In which Eddie & T_aquaticus discuss ID, TE, and naturalism

All three of them have read vastly more than Collins in both contemporary and historical evolutionary theory. That is evident from Collins’s childish public statements about how evolution works. They don’t rise much beyond the crudest neo-Darwinism. He’s a great geneticist, but nowheresville as an evolutionary theorist.

Technical isn’t bad in itself. It’s good in its place. It’s bad when it cramps imagination, innovation, etc. It’s bad when it turns into pedantry, or into reflexive defense of the status quo in any field. The immediate hostile reaction to Scott Turner on this site was couched in terms of alleged technical errors made by Turner, and his broader conceptions were dismissed out of hand. It’s that kind of technician that I find insufferable, the one who savagely attacks scientists with more imagination and breadth than himself. Or the kind of technician who dismisses a 500-page book by Meyer on the basis of one terminological error which didn’t affect the overall argument of the book.

We have our unimaginative technicians in Religious Studies as well. (Many of them are called “New Testament scholars.”) I assure you, I chide them with every bit as much force as I do their analogues in science. It is a certain cast of mind of object to, whether in the science or the arts subjects, not scientists as such.

Not at all. Denton has read massively in the history of evolutionary thought. The others have some knowledge of it, as well.

and . . .

Since you are unwilling to express your position, I guess I will decide for myself what your position is.

1 Like

You don’t have to decide anything. Just read the books that I’ve told you have influenced me. Then you will know why I think what I think. I’ve given you a sketch outline, but you are demanding more detail, so I’m saying: read those books. If you choose not to read strong arguments in favor of design, there is nothing more I can say or do.

Do you agree with Denton in this case?

1 Like

Why do you need to ask? I’ve granted umpteen times that a “front-loaded” version of ID is logically possible and consistent with ID overall. Denton argues for front-loaded ID in that book. It’s a coherent position. It’s not the only ID position. Meyer takes a different one. But it’s a coherent position.

If you read the whole book, you will find that though everything takes place naturally, the whole natural system is shot through with design, from the laws and constants down to the minute workings of biochemical systems. This is the opposite of the narrative taught in generations of popular presentations of cosmic and biological evolution, i.e., that we with our intelligence are a cosmic freak that could just as easily never have existed.

I am asking if your position is the same as Denton’s. Do you believe that the origin of life is ultimately explicable in terms of natural causes?

Denton presumes that the formation of life is no different than the formation of a salt crystal.

I would have to conclude that you agree with some of the scientists working in the field of abiogenesis, that there is a natural explanation for the origin of life.

1 Like

Please read the whole book rather than cherry-picking sentences out of context. Also, you distort even this passage, since he says “no less natural” not “no different”.

But that’s not his position. His position is that the unfolding is due to natural causes, but that behind the unfolding is a prior design. Later on, he likens the history of the universe to the output of a computer program – which of course requires a programmer. Again, read the whole book.

Only if “natural” is understood within a framework of design, rather than a framework of chance. And that’s precisely what most origin of life theorists will never accept.

I’m not going to waste my time reading a 400 page book just to get evasive answers in return.

So there doesn’t need to be any supernatural intervention outside known natural causes for the origin of life. That is, there weren’t any supernatural miracles in the classic sense. You seem to be agreeing with the TE position, are you not?

1 Like

Would you agree with the TE position that design is indistinguishable from chance within a scientific context?

1 Like

There is no evasion in Denton’s writing. He says exactly what he thinks. There isn’t the cryptic ambiguity that I often find in TE/EC writers.

It’s odd that you would regard reading one of the most interesting books on origins of the past 20 years as a “waste of time.” I wouldn’t have thought a scientist who is keenly interested in origins questions (as you seem to be) would have that reaction. I would have thought you’d be devouring book after book on the subject, especially one where you know in advance that the author invokes no miracles. Oh, well…

Point 1. Denton’s position is that there doesn’t have to be, and there isn’t, any supernatural intervention. My position is that Denton’s view is not to be ruled out, but that there might at some points have been some supernatural involvement. In other words, I regard both “front-loaded, naturalistic” and “interventionist” accounts as possible.

Point 2. From a theological point of view, both “front-loaded naturalistic” and “interventionist” accounts are compatible with orthodox religious traditions, depending of course on the details of how they are formulated.

Point 3. From a scientific point of view, it seems uncertain that front-loading could be as extensive as Denton envisions, and thus, Meyer suggests that in addition to any setting of cosmic parameters by design, particular infusions of information would have to be inserted into the universe at one or more points, certainly at the origin of life, and possibly several times later, even if evolution, once started, could carry the ball most of the time. I am not sure at this point whether I would go with Denton or Meyer. But of course, even though they disagree about the need for supernatural infusions of information, both are arguing for design.

Point 4. The TE position is not one, but many. Some versions of TE are very close to the views of Michael Denton or Michael Behe. Others are far away. If by “the TE position” you mean that version of TE which argues that everything must have occurred by natural causes, because it would be a wiser and more respectable God who worked like that instead of using miracles, then no, I do not share that TE position, because I don’t make those kinds of judgment about God. If by “the TE position” you mean the very common TE view that design is in principle not detectable by science, but only through the eyes of faith, then no, I don’t share that TE position. But if by “the TE position” you mean only, “It is compatible with Christian faith that God could have worked wholly through natural causes, and there is some evidence that he did so, though we are not yet in a position to say that natural causes alone can explain everything about origins,” then I could support that position, because it is tentative and not dogmatic. But then, that modest version of TE isn’t really any different from Behe’s ID position, since he accepts common descent all the way back to bacteria and also grants (and I’ve provided explicit passages in the past here) that God could have chosen to work only through natural causes, while still delivering a detectably designed universe. (Because design detection detects design, not miracles.)

