Yes, very different people.
I often disagree with both, but for very different reasons.
2 Likes
My condolences for you in your challenges in being a @TSZ moderator. I donât know how you do it!
1 Like
Itâs an addiction! 
2 Likes
I like what youâre trying to do here! If we try to agree on definitions of terms and of the problem to be solved, we have a chance to make progress, and I think thatâs what you are after.
Removing the history and motivations of ID from your first list is good cuz there is never just one narrative. And I have some thoughts which I hope will be helpful. You may know a lot of this, but it leads to my conclusion below.
But MN here stands for Methodological Naturalism, which, if we look at the words, implies we are using a method to determine the natural laws at work. So when looking for natural laws, that is the job of science and thatâs what we should discuss. Thatâs the research and the learning.
But there are at least two issues which are not covered in MN. The first is that the presentation of science typically only includes support for natural causes and explanations, espousing a perhaps unintentional philosophical naturalism (PN), aka materialism. So for example in a science textbook, youâll find only the evidence in favor of naturalist origins of life, and the history of science around this issue, but the actual state of origins research is that we are baffled, and that is typically left out. I agree with David Heddle that in most cases this is not based on an agenda, but does turn out to be misleading.
The second issue is that we humans have always asked questions about our place in the cosmos, wondering if there is more to our existence. Can MN/science say anything about that? Well, letâs start with the Big Bang, proven by MN, and it pretty much requires of us a recognition of the beginning of our universe, which then requires an infinite eternal immaterial âstarterâ for our finite temporal material universe. Yes, it could be a multiverse or a god, but see how the science has inescapably touched on philosophy. And it has confirmed at least three properties of the starter which have typically been part of theistic views.
ID raises the question of whether this infinite eternal immaterial starter is also intentional/intelligent (that is, a being, to us, a god). And that is part of asking questions about our place in the cosmos. They argue that a few other categories of what science has discovered may also have implications, that in their opinion there is indeed evidence of outside intentionality. These categories, I think, include the fine tuning of the universe, the uniqueness of earth, the origins of life, whether evolution is adequate on its own, and the nature of humankind. Does âscienceâ want to discuss the implications of these categories? No, but humans do! To say that we cannot include human implications in discussion of these scientific matters is completely ridiculous.
And in order to discuss the human implications, we may choose to go beyond the textbook presentation and ask if the data really supports this rather one-sided PN view. A lot of people conclude that it does not and have various reactions, including some feeling deceived. Other contrary agendas arise, for example defending atheism by attempting to defame those who speak up. And some ID arguments are presented that are foolish. And what started as an attempt to raise questions about our place in the universe, and the presentation and the implications of science becomes political, generating more heat than light. We humans are indeed a sorry lot and truly need a savior.
I see ID as a response to the sometimes unintentional âsales jobâ of PN (not MN) in the presentation of science, a delight that some areas of science imply that there is a designer and our existence may have meaning, and a reaction to the attempt to suppress all challenges and questions about whether PN really has adequate explanations in some areas.
All that to say I think ID really has a problem with PN, not with MN. I would expect many more ID proponents to support MN if it was truly just a method and accepted its boundaries. But PN constantly sneaks in disguised as MN, and thatâs when it gets annoying.
So I would agree with most of your recent point 4, though we arrive there by perhaps different paths:
Hope this is helpful!
Marty
2 Likes
There is a lot of nuance missing from that statement. Hypotheses that canât be tested through empiricism are not scientific. It just so happens that the God based hypotheses that people put forward are not empirically testable. The major problem is that there is no meaningful way of disproving a God-based hypothesis. God can do anything at any time. God could have created the universe 5 minutes ago, complete with false memories and a false history.
The problem for ID is that they donât have testable hypotheses.
7 Likes
In principle, hypotheses involving God could be tested, as long as they are expressible in a well-defined scientific format. This is why we can disprove YEC claims, such as âGod created the Earth 10,000 years old agoâ using purely scientific arguments. But note that the YEC claim could be expressed just as well as âThe Earth is 10,000 years oldâ - without any reference to God. In fact, scientists can only really test the latter statement. Still, finding scientific evidence that the latter is false implies that the former statement is also false as it presumes the latter.
ID claims, however, are often in a different category compared to YEC, because the hypothesis itself is not well-defined. It is not clear how to convert the statement âGod designed natural phenomenon Xâ into one which science can actually test empirically like the claim that the Earth is young. This is because divine designed is so far not scientifically well-defined. Some critics of ID reply using the âbad designâ rebuttal, but such rebuttals are insufficient if the entire question is ill-defined in the first place.
4 Likes
I would agree, with qualifications. As stated before, God could have created the universe 5 minutes ago, complete with a false history and false memories. I have also heard some YECâs try to explain away radiometric dating as a result of God creating the Earth with embedded age or embedded maturity, a la Philip Gosse and the Omphalos hypothesis.
We have seen the same type of explanations for the existence of phylogenetic signals in genetic data, that the process of design would look just like evolution, for no apparent reason. At this point, we start to apply the principle of parsimony where we donât invoke supernatural processes when natural processes will do. I think @swamidass would consider this a limit of science, and I would agree. If we didnât limit scientific explanations then the scientific method would lose all of its practical utility, but philosophy can certainly move outside those limits.
4 Likes
I think @T_aquaticus point is extremely important. As a former YEC and as someone who is still very sympathetic to their position theologically, I think we need to be very carefully in differentiating between science not supporting YEC and not disproving YEC. Itâs absolutely possible for God to have created the world we see today 6000ish years ago. Science would argue for a much older creation, but doesnât disprove a newer one.
