Klinghoffer: Adam and Eve and “Mainstream Science”

@r_speir

Yes. And we do see it.

Perhaps you noticed another thread where this extremely simple observation was offered:

The K-Pg boundary marks a global extinction event. You would say this extinction event was The Flood. But we know this isn’t true:

because all of the reptilian life forms that could fly (above a certain weight) never once died in fossil layers after the mass extinctions… and not a single flightless bird that exist today (including the penguin) can be found below that layer (along with all the large mammals which Evolution tells us didn’t yet exist).

So, rather than argue that there is no evidence for Evolution, you could simply be arguing that Evolution is best explained by God’s presence!

I’ll throw in my two cents, you can give back change if its not worth that…

Its difficult to discuss topics that cut to the core of personal belief. For the secular-atheist-evolutionary-scientist, I am beginning to understand the offensiveness in tone that comes across from the biblical-creation-theologian side. Both sides feel strongly, so it takes a lot of empathy and humility to even hear what the other is saying. I am seeing the fracture clearly, I will do my best to help bridge the gap from the non-scientist bible proponent point of view. It seems the best way to do this is through tempering communication thoughtfully, which sometimes falls short here (on both sides and I am guilty also) when the conversation is heated.

From what I have been reading lately, I don’t understand Nelson’s opposition to MN and the opposition to “mainstream science” in general. I also don’t understand the Scriptural Realism concept. Jesus often used parables (39) and much of the bible can be interpreted in many different ways (for a purpose). I can apply stories of the Old Testament as a metaphor to my life, often gaining insight to my personal issues of faith or pride or moral failure. But if I take it just as literal history, I find little use in my personal life. For me, the Word of God is living and active, it does not change but I do. So, the Word is able to change with me, but only if I allow for metaphor and multiple interpretations. I say this to the creationists, not the atheists (I get that you don’t want to hear it, and respect your choice).

I guess my point is that being closed off and intolerant to differing interpretations (whether scientific or theological) seems counter-productive to the goal that both sides have in seeking truth regarding the origin of life. I, personally, would rather know the truth than be right. I can’t say that I understand all of the science completely, but I do understand the importance of the scientific method. I think that @swamidass does a really good job at inviting differing opinions for advancement toward the common goal. I also think he does a good job tempering personal religious belief to promote openness for scientific discussion, which I am just now realizing is important and necessary in this forum.

3 Likes

A post was merged into an existing topic: Is Peaceful Science more than The Genealogical Adam and Eve?

@John_Harshman

Since the nexus between God and the material universe is “super-natural”, not “natural” - - there is no way to give you a sound answer. Many theists like to imagine that what God “thinks” becomes “reality”. How? Only God knows, righ?

You are asking an “Eternal Question” - - and so I am going to mentally put your question into a special folder that I will answer after I die.

If you can’t say what “use” means or can possibly mean, how can you say it so confidently?

Mark,

I love science. I’m a member of the Society for Developmental Biology, and the International Society for Computational Biology, and have presented posters at the annual meetings of both, as well as at meetings such as Evolution Evolving (April 2019), held at Churchill College, Cambridge. Here’s a pdf of the poster Change Tan (U of Missouri) and I presented at that UK meeting:

enigmaessentialorfans032619.pdf (790.3 KB)

But science and MN are not the same thing. Science was underway for centuries before MN was widely adopted in the late 19th century, largely in the wake of the Darwinian Revolution. MN rules out intelligent causation, if that means causation via a mind irreducible to physics. Since such causation is an empirical possibility, MN prejudges reality, irrespective of the evidence. Bad news for the pursuit of truth.

As a consequence, MN disqualifies ID as a scientific project before the evidence has a chance to speak for itself. Even if I were not a theist, I would reject MN for that reason. Caltech theoretical physicist Sean Carroll, one of my favorite atheists (no joke – I listen to his podcasts every week), expressed the failure of MN this way, in terms that I can’t possibly improve on:

Science should be interested in determining the truth, whatever that truth may be – natural, supernatural, or otherwise. The stance known as methodological naturalism, while deployed with the best of intentions by supporters of science, amounts to assuming part of the answer ahead of time. If finding truth is our goal, that is just about the biggest mistake we can make.

(S. Carroll, The Big Picture [New York: Dutton, 2016], p. 133)

I don’t want reality cut up by MN into bite-sized pieces for me, like a ribeye steak for a five-year old who is still learning to handle a fork. You shouldn’t either.

2 Likes

Why did you emphasize MN when my book is not premised or contingent on MN in any way? I just found no reason to challenge it. Is that your issue with me?

