The Heart of Intelligent Design Theory
June 16, 2006 Posted by Amy Hall
I thought it would be helpful to define the main idea behind ID theory. Nancy Pearcey explains it simply and clearly:
Critics say the concept of design does not belong in science. They argue that it is a “science-stopper” that puts an end to scientific investigation. The head of an evolution advocacy group recently told CNN that design theory is “not a very good science, because it's basically giving up and saying: We can't explain this; therefore, God did it.”
But that accusation is based on a misunderstanding. The process of detecting design is thoroughly empirical. In fact, it is already an important element in several areas of science….
Today astronomers involved in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) have worked out extensive criteria for recognizing when a radio signal is an encoded message and when it is just a natural phenomenon, like a pulsar. In other words, they have developed criteria for distinguishing between products of design and products of natural causes.
The same distinction is made in several other fields: Detectives are trained to distinguish murder (design) from death by natural causes. Archeologists have criteria for distinguishing when a stone has the distinctive chip marks of a primitive tool (design), and when its shape is simply the result of weathering and erosion. Insurance companies….Cryptologists….[etc.]
It should be possible to formalize the thinking process used in all these examples, which is exactly what design theory does. Its central tenet is that the characteristic marks of design can be empirically detected. As the title of one book puts it, in nature we can uncover Signs of Intelligence. [Total Truth, pp. 181-182, highlighted emphasis mine]
In other words, ID scientists aren't just postulating a God to explain what they can't understand; it's not merely an ad hoc explanation. Intelligent design is the best explanation for the scientific facts based on our knowledge of the natural world and intelligent agents.
Scientists who believe in naturalism understandably don't want to “give up” on finding an explanation that fits their philosophy. However, we ought to recognize that when they say ID means “giving up” on finding answers, they're really just asserting that the true answer will be found within a naturalistic framework–but that is the very thing in question and cannot merely be asserted. Isn't it possible that their commitment to not “give up”–which they consider noble–is actually foolish, and that their dogmatic refusal to consider ID only means they'll be searching forever for a naturalistic answer that doesn't exist?
Related posts:
- Intelligent Design Lecture
- Vonnegut on the Tribal Thinking of Scientists
- Antony Flew on Intelligent Design, Islam … and the Establishment Clause
- Design and Knowledge
- God is Never the Answer
- Confusion About Science and Religion – Part One
Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Main Page, Philosophy, Science
content rss
June 16th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
ID is pseudo science, and I'm going to explain this very simply in the hope that it sinks in:
Let's say a scientist wants to figure out what causes gravity to work. He (or she) then postulates several theories as to what makes it behave the way it does. Many of them are disproven, but some stand up to scrutiny and are modified by the process.
Now let's say a scientist comes in and says, “I know! Gravity works because there is an intelligent designer behind the process!”
All the scientific community then rejoices because we have finally found the answer! There is dancing in the streets because no longer do we have to figure out the NATURAL reasons for gravity working.
You know, now that I think about it, maybe ID is the way to go. It certainly is a lot easier than doing research.
June 16th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Even better, let's do that same thing with cancer research.
Scientific researcher #1: “I know! The reason cancer spreads is because of sin in the world! The Intelligent Designer allows it!”
Researcher #2: “Yay! I'm so glad you figured that out! Boy, isn't it great to have answered that question once and for all?”
June 16th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
Dear Anonymous, I sure would like to have a name of sorts to refer to you by. Regardless, I first want to thank you for your simplistic thought experiments which attempt to point out a flaw in ID theory. After simply analyzing them, you have failed to accomplish your goal on a few accounts. First, you wrongy assume that ID amounts to creationism. This is clear when you accuse ID theorists of tossing 'God in the Gaps' of our knowledge of a scientific question. Not only is this a misunderstanding of what ID is, it wrongly assumes that ID fails to do research like any other researcher which reasons from the emipircal evidence in a deductive way; and instead simply says 'I give up, but bless God he does it.” It would be wrong to give up on any research project and say 'I don't know, God or a blind evolution must be making it happen.' You are right here. Neither Theists nor evolutionary naturalists can help themselves to such sloppy deductive arguments.
Second, I don't know if you haven't read ID theorists like Behe, Dembski, among others; but they nowhere are arguing that ID=God created everything or ID='I give up' or “ID=the be all end all explanation to every scietific question'. Instead, ID is a research program that asks why certain mechanisms appear with such precision as they do no 'how do they work'. This is a question of origin NOT function. Naturalism says the origin is a blind, random, natural process. ID says, that is not the only option, for the origin of something is not itself an empirical question. It's function is, but not its origin. Rather, questions of origin draw on our other intellectual categories: metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, etc.
