@eddie, I’m not sure your pleas are helping. Why should they or would they listen to you? This gets back to my question. What exactly are hoping to accomplish here?
I’m glad you see that I’m doing something you do appreciate. Just relax and let it play out. Pushes from non-scientists to take ID seriously are only working against your goals. It is a bad pattern, that is ultimately undermining what you really want. Why not give it up?
I’m just letting you know that your effort makes it much harder. It is not helpful. It makes it harder to make progress. I’m sure that is not your intent, but that is the effect.
Is this because scientists do not see evidence of detectable design or because detectable design is fundamentally not observable by science (because of methodology, etc.)? In other words, is “science says nothing on design” based on scientific/experiential evidence or methodological/philosophical constraint?
ID is not useful to science. It is useless to theology as well, especially Christian theology as it is a God of the Gaps theology going into gaps that most Christians aren’t interested in.
I’m not talking about ID per se at all here, I’m trying to think about the interaction between the philosophy of science and theistic belief.
I guess that miracles are not scientifically demonstrable, so from a scientific perspective they would either be “in the noise” or be an outlier. There could certainly be observable consequences from a miracle, but no scientific way to say “aha, that one’s a miracle”.
Now, looking at ID or “design”, I’m wondering if it’s it similar to miracles in that there would be no way to prove it scientifically (although that doesn’t mean it isn’t observable). If there is design, is it fundamentally detectable within scientific data or not?
Is “detectable” the same as “scientifically demonstrable”? I get that @Patrick views ID as religious, I’m not arguing that. However, it’s been repeatedly stated on this forum that “science says nothing on design” or “science is neutral as to Adam & Eve” and I’m trying to understand more specifically why that is. Is it due to lack of scientific evidence or because scientific methodology fundamentally can’t answer the question?
Or not miracles at all. They could be unexplained natural events. Just because science can’t explain something doesn’t mean it is not a naturally explainable event.
But those statements that I was referring to did not add “from a scientific point of view.” They said unguided and purposeless, period. And because they were scientific organizations (in one case, an organization of scientists, in the other an organization of biology teachers) they conveyed the impression of speaking with the voice of “Science” with a capital S. This was the impression generally conveyed about evolution until very recently. This was the impression that my generation – one generation at least older than yours – got from what “Science” said about origins. You do not agree with this atheistic interpretation of evolution, I know, but in order to understand both the creationist and the ID reaction to “established science”, you have to understand how evolution was presented to the public for many years before you arrived on the scene, and not just by journalists but even by scientists themselves when they described evolution in science books written for laymen. The memories of that portrayal are still strong for those of the older generation.
Sometimes Christian evolutionists mock the term “theistic evolution”, saying it is silly to put an adjective in front of evolution, that we wouldn’t write “theistic gravity,” etc. But they are either of a younger generation, or have forgotten what things used to be like. When the public presentation of evolution tended to be implicitly atheist or agnostic, many who believed in evolution and God felt the need to add “theistic” to distinguish their view from the usual meaning of the term. Their motive was sensible, at the time.
It may not be relevant to advanced theorists, but it is relevant sociologically, since the textbooks, both high school and college, create a definite impression on the students who use them. Textbooks that spoke of evolution as “unguided and purposeless” were not helping the situation, and in fact, only added fuel the fire, giving fundamentalists and others even more reason to oppose science and scientists generally, which you and I agree was not a good reaction. So you shouldn’t dismiss what textbooks say. Overstatements in textbooks contribute to the religious culture war.
It’s both the lack of scientific evidence and because science can’t answer the question. If there was away to get evidence, it is then science. Regarding A&E, @Alice_Linsley work in anthropology and reading the ancient writing says that A&E were the founders of the priestly group of red skin color. If ancient DNA can find makers in the DNA of red skin tone in the proper place and time, science can say that Genesis was a fanciful story written about A&E who lived in a certain location and certain time and had a genealogy consistent with the bible. Wouldn’t that be a hoot for all of you! Science finds Adam and Eve.
Excellent question, Jordan. I have seen both answers given by opponents of design detection. I don’t think there is a unified response to your question.
Biology textbooks and NSCE is exclusievely “from a scientific point of view.” Are you suggesting we get stickers to put on biology textbooks that say “from a biologists point of view”? Really?
Yup, and it is a totally wrong impression. Let’s correct it instead of repeating the same pointless arguments.
Maybe, but we face a new moment. Let’s stop reliving the traumas of the past.
Just stop complaining about it, and we might be able to improve things. The approach you take, and that ID takes, actually makes movement forward much less likely.
