I agree, THIS is the key question. My concern, though, @swamidass is that they may have the perception that PS (similar to @terrellclemmons comments/questions/concerns) would be unfriendly to them to engage with them here. And engaging with you, even in private, they probably imagine will wind up here.
I will continue to pray that they would at least speak with you in private discussions to go through these points.
While this is probably not “sin” per se (although I guess knowingly spreading falsehoods or deception would be), Mathew 18:15 might apply here.
I’ll continue to do what I can to foster a dialog.
The perception is intentionally created by them @purposenation. So there is not much I can do about it except continually provide evidence that proves it is false: A Fair Hearing for Behe.
Part of their strategy is to discredit credible critics. I’m not the only target, so no need to take it personally. Let us not forget, however, what it is. This is their pattern.
Exactly. If it is required that the inferred designer be explainable within MN, then an inference to a supernatural entity such as the Judeo-Christian concept of God is a logical impossibility. This was the whole reason I took issue with BioLogos to begin with and TE/EC more broadly.
I hope you don’t think I’m raging against it. I’m pointing out the problem that arises when one attempts to integrate (1) science, when the scientific is philosophically constrained within naturalism, and (2) Judeo-Christian theism, which is inherently founded on a presupposition of supernatural reality.
The two systems of thought cannot be integrated because they begin with mutually exclusive claims about the nature of reality.
Behe isn’t listed as an author and, more than once, this post references him third-person, “Behe-esque” and “Behe style” and so forth. So does this count as HIM responding? I suspect that he had a lot to do with it, but left his fingerprints off, in case we and others poke gaping holes, as we have before, then Behe can claim that this isn’t his work. This is, of course, wild speculation, not unlike the article itself.
The scientists can tell me if I’ve got it wrong, but the way I look at it is science is methodologically constrained within naturalism. It has no philosophy. Therefore I personally see no problem with integrating science with my Christian faith.
To be more specific. If it is required that an inferred designer must itself be explainable within MN, the the philosophical presupposition is that only natural causes exist. This is a presumed, but unstated, claim about reality.
As I said, I am of the opinion that all ENV contributors are coauthors, since “Evolution News” is the listed author. If and when ENV attaches specific authors, I will change my stance.
As far as grammatical styles, first vs third person references, etc., I expect that many inconsistencies will be found in a multi-authored essay, so I am not going to use this as an argument against my assertion.
I disagree. It’s not a philosophical presupposition. It’s a methodological assumption that makes no claims about the ultimate reality of that assumption.
Having said that, I’m going to end my part of the discussion here, as I’ve watched similar discussions go on endlessly, and I’m completely unable to understand why some people see an equivalency between methodology and philosophy.
I honestly want to understand both sides here.
It seems like the ENV argument outlined in the article goes like this:
here we’ve found a novel protein formed by a degradation of the original specifying information.
this novel protein functions, but its overall effect is a degradation within its host’s original robustness.
hence, it is neither evidence for gradually accumulating functional complexity, nor for random change producing better fitness.
this is what random changes overwhelmingly do, and it would appear to limit the creative potential, in terms of fitness, for random mutations resulting in information degradation. That is, it’s “de-evolutionary” in fitness terms.
Is that a reasonable summary?
If so, it would seem to portray a perspective that may be too ready to stop exploring how loss of function in one area might lead to adaptive change in another, leading to new creative potential for fitness.
It might be “epistemologically short-sighted” would be the reply?
Help me out, here.
That is not the right way to put it. I tis not philosophically constrained with naturalism. MN is a theological concept first.
It is “methodologically constrained to natural explanations”, so we should be surprised it does not come to supernatural conclusions. Say it this way no scientist will really disagree. Say it the other…well, now you are just not understanding how it works, or even its history.
Except MN was first a product of Christian theology. CS Lewis’s dreaming and waking worlds integrates them just fine.
Agreed. Not only should we not be surprised that it does not come to supernatural conclusions, if it is required that design inferences also be constrained to natural explanations, then by definition the supernatural is ruled out.
As I read it, the Lewis essay reduces to “all the integration takes place inside the subjective head space of the one doing the integrating.”
I have not argued that that is wrong or shouldn’t be done. I have pointed out that that’s the reasoning in play and suggested that it is perfectly consistent with philosophical naturalism but not with Judeo-Christian theism.
Except it is a product of Judeo-Chrsitian theism. Did you not know the history of Methodological Naturalism? Do you know why Francis Bacon argued for it?
I’m not meaning to be critical of Lewis, either, btw, and I don’t take him to be a philosophical naturalist. He argued against that specifically.
It is true that there is integrating that goes on subjectively inside the head space, but I don’t accept the atheist’s claim that all of the integrating is subjective and takes place inside the Christian’s headspace.
It’s not necessarily inconsistent, with Christian theism, however.
We use the same kinds of discernment when sorting out the “regular operations of nature” in a God-ordered universe, as compared to the more obvious proximal miracles which do speak more clearly to us of God’s action.
Kind of like the difference between what seems expected versus what is surprising.
For Christian theists, it’s all of a piece --nature itself “cries out in worship” to its Creator, and we respond in wonder and awe, though not as much at every little detail of the natural world (we could, however!).
MN as a working “assumption” need not color our perspective so thoroughly that we forget God’s active involvement.
If it was a means of separating out natural philosophy from Church authority, then I’m glad they did so. As a professing Protestant, I am fully on board with the Reformation.
We inhabit a different culture with different worldview presuppositions in play than the one they inhabited.
And at this point @swamidass, I think I’ve made the point I want to make clearly several times over. I get that others don’t agree with it or see it the way I do. I’m content to leave things as is for the purposes of this discussion. The different positions have been identified, and I think they begin with philosophical presuppositions. Other people may think otherwise. I can coexist peacefully with people who don’t share my point of view.