1 Like
Science was underway for centuries before MN was widely adopted in the late 19th century, largely in the wake of the Darwinian Revolution.
Yes, and scientists of those earlier ages pursued many blind alleys, such as alchemy and astrology. That is hardly a good reason to turn back the clock to these 'good old days', especially given the massive acceleration of scientific progress since the "Darwinian Revolution".
MN rules out intelligent causation, if that means causation via a mind irreducible to physics.
Given that there would appear to be neither empirical evidence of nor empirical means to test or analyse, "a mind irreducible to physics", this would appear to be no loss.
Since such causation is an empirical possibility ...
How wide a menagerie of ideas from the more fevered depths of the human imagination are likewise "an empirical possibility"? Must we entertain all of them as well?

How does one go about empirically verifying the existence, let alone actions, of “a mind irreducible to physics”?

As a consequence, MN disqualifies ID as a scientific project before the evidence has a chance to speak for itself.
ID is disqualified by far more than MN. Failure to present positive evidence (as opposed to merely negative arguments against evolution), would be one disqualifier.

Also, ID has had plenty of time in the last 20 years to “speak for itself”, and still has failed to come up with anything resembling a positive, let alone comprehensive, explanation to replace evolution.

I don’t want reality cut up by MN into bite-sized pieces for me, like a ribeye steak for a five-year old who is still learning to handle a fork. You shouldn’t either.
I would use a different metaphor for ID, and other MN-sidestepping would-be science: a light souffle that has fallen flat.

But by all means prove me wrong. Do some major research that demonstrably disobeys MN, and show that it demonstrably yields concrete results (i.e. not merely offering yet-another argument against some aspect of evolution) that are demonstrably superior to MN-fettered science.

Until you can do that, then it is all just an insubstantial philosophical hypothetical, and I’d rather take the concrete scientific advances of the last century and a half over that.

2 Likes

Here is the full Carroll quote. It appears to be rather less supportive of Nelson’s thesis than the small snippet:

Not really. Science should be interested in determining the truth, whatever that truth may be—natural, supernatural, or otherwise. The stance known as methodological naturalism, while deployed with the best of intentions by supporters of science, amounts to assuming part of the answer ahead of time. If finding the truth is our goal, that is just about the biggest mistake we can make.

Fortunately, it’s also an inaccurate characterization of what science actually is. Science isn’t characterized by methodological naturalism but by methodological empiricism—the idea that knowledge is derived from our experience of the world, rather than by thought alone. Science is a technique, not a set of conclusions. The technique consists of imagining as many different ways the world could be (theories, models, ways of talking) as we possibly can, and then observing the world as carefully as possible.

This broad characterization includes not only the obviously recognized sciences like geology and chemistry but social sciences like psychology and economics, and even subjects such as history. It’s not a bad description of how many people typically figure things out about the world, albeit in a somewhat less systematic way. Nevertheless, science shouldn’t be simply identified with “reason” or “rationality.” It doesn’t include math or logic, nor does it address issues of judgment, such as aesthetics or morality. Science has a simple goal: to figure out what the world actually is. Not all the possible ways it could be, nor the particular way it should be. Just what it is.

There’s nothing in the practice of science that excludes the supernatural from the start. Science tries to find the best explanations for what we observe, and if the best explanation is a non-natural one, that’s the one science would lead us to. We can easily imagine situations in which the best explanation scientists could find would reach beyond the natural world. The Second Coming could occur; Jesus could return to Earth, the dead could be resurrected, and judgment could be passed. It would be a pretty dense set of scientists indeed who, faced with the evidence of their senses in such a situation, would stubbornly insist on considering only natural explanations.

The relationship between science and naturalism is not that science presumes naturalism; it’s that science has provisionally concluded that naturalism is the best picture of the world we have available. We lay out all of the ontologies we can think of, assign some prior credences to them, collect as much information we can, and update those credences accordingly. At the end of the process, we find that naturalism gives the best account of the evidence we have, and assign it the highest credence. New evidence could lead to future adjustments in our credences, but right now naturalism is well out ahead of the alternatives.
(Edit: I bolded the paragraph that explicates Carroll's view of the relationship between science and naturalism.)
3 Likes

Thank you for posting this part of what Sean Carroll said.

Granted.

Or maybe not granted. Was MN ever widely adopted?

I suppose people differ in how they see science. I have never considered MN a requirement for science. And the quote that @Tim provided from Sean Carroll suggests that Carroll agrees.

I really do not understand this obsession with MN by you and other ID proponents.

To me, this seems absurd. What disqualifies ID as a scientific project, is that there is so little science being done by the ID proponents.

Why isn’t biology itself looked at as a study of intelligent design. Even a bacterium shows more evidence of intelligence than, say, a grain of sand. Why not see all biological organism as exhibiting some intelligence. And we do see something that looks like design coming from biological organisms, whether it be a beehive or an ant hill or a beaver dam or a bird nest.

From my way of looking at it, the biologists are doing a far better job of studying intelligent design than are most of the people at the Discovery Institute. They just don’t happen to call it “intelligent design”.

