Room for Discussing Design in Evolution?

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@Ashwin_s

That sounds more like philosophy than science. Is natural selection some kind of ghost in the system?

@Ashwin_s

Now you are being intentionally humorous?!
The ghost in the system is pretty obvious: it is God!

And there is no controlling for HIS variable, the variable of divine presence, in the lab or in the field!!!

[Ashwin_s]

@gbrooks9

Now you are being intentionally humorous?!
The ghost in the system is pretty obvious: it is God!

I agree… last time I checked natural selection is not called God… let’s give credit and glory where it is due.

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@Ashwin_s

last time I checked natural selection is not called God… let’s give credit and glory where it is due

Natural Selection is only as much God as the Rains are.

[Ashwin_s]

@gbrooks9

Natural Selection is only as much God as the Rains are

Yes… and people make the mistake of idolizing rain as a God too…
It’s a mistake human beings can and do make often.

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@Ashwin_s

It’s a mistake human beings can and do make often.

I don’t know anyone on these boards guilty of this kind of mistake.

[Ashwin_s]

@gbrooks9

I don’t know anyone on these boards guilty of this kind of mistake.

I agree with you there.

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

What an interesting thread this has become. I truly believe that the inability to allow the concept of an outside intelligence into a scientific conversation is the root of the problem.

I’m not trying to change the rules, but some really honest and open people are discussing this issue in a really professional manner and the limitations of the discussion rules are unmistakable, in my opinion.

As much as I wanted to see a way to keeping these two areas separate (NOMA style), it is very challenging and seems to really interfere with the conversation rather than help it along. The main problems I observe are:

The science side will not entertain one possibility (intelligence aided the process of evolution) and yet wants to co-opt the word “design” from time to time, which the theologians cannot accept.

The theology side will not accept the evolutionary explanation unless it is complete (can account for all of the species, at the right time, in the right place) and will not clearly explain when and where (or even if) God intervened to augment the creative process of evolution.

I don’t want to be defeatist, but it seems as though we are at an impasse if we want to have a universal conversation. I don’t respect one who suggests a problem without also suggesting a solution, but, to me, the only solution is to tear down the wall (NOMA) and allow the chips to fall where they may.

If there is an intelligence that is working within or apart from evolution, then it should be detectable or falsifiable. I know that this will be met with horror by many, but I don’t see another good solution to keep the conversation open and universal.

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

I’m not asking about when a scientist uses the word “intent.” I am asking about when a scientist uses the word “design” (see the quote below.) And if you respond similarly, that he or she only means the figurative appearance of design, therein lies the question. If design is “figurative” it is not “actual”… so what is “figurative design” to use, potentially, your description?

@gbrooks9

From @michael_callen “I think that “design,” by definition, includes an element of “intent” which cannot be incorporated into methodological naturalism.”

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Michael_Callen

The science side will not entertain one possibility (intelligence aided the process of evolution) and yet wants to co-opt the word “design” from time to time, which the theologians cannot accept.

I"m not sure I agree or understand. I’m not even sure who the “science side” is. It is a fact that both science and theology are using the same word in different ways. The challenge is just being clear in which way we mean it. A true statement in one context can be false in another, just because the meaning and scope has changed. The problem arises just because we do not keep the discourse straight.

@Michael_Callen

two areas separate (NOMA style)

This is not at all NOMA style. NOMA says that science and theology are talking about different things (facts vs. values). I, rather, I am saying they are talking about the same things in different ways (scientific view vs. theological view). I also do not think that facts vs. values is a helpful distinction, or even correct.

@Michael_Callen

The theology side will not accept the evolutionary explanation unless it is complete (can account for all of the species, at the right time, in the right place) and will not clearly explain when and where (or even if) God intervened to augment the creative process of evolution.

That is not the theology side. That is the ID side.

Many theologians have no problem with evolutionary explanations, and resist the theology of ID.

@Michael_Callen

I don’t want to be defeatist, but it seems as though we are at an impasse if we want to have a universal conversation. I don’t respect one who suggests a problem without also suggesting a solution, but, to me, the only solution is to tear down the wall (NOMA) and allow the chips to fall where they may.