Well, if you are going to keep insisting that I am doing this, without pointing out examples of where I have urged anyone here to accept ID, I can’t say anything more. I think you are conflating many discussions we had over the previous year or two – on BioLogos and in private, before I joined the discussion here – with what I have actually written here on this site. I don’t think I’ve ever claimed here that ID people have proved design in nature, and I don’t think I’ve ever pushed particular ID arguments (flagellum, explanatory filter, etc.) on anyone here. Maybe on BioLogos, maybe elsewhere, but I don’t see that I have done that here. Of course, people here who remember me from BioLogos may perceive me as an ID advocate, but I haven’t deliberately tried to push any ID arguments here.
I have of course discussed ID here – almost always after someone else has brought the subject up. But mainly I have offered clarifying remarks, e.g…, “some ID proponents believe in interventions and some in front-loading,” not argued that ID is correct and everyone should accept it.
Most of my discussion here has been about natural theology, methodological naturalism, history of evolutionary theory, etc. And I’ve probably more often mentioned non-ID people like Shapiro and Turner and Tour than I have Dembski or Meyer or Luskin etc. I may have mentioned Denton fairly often, but mainly to characterize his position as not requiring miraculous intervention, or to indicate his comments on structuralist vs. adaptationist schools of evolutionary thought, rather than to say that he is correct in his views on design.
I think I may have argued that fine-tuning arguments seem convincing to me, but such arguments are not unique to ID. Francis Collins has indicated support for them, as have other non-ID folks.
I am not trying to get anyone here to accept ID arguments as true. That is not why I’m here. But if someone says something false about ID – such as that all ID folks insist on miraculous interventions, or that Discovery engineered the Dover Trial, or that a God who designs is incompatible with true Christian theology – then of course I will react. But none of that amounts to pushing ID arguments about blood clotting or laws of thermodynamics or genetic entropy etc. on unwilling biologists. I have no plan to do that.
No, Joshua, your response simply will not do. I’m of course not suggesting putting stickers on books; you know that is not my style. But you are representing the language as innocuous in context, when it wasn’t. Even Eugenie Scott advised those organizations to drop the “purposeless and unguided” language, and Ken Miller had the words removed from subsequent editions of his textbook. There was agreement that the words had too much metaphysical baggage, and ought to be taken out of science textbooks and policy statements of science organizations.
Stop? I believe this is the first time that I’ve mentioned the “unguided and purposeless” language affair on Peaceful Science. You act as if I brought up the subject daily.
I think that answers Jordan’s question: the bogey is that word “natural”, which has no obvious meaning outside a specific metaphysical framework.
What is the difference between “scientifically explainable” and “naturally explainable”, since science is the study of natural explanations?
In this case, "natural " is being used as a placeholder for “There is no category of ‘divine’.” And so in answering this:
(a) it’s not methodology, because Patrick excluded “scientifically explainable” from his avowal of “natural causes”. Therefore (b) it’s a philosophical constraint. QED.
EDIT: These remarks, of course, apply only to the “Patrick Interpretation” and are not to be generalised to all.
What Shapiro describes is well within mainstream evolutionary science. The only thing we disagree on is Shapiro’s need to redefine what is already adequately defined within the mainstream theory. The mechanisms that Shapiro points to are random mutations with respect to fitness and have been known about for decades in many instances.
I don’t condemn anyone who criticizes anyone, in the proper sense of the word “criticize” – assess the value of something, including good points as well as bad points. I don’t think calling Shapiro a “nut” (as someone here has done) is “criticism” in that sense.
I have read his book, but not his articles, so I won’t comment on his articles, but in the book he not only admits but emphasizes that much of the data he is employing has been known about for decades, so he is not trying to put anything over dishonestly. His point is that while the facts have been known, their significance for evolution has not been fully appreciated. They might be well-known facts among bacteriologists but not very often mentioned by evolutionary theorists. Surely there is nothing wrong with pointing out that knowledge gained in one field of biology might have some application to another field of biology.
If the charge against Shapiro is that he unduly sensationalizes, that’s a fair criticism to make – if it’s true. But in these internet discussions over the years, I’ve heard two incompatible criticisms of Shapiro: (a) that he sensationalizes discoveries that are well-known, and mainstream; (b) that he is outside the mainstream – way out, to the point of being incompetent. Well, if his crime is sensationalizing mainstream ideas, then he isn’t out of the mainstream, just a show-off. But if he is a “nut”, then he might well be outside the mainstream and also incompetent. I guess if I heard a consistent judgment on the guy – e.g., that he is a competent molecular biologist but that he tends to aggrandize his thoughts as more original than they are – I would be more comfortable. But I hear inconsistent judgments, which makes me wonder whether the standards governing what is good or bad evolutionary biology are themselves inconsistent.