Finally, you wrongly assume that ID theorists aren't interested in scientific advances/discovery and just copout with the 'God' bit. For one thing, your cancer analogy no more establishes evolution over ID or the other way around, because treating cancer is a functional question not an origins one. For another thing, ID theorists are challenging scientism and empirical rationalism which say only science and the 5 senses give us knowledge of the world. ID says, 'okay, if you want to hold that philosophical position, let's critique it on its own merits and not simply pedal it as the only way of reading the data. ' The bottom line is, science isn't science when it traverses into fields of ethics, philosophy, and so on. This takes it out of its realm and into other disciplines. Even Steven J. Gould agrees on this note. . See his book Rocks of Ages.
peace
June 16th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
Chad, thanks for your response. In all fairness to “Anonymous,” he can't respond to your argument because I've blocked his present IP address. I do know his name, but I don't want to give it out unless it becomes absolutely necessary. It was written by an ex-boyfriend who's been harassing me for a few years now. He's a Christian at a seminary so he may believe what he's saying, or he may just be trying to stir things up for me, so I apologize for the time you spent with your response. When I catch his comments in time, I usually delete them, but I've been missing a few lately (he moves from computer to computer).
However, I will say that his words–whether or not he believes them–are representative of what many people think, so I'm sure your response will be helpful to others, and anyone who would like to continue the conversation with Chad is very welcome.
June 16th, 2006 at 10:25 pm
Wow. Apologetic harrassment. That's a new one!
By the way, Total Truth in an awesom book. I loaned my copy out, but I sure did mark the pages up before I did.
June 16th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
I do know how to spell…just haven't gotten into the habit of previewing before I post…
June 16th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
Could you please post pointers to peer reviewed papers on Intelligent Design? Evolution Theory is currently the best existing theory explaining the origin of life on Earth, and there are many sub-theories, many controversial, within it. Get in line, submit your research and papers. Evolution Theory is science, not philosophy, it is rigorous, it is *falsifiable*. Evolution Theory would pretty much be history if the skeleton of a dog or something was discovered in the fossil record where only trilobites reside. How exactly is ID falsifiable? Maybe life on earth was intelligently designed, but then where did the designer come from? Maybe he/she/it evolved via natural selection.
June 16th, 2006 at 11:00 pm
Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640
How is ID falsifiable? Show that the object(s) in question are the result of unintelligent causes and ID is falsified! Even the likes of Richard Dawkins acknowledge that living things appear to be designed. He then argues that they are not designed. Is this not proof that ID is falsifiable? ID's critics argue that ID is false.
June 17th, 2006 at 12:41 am
Here's one illustration of how naturalistic evolution is driven by naturalistic philosophy rather than the evidence of science:
Richard Dawkins famously said, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”
Many others have made similar statements. The idea that everything has the obvious appearance of being designed is not controversial. If one were to take things at face value (based on our knowledge of how to detect things made by a designer), then one would accept it. So why reject it? If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, why conclude it's an anteater? Because that's what their philosophy–not their observation of the natural world–dictates.
So they simply assert that natural selection “achieves the aspect of purpose without the intervention of a purposer, and it has produced a vast plan without the concurrent action of a planner” (George Gaylord Simpson in This View of Life). But why should we believe this if the evidence before our eyes says something different? On the basis of their faith in naturalism?
Even Darwin himself said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
ID work has shown that to be the case. There are systems even within a single cell that all function together. Without even one of the parts, none of the parts operate, and the cell dies. So a) how would the cells live to develop these mutations, and b) why would natural selection keep choosing parts that were completely useless until all the parts were collected–as if it could see into the future? The answers naturalistic evolutionists offer are far more convoluted and less likely than the explanation that the system came together as part of a design from a designer.
And these things don't even touch the issue of information and the language of DNA. Information and language have never, in any way ever observed, come about from anything but an intelligent agent. It's quite a leap of faith to say that this is the only case that is different.
(Your question about God's designer takes us into philosophy, so I'll leave it for now and stick to science. That's a question for another post!)
June 17th, 2006 at 12:47 am
Justin, Pearcey really does give an excellent, clear, easily understood summary of the central issues of the design controversy in her chapters on the subject–specified complexity, irreducible complexity, information, naturalism, etc.
Her book is really incredible because she gives an overview of so many complex ideas in a way that can be understood by readers who have no previous training in the subjects.
June 17th, 2006 at 11:13 am
thanks, Amy. I don't feel like my time is at all wasted. In fact, I responded as I did due to the wide-spread popular level take on ID that Anonymous gave. It seems like the court cases that ruled against ID being taught as an alternative theory really spawned alot of arguments similar to your acquaintance's. These are arguments which do not attack the substance of ID theory head on, but instead they make emotionallly driven Strawman arguments. That, Tim, is what I went after!
June 17th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
In truth Justin, I think if a person decides to conduct a blog that is open to the public they must expect that anyone with computer access may post to it. My name is David C. Harris, and I don't have any problem with people knowing my identity – I only post anon because I know Amy feels compelled to delete whatever I say. (This is unfortunate because occasionally I do have good things to say!)