@John_Harshman

Because the idea of God “using” nature this way or that way is fundamental to virtually all forms of Christianity… and many other faiths.

When God performs a miracle … is he only doing something super-natural? Or does he providentially arrange natural circumstances to effect his will?

The question may produce a yes or no answer - - but certainly no mortal knows how it works exactly. And you know that perfectly well.

That’s one of the undefined parts. I don’t think you know what you mean by that either. Would you care to disabuse me?

Further, in which sense do you mean that God…

And does he only use them sometimes, letting them happen on their own at other times, or does he cause every bit of rain that way?

@John_Harshman

In my experience, the only question you asked that merits more than one kind of answer is the one I quote above!

There are denominational differences in how that question is answered. MY view is that every rain and all rain is arranged by God, providentially rather than miraculously.

But most people at BioLogos would reject my view.

@pnelson , thanks for the response. I honestly feel like the five year old here, and as such am curious about some of the concepts being discussed. I understand that you are interested in seeking truth, as am I. I am not a scientist, so I am often running off to research terms to catch up…that being said, I understand Methodological Naturalism to be a portion of the philosophy of Naturalism that allows for theistic views where Naturalism does not, and therefore would be opposite of what you are stating. I agree that Naturalism presumes a godless world, but methodological naturalism simply requires that the explanation of natural science be made in terms that disregard super-natural explanation.

As a Christian, this makes sense to me. I can still believe what I believe, but to prove something scientifically requires me to use only naturally observable data that produce naturally observable results. I cannot hang my hat on “that’s what the bible says” or “that’s what the Spirit told me” as a way of proving creation or evolution scientifically. It must be done by scientific methods while observing the natural universe. I do not see, by this definition, how MN presumes anything other than setting a guideline of how to practice science regardless of religious belief. Carroll’s full quote (from @Tim above) seems to be mistaking the term methodological naturalism to be the same as naturalism. Then in the final (bolded) paragraph supports MN as important to the scientific process. Naturalism and MN seem to me to be clearly different concepts. Naturalism is a philosophy (that negates ID) MN is a scientific method (that does not negate ID).

My purpose for pointing this out is to fully understand the conversation, and to not get caught up in any unnecessary disagreement. Please correct any misunderstanding I might have.

From Wikipedia (so it must be true, right?)…

Methodological naturalism[edit]

Further information: Alternatives to natural selection

Methodological naturalism concerns itself with methods of learning what nature is. These methods are useful in the evaluation of claims about existence and knowledge and in identifying causal mechanisms responsible for the emergence of physical phenomena. It attempts to explain and test scientific endeavors, hypotheses, and events with reference to natural causes and events. This second sense of the term “naturalism” seeks to provide a framework within which to conduct the scientific study of the laws of nature. Methodological naturalism is a way of acquiring knowledge. It is a distinct system of thought concerned with a cognitive approach to reality, and is thus a philosophy of knowledge. Studies by sociologist Elaine Ecklund suggest that religious scientists in practice apply methodological naturalism. They report that their religious beliefs affect the way they think about the implications – often moral – of their work, but not the way they practice science.[29]

Steven Schafersman states that methodological naturalism is “the adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within the scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it … science is not metaphysical and does not depend on the ultimate truth of any metaphysics for its success, but methodological naturalism must be adopted as a strategy or working hypothesis for science to succeed. We may therefore be agnostic about the ultimate truth of naturalism, but must nevertheless adopt it and investigate nature as if nature is all that there is.”[9]

In a series of articles and books from 1996 onward, Robert T. Pennock wrote using the term “methodological naturalism” to clarify that the scientific method confines itself to natural explanations without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and is not based on dogmatic metaphysical naturalism. Pennock’s testimony as an expert witness[30] at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial was cited by the Judge in his Memorandum Opinion concluding that “Methodological naturalism is a ‘ground rule’ of science today”:[31]

Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena… While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science." Methodological naturalism is thus “a paradigm of science.” It is a “ground rule” that "requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify.[32]

Schafersman writes that “while science as a process only requires methodological naturalism, I think that the assumption of methodological naturalism by scientists and others logically and morally entails ontological naturalism”,[9] and “I maintain that the practice or adoption of methodological naturalism entails a logical and moral belief in ontological naturalism, so they are not logically decoupled.”[9]

@pnelson

I note that the Society for Developmental Biology publishes the journal Developmental Biology and that the International Society for Computational Biology publishes Bioinformatics. Have you been published in either?

Not being a working scientist, I’m not particularly familiar with conference posters, but my impression of them is that they are a brief pre-rep-publication presentation of work, and thus are not subjected to much (if any) peer review. Would that be correct?

