Natural Theology vs. Design Arguments vs. ID

[Ashwin_s]

@Michael_Callen

purposeless unintelligent natural processes

Pretty much every natural process is supposed to be this way…
No ultimate purpose or direction… no active guidance by an intelligence.
That’s what I understand.

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

Thanks… I was trying to read your post / question in context. I think that @Patrick was saying that an alternate form of “design” to be considered is design by natural selection, which is that which “appears” to be designed, but is, in fact a product of a purposeless, unintelligent natural process. I think that this is a very good suggestion.

@Ashwin_s

It could be argued that the APPEARANCE of purposeless unintelligent natural processes as a cause for Design is a result of inherent limitations/biases in the scientific method.

I’m missing what you are saying here. What do you mean by the “appearance of purposeless unintelligent natural processes as a cause for design”?

[Patrick]

@Michael_Callen

Further, I don’t think that you can say (in the context of the scientific discussion) that there is “no intelligence” and “no knowledge” because you are really appealing to the theological side of the discussion are you not? I wondered that when I read one of your posts where you asked Joshua if he was going to be as fair to the “Nones” as he was to the “Christians”… Hopefully the answer is yes! They will all be excluded from the scientific discussions, right?!

I could be wrong about all of this, Patrick. Really, I’m just trying to figure it out and to play by the rules.

When I say no intelligence and no knowledge, I am evoking science but not theology. To be clearer, there is no evidence of intelligence and no evidence of knowledge. That is in line with the tenets of MN.

[Ashwin_s]

@Michael_Callen

I’m missing what you are saying here. What do you mean by the “appearance of purposeless unintelligent natural processes as a cause for design”?

I am talking about the scientific method here… for example if we investigate how GM plants gain some traits using the scientific method, without any actual historical evidence of what really happened…
The conclusion would most likely be “natural selection” or some other unintelligent natural process.
I.e there is a bias in the methodology which does not allow us to conclude that an intelligent agent is involved… even when it is true and change is due to genetic modification by human beings.

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

I can see how evidence of intelligence would be closer to science, certainly. That said, what do you think about this:

Someone from the ID camp says that there is evidence of intelligence as they analyze certain data. They are censored because they invoke intelligence that is outside the domain of science. Do you not see, from a purely scientific perspective, offering a scientific opinion on the evidence of, or against, an intelligence as being outside of science?

It seems like it is unfair. Science is being invoked to answer a theological question. Theology cannot be invoked to answer a scientific question.

I can see how it would be fair, as you and others have in the past, to describe evolution as a process that does not invoke an outside intelligence, and leave it as that. I see, however, even the insistence that there is no evidence of intelligence to be out of bounds. How can one analyze the situation and not be allowed to invoke said intelligence, but, on the other hand, be allowed to analyze the situation and express that there is no evidence of the same?

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

Hi Ashwin: I understand what you said in your response. Makes perfect sense. And what I quoted above may also make perfect sense, but I didn’t get it. Can you try to just explain what is in the quotes above (if you don’t mind)? I’m really only hoping to understand your entire post. Maybe you could just rephrase that in quotes above and use an example of one process. I think that I may be hung up on the word “cause” here… An “appearance” of a “process” is a “cause” for design.

[Patrick]

@Michael_Callen

Someone from the ID camp says that there is evidence of intelligence as they analyze certain data.

Usually they say there is evidence WITHOUT producing any. Or they purport evidence which is not substantiated or confirmed by other non-ID scientists.

[Ashwin_s]

@Michael_Callen

Maybe you could just rephrase that in quotes above and use an example of one process. I think that I may be hung up on the word “cause” here… An “appearance” of a “process” is a “cause” for design.

I was using cause as attributed cause…
For example the statement, Natural selection is the cause of appearance of design.(i.e Natural selection works in such a way that the final result looks “designed” to human beings).
And my counter would be-
The scientific method is the cause of the appearance of unintelligent causes… (i.e the scientific method introduces a bias that forces us to assume purposeless unintelligent processes are at work even in situations where it may not be true).

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

Right… I understand what you are saying here. But still, my question stands. I think that it is not “fair” (equitable?) to insist that one side may not invoke an intelligent force in a scientific discussion, but allow the other side to do so in order to express a theological idea (there is no intelligence, or even evidence of intelligence) in that same scientific discussion.

I respect your right and authority to say that you are an atheist and explain why you don’t like religion, for instance, but you are entering into a theological conversation when doing so. If we’re to be as fair to the none’s as we are to the Christians (for instance), should that rule not work both ways?

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

Thanks so much. I understand now. I’m sorry that I had to ask again! Much appreciated.

[Patrick]

@Michael_Callen

I respect your right and authority to say that you are an atheist and explain why you don’t like religion, for instance, but you are entering into a theological conversation when doing so. If we’re to be as fair to the none’s as we are to the Christians (for instance), should that rule not work both ways?

Realize that atheism is an opinion and is not part of science. Science is neutral on questions about theology. See the difference? Science is not about atheism as that would be taking the position that God doesn’t exist, which science can’t do. By accepting MN, anyone (theists and non-theists) can do excellent science. Two scientists who do excellent science and are Christian come to mind right now - Francis Collins and Dr. Swamidass among many others.