I think this should clarify my position in relation to that of the others you have mentioned. I am trying not to be evasive, and I don’t think I am being evasive. I am saying what I think, without holding back anything for fear of what people in my church might say, etc. Let me know if there is any place above where my remarks lack explicitness or fail to answer your questions.

No. In some particular cases, it might be impossible to tell, but I would not lay it down as a general rule that it would always be impossible to tell. Thus, in some cases, no design inference would be possible, but there might be other cases where it would be.

There is also some variation among TEs. Some, like Francis Collins, will vigorously deny that design is detectable in organelles such as the flagellum, but are open to design arguments for the origin of life or cosmic fine tuning. Denis Lamoureux seems to deny design arguments such as Behe’s, but to like the overall cosmic design argument as presented by Denton. Then there are others who deny the validity of any design arguments whatsoever, saying that design can only be perceived by faith, or that design arguments might be valid in philosophy but have no place in science, etc. The latter group typically insist that design is indistinguishable from chance in all cases. I don’t agree with them.

Please, let this not be another thread where @Eddie and @T_aquaticus spend hundreds of posts arguing whether a book should be read or not! :sweat_smile:

4 Likes

[quote=“Eddie, post:361, topic:5440”]

And how is that different from your Trinity of Behe, Denton, and Shapiro?

That’s absurd for two huge reasons:

  1. You don’t have the slightest idea what any of the four have or haven’t read.
  2. Behe didn’t even acknowledge the existence of neutral theory, which is decades old, until his newest book.

That makes no sense.

You mean the fact that a naive reader will never learn that the ribosome is a ribozyme, the strongest evidence for the RNA World hypothesis, despite Meyer’s devotion of an entire chapter to the hypothesis?

Not addressing the strongest evidence is fraud.

Again, you don’t have the slightest idea who has read what. You’re just fabricating to try to alleviate your cognitive dissonance.

The only credential that really matters to you is if someone says something you want to be true. Your frantic credentialism has no consistency at all.

You’re also eliding the fact that Behe makes very explicit (and false) empirical claims. I notice that you haven’t appeared to defend him from the scathing Science review by our host.

1 Like

It’s academically irresponsible to respond to a critical review of a book one hasn’t read. I haven’t read Behe’s new book yet, so it would be improper for me to respond to critiques of it. (Contrast my professional attitude with the attitude of so many internet yahoos who are willing to say that ID is rubbish without ever having read even one ID work, going entirely on rumor and hearsay.)

I have read all of Denton’s published work in the area, and have seen all the works cited in his notes and bibliographies. He has read a lot on the history of evolutionary theory – a lot more, I wager, than the majority of people who post strong opinions about evolutionary theory on the internet.

Their references in their works give some idea. Also, I have had extensive personal contact with some of them. As for Collins, I admit to no first-hand knowledge of his library, but his discussions of evolution indicate very little historical knowledge of evolutionary theory, or of contemporary debates regarding evolutionary mechanism. He may have read things, but if so, he hides what he has learned under a bushel, because his presentation of evolution shows no awareness of the complexities. His account is popular and superficial, no deeper than that of, and maybe not even as deep as, that of Ken Miller, which is itself popular and superficial.

No, I mean the fact that one pseudonymous scientist in particular, probably 50 times now, on BioLogos, has issued war whoops over Meyer’s alleged error on one page of a 500-page book, with the clear intention of convincing the public that anyone who could make that error doesn’t know what he’s talking about and should not be listened to on anything, while ignoring the overall argument of the book. This narrow focus on little technical slips, while ignoring big-picture issues, is characteristic of small minds, whether it is found in biology or New Testament studies. Again, as I said before, if this criticism does not apply to you, you can ignore it.

1 Like

Citing a work doesn’t necessarily mean that the citer has read it, or if the citer read it, that s/he understood it.

Let’s not forget that Denton’s first book was based on claiming that evolution predicted a ladder pattern, not a tree, and that a tree was provided by Darwin.

I’m pointing out that Meyer elided the strongest evidence for the RNA World hypothesis, in more than one way, despite writing an entire chapter allegedly addressing it, so your criticism doesn’t apply to me.

So your claim about who had read more was a fabrication with no basis in fact.

And Behe’s do? You’re kidding me.

Of course, we did do exactly this, and they were not convinced. :smile:

1 Like

I have followed up many of Denton’s references in the original sources. He has read them, and he has understood them.

Which is irrelevant, since I did not list that book as one of my sources in my response to T. aquaticus.

It would only apply to you if you ever wrote and acted as if an error by Meyer in one chapter of a book made the entire book wrong and/or worthless. If you have never done that anywhere, then you don’t have to defend yourself against anything, do you?

I note that once again you are striving to draw the discussion off-topic. The discussion here is about methodological naturalism, not about any and every conceivable biological error that any ID proponent might ever have made. It seems that you try to turn every discussion here, whether it starts out on a theological topic, or a philosophical one, or some other type, into a discussion of how bad ID science is. What is the cause of this? Is that you have trouble keeping your mind on the topic of the thread? Or do you just like to bash ID at every opportunity? Is that why you are here on this site – mainly to bash ID?

Why don’t you surprise everyone, and for a change write a post indicating your religious or theological views? But not here – under a new topic. Poor Terrell’s discussion seems to have been swamped by irrelevant polemics.

Maybe we can see another 500-post thread!

3 Likes