But truthfully, I do believe what I wrote about ID (as I believe the Bible does not conflict with evolution), and I don't see it as a “strawman” – ID, as has been pointed out by Chad, crosses over into philosophy, metaphysics, ethics, and other disciplines which do not pertain to the hard sciences such as chemistry, microbiology, and molecular genetics. Hard science is not concern with those “ultimate questions” such as origin. It is concerned with natural causes – that's what research is all about.
So the ID proponents seem to want it both ways: They want scientists to search for ultimate answers (such as origin), and they want them to draw the conclusions of believers. I think all of this would be a non-issue if people (Christians) would take on a more intelligent reading of Genesis 1 – evolution is not a threat to the creation account.
All of this, by the way, stems from the discussion on the merit of apologetics – and my own contention is that modern apologetics (in the conservative fundamentalist settings) lean more heavily on these other peripheral disciplines (such as philosophy, metaphysics, and ethics) rather than good old fashioned theology – the study of God.
So it would be my personal hope that the apologists of the world (in Southern California mostly) would develop into full-fledged theologians.
(Of course, this post may very well be deleted before you read it, but I wanted to put it up to let it be known that I'm not as terrible as I've been painted to be. Even though I read this blogsite I have not been in touch with Ms. Hall for several years and mean no harm, and I do think this is a good blog to read on occasion.)
In him,
DCH
PS: Amy, I'll make a deal with you – leave this up and I'll only “harass” you once in a great while!
June 17th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Ha ha. That's very funny. Ho ho.
DCH
June 17th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
(Actually I just change the virtual IP I'm at when I feel like posting!)
Dave
June 17th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
David, just as I don't see how changing your virtual IP would change your service provider (although, maybe it's possible), emails do count as being “in touch,” and not even a month has gone by since you sent the last one, against my will.
I'm sorry to have to take this up publicly–I've tried to preserve your dignity as long as possible, but no private confrontation from me or even your former best friend has had any effect to get you to respect my boundaries, so now I'm taking it to the wider church. This is not love on your part, it's an attempt to control.
Since you can't get me to respond to your emails, you come on this blog to mock the things I say and care about just in an attempt to get me to interact with you. Your behavior is manipulative and abusive.
I do not make deals as to how much you can harass me. This is not up for discussion. Let me make this perfectly clear: nothing has changed. You are still not allowed to contact me privately or on the blog, and I, Roger, and Tim will continue to enforce that. I'm leaving your post up here because you yourself state your full name and condemn yourself. It's clear that you still will not admit you need help dealing with this–or even understand there's a problem, and as long as that's the case, for the sake of others, anyone who looks up your name as they're considering hiring you for ministry will see these words from your own hand. And if any of those people require evidence in order to determine what has actually taken place, they are welcome to email me by clicking on my name in the “About The A-Team” section of our blog. I'm not a sensationalistic person. I stand by what I've said here, and people can judge for themselves.
I hope you understand this has nothing to do with being vindictive. I don't do this out of animosity, or anger, or to punish you. I'm doing this in the interest of the emotional health of both of us (and for others who might be affected by this kind of behavior in the future) and out of respect for myself and the boundaries that have proven to be required in this situation. My greatest hope and prayer is that you will have a change of heart.
You may continue to disrespect this, but I'm going to maintain this boundary on my end with whatever means prove to be necessary.
Again, I apologize to you, readers, for having to see these things dealt with here. If you have a moment, we could both use your prayers.
June 17th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
Dave, the fact that you need to change your IP in order to post a comment here should be an indicator that we would rather not have to put up with your continued harrassment of Amy. If I sent you a check, do you think you could buy a clue?
June 17th, 2006 at 10:15 pm
Don't be sorry; I feel sorry that you have to deal with it.
June 18th, 2006 at 12:47 am
Forgive me for posting, Tim, I was genuinely trying to be constructive on this issue.
I'll move on, but for what it's worth there are two sides to every story, and this shrill response is a bit of an over-reaction. I'm the one in this situation who has been trying to make peace and reconcile, and clearly Amy isn't at that place. Maybe you can appreciate that. Jesus said peacemakers are blessed, right? That's where my heart is at, truly.
Sorry again to cause such a fuss. Take care,
Dave
June 18th, 2006 at 12:50 am
Amy, my greatest hope and prayer is that you too will have a change of heart and see that I am genuinely wanting to make peace with you and reconcile our friendship. I honesty didn't know you were so far from wanting that. I'm sorry. I'll leave.
Dave
June 20th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
I think Pearcy mischaracterizes the objection to ID as unscientific. Per your quote, she indicates that the concept of design is the hang-up. Actually, most scientists fundamentally reject ID because it violates several scientific tenets, like falsifiability. ID proponents acknowledge the problems and attempt to bypass them by advocating for, in effect, a re-definition of science that allows for the supernatural.