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

Thanks Patrick: I do mostly agree with what you are saying and I respect your opinion. As you can see from my previous post, I, too, was juxtaposing a scientific discussion with a theological one, in complete agreement with what you have said above.

However, I don’t believe that you are responding to my question. I’ll rephrase it in a different way and see if that makes my concern more clear.

To invoke “intelligence” as the cause of perceived design is not allowed in a scientific discussion because it crosses the line into the theological realm. Do we agree on this?

If so, to say that there exists no evidence of “intelligence” as the cause of perceived design should also not be allowed, because this too crosses the line into the theological realm.

If science cannot know of God, then science also cannot know of the lack of God. Science can only speak of that which is not theology… and theology would include the existence and lack of existence of God. The same would be true for invoking “intelligence” within the scientific discussion. And similarly expressing the following:

@Patrick

… there is no evidence of intelligence and no evidence of knowledge.

When one assumes a materialistic position, the issue of “outside intelligence” has no place whatsoever. So the quote above cannot be a scientific determination. Instead, this would be a theological opinion.

This would be exactly as you say… how scientists who are Christians (for instance) can do excellent science. If they put forth their theology and infuse it into their scientific opinions, they have crossed a line. If they find that there is no evidence for intelligence and express that through their science, they have crossed the same line.

Can you agree with that?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Patrick

Realize that atheism is an opinion and is not part of science. Science is neutral on questions about theology. See the difference? Science is not about atheism as that would be taking the position that God doesn’t exist, which science can’t do. By accepting MN, anyone (theists and non-theists) can do excellent science. Two scientists who do excellent science and are Christian come to mind right now - Francis Collins and Dr. Swamidass among many others.

I totally agree.

@Michael_Callen

Thanks Patrick: I do mostly agree with what you are saying and I respect your opinion. As you can see from my previous post, I, too, was juxtaposing a scientific discussion with a theological one, in complete agreement with what you have said above.

You are doing really well at this. Thank you for taking that lesson to heart.

@Michael_Callen

To invoke “intelligence” as the cause of perceived design is not allowed in a scientific discussion because it crosses the line into the theological realm. Do we agree on this?

If so, to say that there exists no evidence of “intelligence” as the cause of perceived design should also not be allowed, because this too crosses the line into the theological realm.

I think this is about point of view. From a scientific point of view, there is no evidence of intelligence. However, from a non-scientific point of view there very well might be.

[Patrick]

@Michael_Callen

To invoke “intelligence” as the cause of perceived design is not allowed in a scientific discussion because it crosses the line into the theological realm. Do we agree on this?

Well when there evidence of intelligence as the cause of perceived design (like lines drawn on a sea shell) is allowed. For example, investigating animal intelligence like in dolphins, octopus, elephants is all science and never invokes theology. But looking for intelligence in say planet formation, well this seems outside of science.

@Michael_Callen

When one assumes a materialistic position, the issue of “outside intelligence” has no place whatsoever. So the quote above cannot be a scientific determination. Instead, this would be a theological opinion.

This would be exactly as you say… how scientists who are Christians (for instance) can do excellent science. If they put forth their theology and infuse it into their scientific opinions, they have crossed a line. If they find that there is no evidence for intelligence and express that through their science, they have crossed the same line.

Can you agree with that?

Yes, I can agree with the above.

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

Hello Joshua: Thanks for your post, too. I am honestly trying to play well and to learn how people are thinking in this realm. I have great respect for the work that the scientific community does. As well, I want to be a good citizen here. This is an effort in that regard and not an attempt to get someone to say what they don’t want to say.

@swamidass

think this is about point of view. From a scientific point of view, there is no evidence of intelligence. However, from a non-scientific point of view there very well might be.

I don’t want to give up on this, because I have hopes that I will understand. But please explain this to me, if you would:

From a scientific view, there is no evidence of intelligence. In my estimation this is the incorrect point of view, because what it says to me is that, scientifically speaking, there was an exploration made into whether or not there was evidence of intelligence and the conclusion was that there was none found. But, my understanding of the way in which science is to be approached, is that one would never look for intelligence because of the materialistic aspect. This is not allowed. So, how can there be “no evidence of intelligence” if that exploration was not made and the alternative (there is evidence of intelligence) is not allowed? I struggle with your comment being a scientific one.

This is why I continue to insist that we need to understand the terms and apply them consistently. It is little things like this that keep us from coming to a common understanding. This common understanding is exactly why I am here and desire to understand.

Again, I can’t thank you enough for your comments. If I’m wrong in my assumptions or logic, please advise.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Michael_Callen you are closer to getting it than most people here. I hope you stick around and help them catch up.

@Michael_Callen

think this is about point of view. From a scientific point of view, there is no evidence of intelligence. However, from a non-scientific point of view there very well might be.

