works on rather tortuous logic.  One of the most famous examples is that of the stereoscopic eye.  The stereoscopic eye is so complex and integrated and really is such an amazing organ that there is no way in the world it could have evolved randomly or through mutation.  Ergo, there is no evolution but an intelligent designer.  The complicated stereoscopic eye must have been created by a god since there is no way it could exist in nature.

Nonsense.  This is the use, or misuse, of logic and philosophy based on completely false first principles--a Biblical premise at its heart--attempting to prove a conclusion already arrived at, and it is intellectually fraudalent and pretty far removed from the scientific method.  One starts with the null hypothesis, not with a hypothesis you believe to already be true. 

Dawkins, and the rest of us, are exactly right to demand that proponents of ID, who claim--once again--to be standard scientists subject their work to their peers for review and approval.  ID proponents flat out refuse to do that.

[abu_fletcher]

So much has been posted here since I signed off last night that all I can do here is pick and choose a few things to respond to.

What is wrong with saying that The Big Bang was caused by 'a god' or some sort of non-human being and that the rest was evolution? Isn't that a middle position that reconciles both religion and science?

There's nothing basically incompatible with saying that "god" causes X with X being something we don't yet fully understand.  But saying so, closes the book, so to speak, on the matter and in this way is counter-productive.

BTW, there are indeed physicts who now go "beyond the big bang" and posit conditions which led up to this explosive event. 

[abu_fletcher]

The ignorant aspect of such criticism is the double standard of it.  Nothing about God or anything supernatural should be assumed by any scientific theory.  To assume a non-theistic grounding to a scientific theory is therefore inappropriate.  Scientists must do their work entirely apart from questions about God.  

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here.  Yes, god cannot be a formal (explanatory) part of any theory one would call scientific.  Therefore, science as an enterprise is by definition "non-theistic."  Of course, there's no need for scientists themselves (as human beings) to be strictly non-theistic.  They just can't bring it into work.

What the ID argument (as I understand it) is saying is that current evolutionary theory oversteps its boundaries in insisting on a non-theistic basis to its inquiry, which should only bracket out the question of God when doing empirical research.  

Again I don't understand this.  Of course, science (and evolutionary theory is just an instances of doing science) must operate on a non-theistic basis.  There is no "theistic science," i.e. a science that assumes god as an explanatory power (no matter how minimal).  But maybe you're using "non-theistic" in a different sense than I'm understanding it. 

[stapler]

If we just say "well, God did it" as the best explanation, then why do any scientific research at all? If we accept God did it in Science, then it's a steep and slippery slope to no scientific explanations at all.

Could you clarify how this has anything to do with the conversation?  If you're meaning to associate this with Behe, then you need to explain it in the context of his research.  I don't think this is what anyone is saying, thank goodness.

Behe's arguments over the years have fit the following template: phenomenon "x" is so complicated and poorly understood that it must be guided by a supernatural being.

I know that the above sounds like it must be some kind of unfair caricature of Behe's ideas, but sadly, it's not.  It's another version of the "God of the gaps".  The problem with this kind of thinking is that it doesn't lead to anything - it's a dead end.  I think that this is what mythbuster was trying to get at, above.  We can decide that the disappearance of salt crystals in water is unexplainable magic controlled by a deity, or we can get to work and eventually figure out that sodium and chlorine ions are separating in solution.  The supernatural perspective won't lead to the answer, but a materialist perspective and a zest for experiment (as Sagan used to say) certainly will.

One thing we've learned in a few centuries worth of research is that 1) it's the naturalistic / materialistic viewpoint that leads to meaningful understanding of the natural world around us; and 2) phenomena that seem almost magical in one era can become remarkably well understood in the next.  Oh, and 3) "I don't know" is a perfectly valid and appropriate standpoint for a scientist to have on an issue - there is no requirement to tie all loose ends with appeals to the supernatural (I believe anthroid alluded to this earlier).

Behe is invoking miracles to explain things he doesn't understand.  That's his prerogative, but it isn't science and isn't going to lead to future understanding.