But let’s examine the “concept of design”. The examples Pearcy provides are an offshoot of one of the “proofs” of ID: specified complexity. According to this criterion, if a system is complex AND contains specific (non-random) information, then one can infer that some sort of intelligence must be behind it. Critics of specified complexity have called it a form of argument from ignorance, and point out that such systems can even occur within naturalistic processes. (For a specific treatment of the SETI example, see here).
Intelligent design is the best explanation for the scientific facts based on our knowledge of the natural world and intelligent agents.
It would appear the vast majority of scientists, whether they adhere to naturalism, theism, or any other “ism” would disagree with you. Besides opposition from the American Association for the Advancement of Science to ID, 38 Nobel Laureates issued a statement in 2005 saying “intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific…”. Consider also the words of noted evolutionist and practicing Catholic Ken Miller, who in describing his opposition to ID, said it makes God look like a ”comic, overworked, and rather slipshod magician.”
Scientists who believe in naturalism understandably don’t want to “give up” on finding an explanation that fits their philosophy.
I dealt with the charge that scientists are motivated by a philosophy by pointing out, among other things, that almost all scientists of various philosophies agree on evolution.
Earlier, you purported to identify the real motivations of naturalist scientists (see, e.g., Ruse) from certain statements. Allow me to refute your contention that ID is about science, not religion, by doing something similar.
William Dembski, one of the leading proponents of ID and author of several books on the subject, has said, “ID is part of God’s general revelation…” “Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology (materialism), which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I’ve found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ.” Writing in Touchstone, a Christian magazine: “The world is a mirror representing the divine life…. Intelligent design readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.”
Phillip E. Johnson, considered the father of ID movement and program advisor for the Center for Science and Culture (whose mission is “to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God”), wrote in a foreword to a book on creationism that,
Nancy Pearcey, with whom you’re familiar, was once an advocate of young-earth creationism. From 1977-1991 she was the editor of the young-earth creationist Bible-Science Newsletter. In a 1993 article entitled “Teaching Creationism,” she wrote, “
I could go on, but I think you get the point that many of the leading lights of ID are explicit in their intention for the theory, as well as their background that undergirds this intention.
June 20th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Actually, most scientists fundamentally reject ID because it violates several scientific tenets, like falsifiability.
Here's my previous response to the issue of ID and falsifiability:
How is ID falsifiable? Show that the object(s) in question are the result of unintelligent causes and ID is falsified! Even the likes of Richard Dawkins acknowledge that living things appear to be designed. He then argues that they are not designed. Is this not proof that ID is falsifiable? ID's critics argue that ID is false.
The rest of your objection commits the genetic fallacy. The fact that many proponents of ID are Christian no more invalidates ID than the fact that Richard Dawkins is a militant atheist invalidates the macroevolutionary thesis that he espouses.
June 20th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
A quick response for now…
In addition to what Tim said, here are some examples:
1. ID says, scientifically speaking, life does not come from non-life (not to mention something out of nothing). Someone could show examples where it does happen.
2. ID shows that complex systems within the cell only work as a unit and do not function without all of their parts, therefore there's no purpose for a single part on its own, and no reason to “select” it (since it would offer disadvantages as a non-working part rather than an advantage). Someone (and I know they're working on this) could give a plausible explanation as to how the parts could have been chosen one by one in a way that the organism could have survived.
3. ID says meaningful information only comes from an intelligent source. Someone could show an example where random causes created a complex, meaningful message.
So far, nobody has been able to falsify ID in any of these ways.
Out of curiosity, what would falsify naturalistic Darwinism for you? (For example, Darwin said that if #2 could be shown, then his theory would be falsified.)
June 20th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
Okay, here's the rest of my response.
Earlier, you purported to identify the real motivations of naturalist scientists (see, e.g., Ruse) from certain statements. Allow me to refute your contention that ID is about science, not religion, by doing something similar.
Robert, I think you've missed my point entirely. My whole point was that both sides have philosophical motivations, and therefore, the motivations do not invalidate either side (that was the subject of the whole post!). The thing in question is the evidence, and that's what ought to be examined, not the motivations. I don't care what's driving either side. We ought to look at which side is more reasonable based on the evidence.
In other words, the playing field needs to be leveled. One side is pretending to be neutral (when it's not) while invalidating the other side for not being neutral. Everyone is driven by philosophy whether it's a worldview that posits a God or a worldview that does not posit a God. That was the whole point of my blog post that contained the Ruse quote. You're welcome to argue (we encourage it!) but make sure you read what I'm writing carefully and completely, or we're just going to go around in circles!
I dealt with the charge that scientists are motivated by a philosophy by pointing out, among other things, that almost all scientists of various philosophies agree on evolution.