I don’t want to give up on this, because I have hopes that I will understand. But please explain this to me, if you would:

From a scientific view, there is no evidence of intelligence. In my estimation this is the incorrect point of view, because what it says to me is that, scientifically speaking, there was an exploration made into whether or not there was evidence of intelligence and the conclusion was that there was none found.

I’m just saying in another way what you said:

@Michael_Callen

To invoke “intelligence” as the cause of perceived design is not allowed in a scientific discussion because it crosses the line into the theological realm. Do we agree on this?

If so, to say that there exists no evidence of “intelligence” as the cause of perceived design should also not be allowed, because this too crosses the line into the theological realm.

Perhaps more accurately, from a scientific point of view, we have no way of determining if divine intelligence was involved. So when we talk about intelligence in science, we meant there is no evidence of non-divine intelligence. Question about divine intelligence are outside the scientific view.

I think we are saying the same thing.

@Michael_Callen

This is why I continue to insist that we need to understand the terms and apply them consistently. It is little things like this that keep us from coming to a common understanding. This common understanding is exactly why I am here and desire to understand.

That is a good goal and probably achievable here. Though expect that not everyone will be as precise as you (or me). I’ve found that we have to be precise as possible in our own communication, and help others communicate more clearly when confusion arises. We cannot always control others language.

I’ve found it helps to do exactly what you are doing in this thread. Explain the rules of neutrality, and bring to the surface what science is and is not saying. If enough people are consistently doing this, the whole conversation will beggin to change. I’d expect there is tipping point where things could change very quickly.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@gbrooks9

Agreed George! But “agreement” among Christians and having a purely scientific discourse (what I’ve been trying to get at here) are two different things.

I don’t mean to sound fussy…

But Peaceful Science is a discussion about theological propositions… especially in connection to two mutually compatible notions of Creation performed by God (which is the ultimate theological position).

I stepped into your discussion for just one reason: you made it sound like Evolution HAS to be non-theological. I’ve made my corrective… So, as you were.

@gbrooks9, there are actually two discourses happening here.

1. The theological discourse about how to understand evolution within the context of theology. Here we talk about God all the time.

2. The scientific discourse about what science is saying the language of science, which should entirely silent about theological concepts like divine design.

In discourse 2, it can be valid to say that evolution produces the false appearance of design, because design in this context does not mean divine design. In discourse 1, it is not valid to say that science tells us that evolution produces the false appearance of divine design. Sometimes we are bouncing between each of these two discourses, and it can get confusing.

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

Thank you Joshua! I could not agree with you more.

@swamidass

If enough people are consistently doing this, the whole conversation will begin to change. I’d expect there is tipping point where things could change very quickly.

I think that this is so important and agree that things could change very quickly. I know that we can all relate to the feeling that comes from wanting to outright reject a general message because of a specific point. Your willingness (and @Patrick’s as well) to help navigate the conversation to a point of understanding is the exact opposite of that. You’ve helped to alleviate a big frustration for me.

So, if we are more or less in agreement, would it not be helpful to adopt new phrases, to be even more careful to not use language that could potentially be misunderstood, or appear to contradict what we intend to say? If I can use myself as an example (the outsider), these issues are really universal, but can be easily avoided. Since there’s a bit of a vacuum here, we can’t control how the conversations go outside, but if we adopt the same, careful verbiage and rules, we can avoid pouring gasoline on the fire.

The more that the rest of the folks (those who aren’t enjoying an environment like what you’ve created here) are hearing things that do not sound illogical, the more willing they will be to participate and–dare I say–learn something.

For one, I’d like to see you add to the “rules” such that we find it easier to avoid difficulties caused by words that we don’t choose carefully. I think that the effect on people who are interested in these topics will be amazing.

I think that I, for example, caused some confusion because I wasn’t clear enough when I began my post. So @gbrooks9 misunderstood where I was coming from. That’s a lesson for me, too.

@swamidass

In discourse 2, it can be valid to say that evolution produces the false appearance of design, because design in this context does not mean divine design.

I would say, though, that even this statement can be over the edge for the reasons we’ve discussed (in my opinion.) Unless I’m misunderstanding the word “design” which I understand to also mean “intent” which suggests the intelligence which would put forth the design. I rather would think that you might, as @Patrick suggested, speak of the “appearance of design” and leave it at that. To me, that is acceptable, but to go so far as to say it is a “false appearance of design” seems like theology.

If it cannot mean divine design, because it is science, and it happens to be divinely designed, it is not false. Design means intelligence, and science doesn’t explore or consider that aspect. That’s the only way it makes sense to me.

[Ashwin_s]

@swamidass

So when we talk about intelligence in science, we meant there is no evidence of non-divine intelligence. Question about divine intelligence are outside the scientific view.

Can you elaborate on this… What kind of evidence are you talking about. As far as i understand, without historical/documentary evidence ,it would be very difficult to distinguish between natural and artificial processes…
For example if Aliens visited earth and messed with primitive human DNA to push forward evolution towards modern Humans. Biological evidence wouldn’t be able to detect this…
Evidence for such a scenario would have to be historical or archaeological.
Is my understanding correct here?

Disclaimer: I don’t believe Aliens landed on earth or did anything of the sort!