The Cambridge poster gives the impression of widespread essential genes that are orphans of unknown function. This impression might, if accurate, cast doubt on the idea of Common Descent (which perhaps provides an explanation of your interest in this field). I would be interested to hear the evaluation of those on this forum with a better handle on the underlying research (perhaps @swamidass) as to whether this impression is accurate.

May I take it that, based upon her publications in Answers in Genesis’ Answers Research Journal, that Change Tan is a fellow YEC? I am not implying that this, in of itself, discredits her, or your, work – that would be a logically-fallacious ad hominem. I would however suggest that it might mean that it would be cautious to evaluate it with greater scrutiny, given the heightened possibility for bias or group-think in what does not appear to be a peer-reviewed publication.

1 Like

Carroll’s perception – the explanatory superiority of naturalism – illuminates why he holds to philosophical naturalism (i.e., atheism), although he calls it “poetic naturalism,” to distinguish his own position from that of eliminative physicalism, as held (for instance) by Alex Rosenberg at Duke. Above, I said plainly that Carroll was one of my “favorite atheists,” so no one should be surprised to find that he thinks the evidence favors atheism / philosophical naturalism.

But it’s the first clause in that sentence that really matters. MN held axiomatically allows for no “future adjustments in our credences,” as all evidence, both available now and conceivably into the future, must be explained by invoking “only natural things and processes” (National Academy of Sciences, 1998). Carroll does not hold MN axiomatically, because he would update his priors (to use Bayesian language) in the light of unexpected evidence. The curiosity and open-mindedness Carroll shows in his podcasts is diagnostic of someone who wonders about whether the truth might surprise him, given a shift in evidence. Which makes Carroll worth listening to.

Here’s a relevant footnote from my chapter on MN in the Theistic Evolution (Crossway, 2017) volume; I’ve emphasized key points:

“Many philosophical naturalists such as [Sean] Carroll, [Jason] Rosenhouse, and the others still insist, of course, that science works best by assuming naturalism (meaning the causal primacy of the physical/non-intelligent), and that methodological naturalism packaged in a more modest, pragmatic, or provisional flavor merely represents the successful track record of the naturalistic premise. But these commentators allow that evidence might turn up requiring us to suspend methodological naturalism, although in their judgment such evidence has yet to appear. Provisional or pragmatic methodological naturalism, however, is not really methodological naturalism at all. Recall the succinct formulation of the National Academy: “The statements of science must invoke only natural things and processes.” Now consider a provisional formulation of methodological naturalism, which we have synthesized from various statements by Carroll et al.: “The statements of science should invoke natural things and processes, because that is what has worked in the past—unless compelling evidence turns up to the contrary, in which event we may need to enlarge our explanatory resources beyond the strictly natural.” Whatever this might be, it isn’t a rule that excludes consideration of creative intelligence or the theory of intelligent design. Methodological naturalism supports undirected materialistic evolution as the only possible type of origins theory—that is, to the necessary exclusion of other theories— only if the imperative “must” and the logical modifier “only” raise an impenetrable logical wall around “materialistic causes” or “natural things and processes.” Anything less would be ordinary scientific disputation, contending about the best explanation for the phenomena in the light of every causal possibility, with the normal hurly-burly of empirical debate to follow—a competition modern proponents of the theory of intelligent design, for example, eagerly welcome.”

Great. What does “providentially” mean?

1 Like

“Methodological Naturalism to be a portion of the philosophy of Naturalism that allows for theistic views where Naturalism does not, and therefore would be opposite of what you are stating.”

Just a slight correction. MN is more related to philosophy of science, not naturalism per se.

@John_Harshman

Some people use the word “providential” interchangeably with “miraculous”. And certainly there are definitions where that is its meaning:

The Latin root of providential is providentia , “foresight or precaution.” Providence changed over the years; it usually referred specifically to the care of God, and it was spelled with a capital P . Providential , likewise, has another meaning that’s purely religious, “resulting from God’s intervention.” Whether you’re talking about God or not, if something is providential, it feels a little miraculous.

But my Pilgrim ancestors would use the word “providence” if 3 days before running out of food, they discovered a huge school of fish that fed them until the next boat arrived. Thus God was behind the event … but operating through natural processes. The school of fish did not appear in a flash of light and barely heard > poof < !

So I contrast the word “Providentially” to mean anything that on the surface looks naturally caused, compared to “Miraculously”, meaning anything that on the surface looks like a super-natural event.

What is the importance of “on the surface” here? Do you refer to miracles that are just not obviously miracles?

Back to the original question: what does “operating through natural processes” mean? Now I myself operate solely through natural processes. Am I working providentially when I pick up a pencil? Further, am I working providentially when I allow water vapor to form a cloud and rain results. (Of course I’m not really allowing anything; that implies that I could have not allowed it, which is not true. But am I exerting the same influence, i.e. none, in the same way that God does it?)

1 Like