I responded to that on the other post, and in the post itself, with a specific example illustrating how that is not the case, including an explanation of why many theists agree.
advocating for, in effect, a re-definition of science that allows for the supernatural.
You're exactly illustrating the problem here. What, in science, disallows for the supernatural? Nothing! Science is about observing the world, and following the evidence where it leads to discover what is true about the world. In what way does that automatically disallow the supernatural? What if it's true that the supernatural exists and has had an effect on the world? It would be unscientific to rule that out. Only naturalism disallows the supernatural. That's philosophy, not science. And it's an extremely recent view in the history of science, at that.
Critics of specified complexity have called it a form of argument from ignorance, and point out that such systems can even occur within naturalistic processes.
I read what you pointed to, and as far as I can tell, it did not give examples of how complex, specified information arises from natural processes. Also, this is not an argument from ignorance if you're arguing that, in principle, based on everything we've ever observed through science, certain things (like information) do not occur without an intelligent agent. Or that in principle natural selection cannot choose a system piece by piece that only works together. In other words, they're not saying, “We can't understand it, so it must be God!” They're saying that these things point to an intelligent agent in principle.
June 20th, 2006 at 11:54 pm
It was Steven Meyer, I think, who responded to the “argument from ignorance” charge by pointing out that in every instance of specified complexity in which the causal history is known that cause has been an intelligent agent. It is not an argument that we do not know how an instance of specified complexity comes about; rather, it is based on what we do know about how specified complexity comes about.
June 21st, 2006 at 1:17 am
Well said.
June 21st, 2006 at 12:51 pm
I just recently finished reading Total Truth and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I have recommended it to several people and will continue to recommend it. However, Nancy's discussions on origins and origin science is a tad muddled and I believe her approach toward defending ID ultimately undermines the entire thesis of her book, that being a Christian having an entire life governed by the total truth of Christianity.
Here's why I say that:
Probably the main talking point of ID proponents when defending their position is to distinguish themselves from biblical creationists, and more importantly, the identification of the “designer” as the revealed God of the Bible. The idea in their mind is that by leaving the “designer” undentified, it gives them an audience with the secular community that the debate is not about religious convictions.
Nancy seems to have bought into this approach. At least this is how I read her, for example, in footnote 70 on page 415 of her book. She attempts to argue that while biblical creationists are correct in starting their position with the Bible (what she argues for in her books that Christians should do in establishing a worldview for their particular field), yet in the instance of defending origins and ID, Christians should begin with evidence an unbelieving world finds “credible,” rather than what the Bible reveals about a creator. This assumes, though, that evidence is neutral and secular sinners can be reasoned with to conclude the “credible” evidence is compelling.
There are a handful of reason's why her buying into the standard ID apologetic is detrimental to her work:
1) This is the complete opposite of her entire argument. In fact, in the earlier introductory chapters of her book, she points out that unbelievers need a divinely changed heart to properly formulate a worldview. But when it comes to ID arguments, the evidence apparently stands on its own.
2). Moreover, the entire notion that ID proponents can leave the designer's identity to be defined in the realm of individual preference is simplistic and naive. It is fairly obvious the secular world recognizes the issue comes down to identifying a designer and to pretend religious convictions (supernatural theism as opposed to natural atheism) has nothing to do with this debate only stirs up more rolled eyes on the part of serious minded thinkers.
3). As a Christian, Nancy (and other IDers), by pretending we don't need to identify the designer, only marginalize their faith and in turn, dishonor the God of heaven they are suppose to be defending. The Pslams for example are replete with praises of God's people called to tell forth the works of our creator. We make that testimony before the entire world, unapologetically, without feigning some pretended neutrality as to who or what the designer is.
4). Nancy, as well as many of the ID shakers, believe the issues of the days of creation and the age of the earth are secondary matters of no importance and it is foolish for Christians to even address it and such debates should be left out of the discussion when talking with Darwinians. However, the issue of the age of the earth is the very thing which propells the arguments of Darwinians. It is way beyond just haggling with them over their slavish devotion to materialistic naturalism. The driving force of evolution is the idea of decent with modification and natural selection over periods of millions, even billions of years. It is naive for IDers to ignore this, especially Christians supposedly submitted to the authority of God's Word.
Now don't get me wrong, I appreciate the heart of what IDers are wanting to do, but I think these areas need to be thought through with more care.
I have been doing a series of lectures on evolution, ID and creationism for my volunteer group where I work. A couple of articles were helpful in preparing for my critique of ID.
The Sufficiency of Scripture in Apologetics (PDF format)
Dr. Carl Wieland's critique of the core arguments of ID
I thought maybe these articles may be good in providing something of an alternative approach to the ID apologetic. At least they will give you something to think about.
Fred
June 23rd, 2006 at 12:08 pm
Fred, thanks for the comment.
