Klinghoffer: Adam and Eve and “Mainstream Science”

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

That makes sense, I guess the way I read it is that MN needs to be named differently, not to include “Naturalism” because that implies connection to the philosophy of naturalism, whereas MN just seems to be a restriction on the process of science to not include super-natural explanation. Which to even an evangelical Christian makes sense without much debate. But throw in the “Naturalism” term and hackles go up. I understand the term better now though, so thanks for the clarification.

1 Like

Except that MN has not been taken “axiomatically”, i.e. ex ante. Naturalism is the ex post “provisional conclusion” (to use Carroll’s phrasing in his final paragraph), based upon centuries of failure of scientific supernaturalism and a long line of successes of scientific naturalism. I don’t really care whether you call this conclusion methodological naturalism or provisional naturalism. I would suggest that, until “new evidence” “lead[s] to future adjustments in our credences”, your attempts to distinguish the two leads to, at best, a purely hypothetical difference. Also, as with any real-world situation, whether it is a conclusion or a prescription depends on your frame of reference. A historian of science might describe it as a conclusion, based upon the previous centuries of trial and error, the National Academy might word it as a forward-looking prescription guiding future endeavors based upon this conclusion (with the implicit caveat that, if empirical evidence supporting the supernatural were to be found, this guidance would necessarily have to change).

And I would also suggest that this is not just “Carroll’s perception”, it would appear to be a plain reading of the scientific record, and I would be surprised if you could demonstrate that a majority of scientists, or philosophers of science, disagrees with it.

I would also suggest that Carroll’s background, as a widely-published working scientist, might give him a greater degree of insight into how science is actually done than somebody who apparently splits their time between submitting the occasional poster at scientific conferences, and the occasional chapter in anti-evolution polemics.

But again I say, you are welcome to prove myself, Sean Carroll and the rest of the scientific community wrong, by providing concrete results of of MN-ignoring/supernaturalistic science, thus demonstrating the superiority of such science.

Addendum: a more concise articulation of my point is that, lacking emprical evidence of the supernatural, there is no functional difference between methodological empiricism (which Carroll was advocating) and methodological naturalism.

2 Likes

@John_Harshman

Read the definition. It is not about mortal actions… it is about God’s arrangement of the universe … sometimes working through other mortals.

@John_Harshman

Yes, that is what I mean. If someone jumps from a building fire from the 4rd floor, and lands unharmed in a pile of hay… that is providence. If the same person jumps from a building fire and hits concrete and is UNHARMED … many would say that such a thing is impossible, and so miraculous - - especially if 50 people saw this image floating where he landed!:

image

You say that, and then you present an example that seems to contradict it. Do you mean that the presence of a pile of hay was miraculously arranged by God? Was the pile of day created de novo, or what?

What do you mean by “working through other mortals”?

Are clarity and consistency too much to ask for?

1 Like

@John_Harshman

Havent you spent a single day in religious instruction? Spiritual vocabularly leaves you immobile.

A haystack, created de novo, is obviously miraculous, right.

If the haystack was delivered via truck or donkey … last week or even last year… it is best described as providential. If you have a better word, that confuses you less, I would probably want to know the word and use the word.

@John_Harshman

And how many times must I hold the hand of someone so unfamiliar with even 2nd grade metaphysics?

If God somehow arranged for YOU to deliver the hay in time … that would be working THROUGH another mortal to save the falling mortal.

How is it you are so unable to grasp theologically obvious ideas?

This is what’s known as “blaming the victim”. If you’re unable to say what you mean clearly and unambiguously, it’s not my fault.

It’s providential, by your own prior definition, if God miraculously causes it to be delivered by truck or donkey. What would he do to cause that to happen? It’s not the word that’s the problem. It’s the lack of clear and consistent meaning attached to the word.

How would he arrange that? “Somehow” is just too vague, though I suppose it does require some kind of active intervention, i.e. making something happen that wouldn’t have happened without that intervention.

Perhaps they aren’t as obvious as you imagine. It’s even possible that you don’t understand the idea but only imagine you do.

1 Like

Cool it guys. @moderators should split.