Already did that. NOMA is not at play here.

Also, we cannot have a universal conversation. These are separate discourse communities. They will always be different conversations, and the goal of a universal conversation is a Babel Tower. The challenge is translation.

@Michael_Callen you’ve done a good job at this…

@Michael_Callen

Emphasis mine. So, in my discussions, I’m trying to abide by the rules (as I understand them.) In doing so, I am seeing some benefits, as discussed above. It is not easy or intuitive at all. But it does explain some of the antagonism that occurs for no apparent reason.

In general you have been totally understandable and understanding. You’ve also been able to successfully push back on people overstating the science. I’m not sure what is wrong with the approach you have been taking. Continue down that path and you are going to win. Why give it up?

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

Monday maybe??

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Michael_Callen

Monday maybe??

You lost me.

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

Thank you. You are always thoughtful in your responses. I do not wish to belabor any point at all, but I feel as though this hit the nail on the head for me… (but it may have been my head…)

@swamidass

I"m not sure I agree or understand. I’m not even sure who the “science side” is. It is a fact that both science and theology are using the same word in different ways. The challenge is just being clear in which way we mean it. A true statement in one context can be false in another, just because the meaning and scope has changed. The problem arises just because we do not keep the discourse straight.

I think that I agree with you here. (I say “think” because I’m processing it still…) That said, this very context to which you refer is so problematic, because we all add to the context through our dogma. When you say this (something can be false in one context, true in another), in this way, it makes great sense, but because of the issue the last part (keeping the discourse straight) it is problematic.

If we are all disciplined, and we all follow the rules, it is relatively easy to walk the line. As you can see here, though, in the heat of the discussion, we all tend to revert to our own dogma for context, and confusion ensues. It’s almost as though we need a filter, or translator, to contextually rephrase our questions and comments in a way that will prevent nauseating arguments that get no where.

Maybe that is just ranting and not helpful… I want to be helpful, but in 114 posts on whether or not there is room to discuss design in evolution, we have so many differing opinions. We all want to be right more than we want to come to agreement or understanding, it seems.

I want to do what I can do to effect a positive understanding. That was the reason for asking about this topic to begin with, and, it is true, there have been many really thoughtful responses.

[T_aquaticus]

@Michael_Callen

The science side will not entertain one possibility (intelligence aided the process of evolution) and yet wants to co-opt the word “design” from time to time, which the theologians cannot accept.

I don’t think this is true at all. What science will entertain is scientifically testable hypotheses, and that is what ID lacks. Science is much more about the requirements an idea has to have in order to be scientific than it is about setting rules for what will be excluded.

@Michael_Callen

The theology side will not accept the evolutionary explanation unless it is complete (can account for all of the species, at the right time, in the right place) and will not clearly explain when and where (or even if) God intervened to augment the creative process of evolution.

It is kind of strange that evolution is one of the few scientific theories that is singled out in this way. No one requires evidence that microorganisms caused every single infection throughout history before accepting the Germ Theory of Disease.

@Michael_Callen

If there is an intelligence that is working within or apart from evolution, then it should be detectable or falsifiable.

That is probably the big theological question of this scientific era. Perhaps the best way to get at this question is to remove evolution from the question and replace it with “natural processes”. Do you believe that God is working in weather patterns or ocean currents? Is God’s interaction with these natural processes detectable or falsifiable?

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

I’m sorry, I was responding to “why give it up”… Chocking it up to being a Monday. Please ignore.

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@Michael_Callen

If there is an intelligence that is working within or apart from evolution, then it should be detectable or falsifiable. I know that this will be met with horror by many, but I don’t see another good solution to keep the conversation open and universal

@Michael_Callen

Of course you are assuming this intelligence isn’t TRYING to be concealed.

But let’s adopt your position; does this mean you are able to accept the Dual Creation scenario where God uses Special Creation for Adam/Eve… and evolutionary processes for the pre-Adam human population?

[Patrick]

@gbrooks9

God uses those forces like any other natural process.

Science is neutral on whether or not God uses those forces like any other natural processes.