Here are my thoughts about what you've brought up: I think what Pearcey is arguing for is for Christians to develop their work–in their specific field–in light of their total Christian worldview while they're working. In the example of scientists, they have the authority to argue within their field of science to other scientists in order to develop the field of science in the direction of true reality. But that, of course, limits what they can claim within their field. Science can't describe the designer, so scientists (in their work) don't go beyond what they can claim within their field. That's why we also need Christian philosophers in the area of philosophy to develop the ideas within their field for the existence of God, the existence of a moral law, etc., and historians can (within their field) discuss the evidence for the resurrection, etc. And those who are Christian apologists can collect information from all the fields and argue for all of these things, since their job is to argue for an entire worldview
The idea is that the reality of the Christian worldview touches every field of thought, and we all ought to be working towards truth in our field for the glory of God and the good of the world. I see this as something different from evangelism, which obviously would require the full picture of who God is. Not everyone is called to be a full-time apologist/evangelist. Some are called to public work within the field of science. However, even in that case, I'm sure there's still evangelism going on in the lives of the scientists even if it isn't their public work.
But just because ID scientists don't go beyond their field in their work, I don't think they hide their overall worldview, and I don't think this is what Pearcey is asking them to do. As Robert has mentioned, the overall worldview of the Christian ID scientists is no secret–they're very open about their overall beliefs (beliefs that are based on more areas than science) and the God they think is the designer. In their public work as scientists, however, they stay within their field of expertise because that's what they're qualified to address.
I don't see this as giving up an entire life governed by Christianity. I just see this as people developing the truth within their field of work to the fullest extent within their field while at the same time making it clear that they do have an overall view that encompasses all of reality–not just reality that touches on their work (even if they're not arguing for the full view all the time through their public work). For example, my job at work is not to evangelize. My job is to do my particular job in a Christianly way. At the same time, I develop relationships with the people at work wherein they do see my overall Christian worldview and hear the full truth about reality (i.e., the truth about who God is, why we're here, what we need, etc.)
Also, I just think it's good tactics to focus on the most basic thing to begin with in order to open up scientific thought to possibilities in wider areas. We're limited, and we can only do so much at once. Focusing all the attention on one area in a united way could make a real difference.
I'm having trouble putting my thoughts into words on this, and I'm not sure how clearly I was able to explain my thoughts. I hope that made sense!
June 23rd, 2006 at 1:43 pm
I’m not sure you properly understand the concept of falsifiability. A theory is falsifiable if it’s possible in principle to refute it. ID possesses no conceivable experiment that can prove it false, something that ID proponents concede. ID posits the existence of a designer, but includes no way to verify or falsify this claim.
Show that the object(s) in question are the result of unintelligent causes and ID is falsified!
What experiment would possibly show this to you? You’re presupposing a proposition—objects have intelligent causes—then asking for proof of its negative, when it’s incumbent on you to show the validity of the proposition first.
By way of illustration, suppose I claim that all your actions are the result of the influence of creatures called thetans. I say my theory is falsifiable because if you can show your behavior is not thetan-influenced, then it is falsified. You’d rightly respond “Hogwash! You need to show the existence of these thetans first!” See? The validity of my theory supposes the a priori acceptance of my proposition (thetans exist, a designer exists). How can I falsify it based on a non-falsifiable proposition I’m required to accept first? In the words of that great philosopher Homer, “That’s unpossible!”
(Btw, if you didn’t notice, I didn’t pull this illustration out of thin air. The idea that non-observable creatures called “thetans” influence our behavior is believed by Scientologists.)
The rest of your objection commits the genetic fallacy. The fact that many proponents of ID are Christian no more invalidates ID than the fact that Richard Dawkins is a militant atheist invalidates the macroevolutionary thesis that he espouses.
This is the second instance in which I’ve been accused of committing the genetic fallacy. As before, the accusation is incorrect.
If I had simply stated, “ID is not about science because its proponents are fundamentalist Christians,” then the genetic fallacy accusation would hold. But when I actually quote those same proponents in support of my assertion, then it is valid argument. The proponents of ID are explicit in its linkage to religion. William Dembski said in 2005:
Previously, I stated that ID proponents identify the designer as God, which the authors of this blog denied. In light of the quotes I’ve provided, do you still maintain this position?
June 23rd, 2006 at 3:16 pm
The proponents of ID are explicit in its linkage to religion.
Therefore…what? If you say that because ID scientists are motivated by religion, therefore what they present is invalid, that is the genetic fallacy. It doesn't matter in the least if they see the evidence they're presenting as connected to a larger picture of the world. When determining the truth of a person's theory, I don't care if that person is a worshipper of the sun if he's arguing that the earth goes around the sun (this was actually the case of someone named Bruno in the 1500s). The question is, is he right about what he's asserting? Should we reject what Bruno said because he was motivated by religious reasons? That's not logical.