People are YEC (primarily) for theological reasons, they hope for scientific support for their position, but they donât get there from science. Especially as other Christians I think we will have much better conversations with across the YEC divide if we separate the discussion of scientific support for a YEC from the theological arguments.
For me this is particularly important as I deal a lot with YEC youth, and while I want them to understand what the science says, I donât want them to see the science as undermining their theology or faith. And in my experience YEC are willing to discuss the science, but (as would be expected) quickly close down if they feel their YEC world view is being challenged.
4 Likes
I agree.
The appeal to what is essentially the Omphalos hypothesis always amazes me. Philip Gosse published that hypothesis at a time in the mid-1800âs when there were lots of Bible-loving scientists and theologians who were very positive towards exploring how God was the explanation for what was observed in the universe. Nevertheless, his book was almost universally panned. Everybody was astonished that such a well-respected naturalist and beloved science popularizer could promote such a far-fetched and poorly considered ideas. (FYI: Gosse introduced the aquarium as a popular hobby, then and now.) He tried to reconcile the geologic ages of Charles Lyell with the Genesis account of creation. His book was a giant dud. It crushed him.
What are the chances that a modern day Omphalos theory would resonate under far less welcoming conditions? Of course, the relevant data is far more massive today as we approach the two century mark after Gosseâs disappointing book. Omphalos arguments donât seem like promising horses to bet on in any race.
1 Like
Challenging the YEC view of the world is no different to me than challenging a Flat Earth view, and for the same reasons. Sometimes wrong is wrong, even if there are good intentions behind it.
2 Likes
I would say that ensuring people understand scientific evidence and conclusions are important.
Where there is room for more than one valid interpretation, I see no reason to challenge other Christians understanding of the Bible, and the world view that comes from it, even if I disagree. (Thatâs not to say where there is interest, that I donât see value in having a peaceful discussions about why we disagree).
2 Likes
I wish to clarify the italicized part above in explaining ID (my understanding, anyway). For ID, itâs not that naturalism conflicts with Christianity, but that it conflicts with the data. When several scientific disciplines require massive luck for naturalism to be true, and the only naturalist explanation is a near infinite array of multiverse bubbles (a view that is equally untestable), a vastly simpler explanation may be there really is an intelligence. At this point one may consider whether Occamâs Razor would point to a Designer.
ID recognizes that from the scientific data, the identity of the designer is not clear, so there is no direct tie to Christianity. More information is needed from the creator. So Muslim apologists also use ID arguments to argue that there is a Designer. There are examples of people such as Anthony Flew who moved from atheism to agnosticism from the emerging data, concluding that too much luck is needed.
But ID is bounded by what can be inferred from an overview of the existing scientific data, and Christianity is one of several options for the Designerâs identity that then need to be investigated further by philosophical and historical methods. One could say ID is compatible with Christianity.
So hereâs a new try on your point 4:
ID (and others) objects that MN, in practice, is not properly bounded by nearly all of its proponents, so in practice it often becomes just naturalism, by ignoring certain unexpected aspects of the data.
1 Like
???
What scientific disciplines require massive luck for naturalism to be true, and where is your evidence to support this rather amazing claim?
1 Like
What and how would have to be included. Thatâs why the ID movement limits itself to âdetecting design.â It avoids testable hypotheses. They have no faith.
I understand you believe this but I donât. At least I think I donât think I agree the way you mean it.
The goal here is a starting we all agree with so this fails.
Do you really disagree with what I say or do you just want to add to it? I think you donât have an objection but want to add more, but contested, information. If that is the case, this revision would be a mistake. Right?
Evolution only seems to require massive luck, if you donât actually understand it.
OK. I just want to get rid of the âconflicts with Christianityâ part, cuz while many ID proponents are Christian, I think the Christian faith is not a first order conclusion of ID. That portion of your statement tries to provide a reason for the basic objection, so I tried a different âwhyâ proposal to see what you think. But youâre not OK with that part, so let me try another more limited approach:
- ID (and others) objects that MN, in practice, is not properly bounded by nearly all of its proponents, so in practice it often becomes just Naturalism. But Naturalism is a faith position which cannot be proven by MN.
Hoping this is helpfulâŚ
In science, nature is defined as what we can empirically measure. Itâs a methodological definition, not a faith position. If God acted in such a way that we could measure and test his actions through scientific means then God would be considered natural for the purposes of science. Science never says that nature is all there is, nor does it exclude anything from nature. Science only includes what it can measure. In fact, you can throw away the terms natural and supernatural altogether because those terms arenât needed in science.
I think this is one of the points that many people in this debate miss. Science is inclusionary, not exclusionary. Science never says that we have to exclude valid empirical measurements because they are deemed supernatural. All valid empirical measurements are included in science. All testable hypotheses are included in science. If you can apply the scientific method to it, itâs in. You can call something supernatural if you want, but if it can be measured and tested scientifically then it is part of science. What matters is the method, not what we call stuff.
6 Likes
Itâs pretty easy to observe ID proponents ignoring data virtually every day here.
The Wedge Document ties it very directly to a particular type of Christianity.
Why existing?
Real science is not bounded to existing data, because it tests hypotheses to create new data.
So why would you say that ID is limited to EXISTING scientific data?
Where do you think scientific data come from?
1 Like