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@Patrick

Science is neutral on whether or not God uses those forces like any other natural processes.

I believe I’ve said that a few times.

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

@T_aquaticus Thanks, too, for your response. I always appreciate your perspective and the way you respond.

@T_aquaticus

I don’t think this is true at all. What science will entertain is scientifically testable hypotheses, and that is what ID lacks. Science is much more about the requirements an idea has to have in order to be scientific than it is about setting rules for what will be excluded.

RTB, for instance, has a “testable creation model”… it invokes the Judeo/Christian God as a causal agent that works in conjunction with evolution to bring about the propensity of life on this planet. In the discussions that I’ve experienced here, there seems to be an unwillingness to test these models because once God is mentioned, it immediately becomes a “theological” discussion alone. Maybe I’ve misunderstood, but I believe that I’ve been told that dozens of times here. Do you feel differently?

@T_aquaticus

It is kind of strange that evolution is one of the few scientific theories that is singled out in this way. No one requires evidence that microorganisms caused every single infection throughout history before accepting the Germ Theory of Disease.

I accept your criticism, absolutely. I think that how life came about is really the main idea, and, therefore, gets the greatest amount of focus. Honestly, though, it is central to the discussion. Everything was either created by an outside intelligence, evolved on its own through a random process, or a combination of both. So, is it agreeable that tackling the biggest elephant in the room is a good strategy or no?

@T_aquaticus

That is probably the big theological question of this scientific era. Perhaps the best way to get at this question is to remove evolution from the question and replace it with “natural processes”. Do you believe that God is working in weather patterns or ocean currents? Is God’s interaction with these natural processes detectable or falsifiable?

I think, though, we’d both agree that this pursuit would not be satisfying, because those of us who would pose this question don’t see it as a theological issue. And, as with the question above, it would be considered by many as “out of bounds” for a scientific discussion. As to it being satisfying, scientifically, whether or not God pushes the winds in one direction or another matters not to me (and maybe to most.) Whether or not God was involved in bringing about life, the diversity of life, or some life, on the other hand is very important.

You are thoughtful… maybe you have another approach to this dilemma posed slightly differently. Many of us see the evolution as unable to explain the diversity of life that exists or has existed. We can see how some species of plants and animals have evolved, how some may have evolved, but in others we simply believe that the causal power is simply not there. Because of this, we look to some sort of intelligent intervention. Granted, much of the evidence for intelligent intervention (I don’t mean ID, per se, I’m just trying to be generic) is argument against evolution. On the “theological side” we see the three options (evolution, intelligence, or a combination) as the only three possibilities. So when we believe (for scientific reasons) that science fails to show that evolution could be the cause of some species (for instance) we opt instead for this intelligent intervention.

How can this conversation take place in an open forum where intelligent people (as those here) can work through the evidence and the logic to come to a conclusion? That’s what I think we are missing. Or maybe I’m just looking at it from the wrong perspective.

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

But does it have to be? Or is that just the way we play it out. I know, Patrick, that you don’t believe in God, for instance. But do you agree with me on this, at least:

The diversity of life that exists or has existed on this planet either came about through a process of evolution, through being created by an intelligent being, or a combination or the two? Are there any other options?

[Patrick]

@Michael_Callen

The diversity of life that exists or has existed on this planet either came about through a process of evolution, through being created by an intelligent being, or a combination or the two? Are there any other options?

Yes, another possible option is that life (or pre-life biochemical processes) arrived here on meteors and asteroids during the heavy bombardment period (4.6 to 4.1 billion years ago) when there was a lot of debris in the Earth path while forming. Note that what is called evolutionary science assumes life has been established and is moving forward according to all of the evolutionary processes we discussed here (NS, Horizontal Gene transfer, adaptation, Neutral gene and perhaps a few unknown processes). So I have my own question for Dr. Swamidass and others experts here - is the origin of life question part of evolutionary science or is it in the realm of biochemistry and bio-astronomy? Also the question on “what is life”? makes it into a hard scientific question like What is a species? What is human? And what is pre-big bang nothingness?