The ID scientists do not assert scientifically that the designer is God. That's outside the scope of their field. But certainly most of them (not all) believe in a God, and most (not all) of those are Christians. The point is that the research is to show what they believe to be true about science (i.e., what's true about the natural world–that it is designed), and they're not trying to prove more than that (i.e., what science can't show about the Designer), even if they believe it.
And again, many scientists are using their research to prove naturalism and disprove religion. So…what? Nothing follows from that at all. The discussion should focus on the evidence at hand, not motivations.
June 23rd, 2006 at 3:40 pm
. ID says, scientifically speaking, life does not come from non-life (not to mention something out of nothing). Someone could show examples where it does happen.
On what scientific basis does ID come to the conclusion that life does not come from non-life? This is merely a proposition without evidence. Remember, arguments from ignorance are not scientifically valid.
As for what ID actually does say on the origins of life, I’ve found precious little. One recent article (for some reason, I can’t hyperlink directly to the article. I keep getting an error when trying to post. Go to discovery.org and search for “On the Origins of Life” by David Berlinski) essentially says, “The scientific model currently does not seem capable of answering the question. Perhaps we should revise the model. Failing that, let’s wait and see.” If there are more explicit views, I’d be happy to read them.
2. ID shows that complex systems within the cell only work as a unit and do not function without all of their parts, therefore there’s no purpose for a single part on its own, and no reason to “select” it (since it would offer disadvantages as a non-working part rather than an advantage). Someone (and I know they’re working on this) could give a plausible explanation as to how the parts could have been chosen one by one in a way that the organism could have survived.
This is the idea of irreducible complexity as propounded by Michael Behe. Supporters of evolution have already answered it, such as in the example of the flagellum. Behe himself admitted while testifying in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that “There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.”
3. ID says meaningful information only comes from an intelligent source. Someone could show an example where random causes created a complex, meaningful message.
This is the idea of specified complexity as propounded by William Dembski. A number of refutations exist. See, for example, Dissecting Dembski’s “Complex Specified Information”.
So far, nobody has been able to falsify ID in any of these ways.
I’m not sure how you can make this statement in light of the volumes of available articles that a simple Google search would reveal. There is also the matter of the scientific community’s near wholesale rejection of ID, which certainly cannot all be explained by philosophical bias.
Out of curiosity, what would falsify naturalistic Darwinism for you? (For example, Darwin said that if #2 could be shown, then his theory would be falsified.)
Easy. If evidence of a creature, e.g., a humanoid, were found in an era that evolution says it should not exist yet, e.g., the Cambrian, that would falsify the theory.
A response to the rest will follow as time allows
June 23rd, 2006 at 4:11 pm
Therefore…what? If you say that because ID scientists are motivated by religion, therefore what they present is invalid, that is the genetic fallacy.
No. I did not say that ID is invalid because its proponents are motivated by religion. What I said is that ID itself is based on religion, as its proponents make clear in the quotes I provided.
Johnson: The intelligent design movement starts with the recognition that 'In the beginning was the Word,' and 'In the beginning God created.'
Dembski: Indeed intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.
Dembski: … intelligent design should be understood as the evidence that God has placed in nature to show that the physical world is the product of intelligence and not simply the result of mindless material forces.
Besides nearly the whole of the scientific community’s rejection of ID as non-scientific, many theistic scientists identify the theory’s religious foundations:
Ken Miller: As the Dover trial showed, ID is nothing more than old-fashioned creationism, distinguished only by its advocates’ willingness to be disingenuous about its origins, motivations and goals.
Theologians agree. “Georgetown University theology professor John F. Haught said that while intelligent-design proponents do not explicitly identify God as the creator of life, the concept is ‘essentially a religious proposition.’”
June 23rd, 2006 at 8:25 pm
Robert, which part of this statement is religious:
In every single observable instance in the natural world where complex, meaningful information has been recorded and passed on through a material substance, the source of that information has been an intelligent agent.
June 23rd, 2006 at 10:00 pm
Robert, I understand falsifiability. What I don't understand is how at 11:43 you can say that ID is not even falsifiable in principle yet by 1:40 you are responding to Amy's claim that “nobody has been able to falsify ID” with an advocacy of a simple Google search that will reveal that ID has been falsified! If “a number of refutations” of Dembski's work on specified complexity exist, then Dembski's work, and hence ID itself, is in principle refutable and falsifiable!
What I think is going on both in your arguments and in the quotes from Haught and Miller is a failure to grasp the distinction between a Christian doctrine of creation and the theory of ID. Some of this failure to distinguish the two is forgivable, for, unfortunately, some ID proponents equivocate the two at times (although they do note the distinction from time to time). To put it succintly, the Christian doctrine of creation (CDC) is not falsifiable. That God has created the world and everything in it and ordains all that occurs is clearly a statement of religious faith. The theory of intelligent design, in and of itself, is vastly different. It simply states that features of the natural world are best explained by a designing intelligence, nothing more. To be sure, ID, which is an empirical theory, is quite compatible with CDC, and this compatibility is what leads Christian proponents of ID to identify the designer as God. But when they do this, they are (again, unfortunately) equivocating between separate things (ID and CDC). In your statements that ID is not falsifiable, you are failing to make a distinction between ID and CDC, taking the fact that CDC is unfalsifiabie as proof that ID is unfalsifiable. Yet when you argue that ID has been falsified, you demonstrate that you have not distinguished between ID and CDC.
June 26th, 2006 at 11:00 am
What I don't understand is how at 11:43 you can say that ID is not even falsifiable in principle yet by 1:40 you are responding to Amy's claim that “nobody has been able to falsify ID” with an advocacy of a simple Google search that will reveal that ID has been falsified!
Timbo, the theory that a designer is responsible for certain features of the universe and of living things is not falsifiable. Arguments advanced in support of this idea may or may not be falsifiable. Your (and Amy’s) mistake is to conflate an argument for ID with ID itself. Take, for example, irreducible complexity.
This idea holds certain systems posses interconnected and interdependent features that could not have arisen during an evolutionary process. The flagellum is one example offered. Blood clotting is another. A number of biologists have shown that these systems are not in fact irreducibly complex; there are animals (e.g., the dolphin) that lack one of the components of the system, but their blood clots all the same. Thus, the idea of irreducible complexity is falsified, but that doesn’t falsify the theory of ID itself. It simply means that the theory of ID is not supported by the concept of irreducible complexity because the latter is shown to be false.
To be clear, I did not actually write that a Google search would show ID has been falsified. If I inferred that ID is falsified by showing that some of its principle arguments are unsound, then I apologize, for that is a mistake.
What I think is going on both in your arguments and in the quotes from Haught and Miller is a failure to grasp the distinction between a Christian doctrine of creation and the theory of ID.
I’m not sure how you come to this conclusion when it is ID that is specifically referred to in practically all the quotes I offer, and not just from Haught and Miller, but from Johnson and Dembski, who are as closest to ID as you can possibly get. Are you arguing that your understanding of ID is more correct than theirs?
June 26th, 2006 at 11:07 am
Amy, I detect no religious part in the statement you provided, but I confess to being unable to discern your point.
June 26th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Okay, so the first part was not religious.
Then what is religious about this statement:
Therefore, in light of what we know about all the previously observed and verified instances, when one comes across a new instance of recorded, complex, meaningful information in the world, it is most reasonable to conclude that this information also came from an intelligent agent (since we have scientifically developed this principle through observation).
June 28th, 2006 at 7:55 pm
Timbo, the theory that a designer is responsible for certain features of the universe and of living things is not falsifiable. Arguments advanced in support of this idea may or may not be falsifiable. Your (and Amy’s) mistake is to conflate an argument for ID with ID itself.
Here is where I think we are talking past one another. According to you, ID is “the theory that a designer is responsible for certain features of the universe and of living things” and therefore is not falsifiable. While I agree with you that the theory you describe is not falsifiable, I disagree with you that the theory you describe is ID. Somewhere above this comment you said that you “detect no religious part” in Amy’s description, and what Amy is describing is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design! In the quotes you offer, which I think is a selective mining of the many things Johnson and Dembski have written, Johnson and Dembski (as I’ve pointed out) equivocate between their Christian understanding of creation and the scientific theory of ID. If you look at what Dembski says in The Design Revolution, you’ll find that he defines ID as such:
“According to intelligent design, the world contains events, objects and structures that exhaust the explanatory resources of undirected natural causes and can be adequately explained only be recourse to intelligent causes.” [page 37]
Thus, if critics can show that the events, objects, and structures in question can be explained by undirected natural causes, ID will be falsified! Now, to be sure, the falsification of ID will have minimal effect on the belief of many that God has created the world. If ID is falsified, the only thing it will show is that such design cannot be reliably detected. An example might help. Because of my belief in the Christian doctrine of divine providence, what happened here was, I believe, an act of God. However, I don’t believe that God’s action in this case is empirically detectable. Thus, the theory that God acted is not falsifiable. When it comes to irreducibly complex systems, my belief is that the presence of specified complexity is a reliable indicator that the system in question was the result of purposeful design. To refute that belief what you can do is show that the presence of specified complexity in the complex system or systems in question is the result of undirected natural causes.
Doing this, however, will have no effect on my (religious) belief that God has created the world and everything in it. All that will change is my belief that such design is empirically detectable. I am perfectly fine with that. I make the distinction between God’s creative activity in the world and the detectability of that creative activity. Just because the former is not falsifiable does not mean that the latter is not falsifiable. The detectability of design is what ID is all about. It is not a religious idea, as I have pointed out here.