Welcome to Terrell Clemmons: Questions on Methodological Naturalism

[dga471 (Daniel)]

So, just to be clear, I have never read Applegate nor Venema on these specific issues, and am just assuming for the purposes of this reply that your summary is mostly accurate.

1. Applegate and Randomness

[ellipses mine]:

@Eddie

Kathryn Applegate would argue from the fact that the immune system made use of randomness…, that the immune system could have been produced by randomness (i.e., random changes could have taken creatures which had not even the beginnings of an immune system to creatures like us who have a highly sophisticated one). In other words, random mutations not only modify systems, providing little improvements which natural selection can work on, but are capable of creating previously non-existent highly complex machinery…

But the general line of argument in all her columns and remarks on randomness is that really sophisticated means-adjusted-to-ends systems can arise from the rearrangement of unconscious molecules, genes, etc. which are not working according to any plan or design, but simply reacting to natural forces. When you couple that with the fact that she seems to take the general line that God seems to work through natural causes rather than through breaking natural laws, it seems likely that she inclines toward a wholly naturalistic origin of life.

Several comments:

1. It seems to me that confusion is arising from the use of the word “random”, which as I noted in my post above doesn’t necessarily indicate ontological randomness, especially when we’re talking about biology. Thus, when a biologist like Applegate says that something is “produced by randomness,” this looks more like a misunderstanding of the use of terms between scientists and theologians, rather than a fundamental theological error. Nothing of what Applegate is saying implies that God has little control over the random and/or probabilistic aspects of many biological phenomena.
2. If one believes that the evolution of “highly complex machinery” can be explained by only invoking biological randomness and natural mechanisms, why does that imply that there is no “plan” or “design” behind these things? Instead of focusing on evolution, I would again go to a more mundane example. We can explain the spectral lines of hydrogen by recourse to only quantum mechanics - purely “natural” mechanisms. Does that mean there is no plan or design behind the mechanisms?

Regarding point 2, one possibility is that you think that a properly thought-out plan must involve no randomness at all. First, this is not necessarily obvious; even very well thought-out human plans are never fully certain and often involve “playing the dice” a few times until it is certain that one gets a certain outcome. In fact, @AndyWalsh has suggested that that God’s providence could work similar to how some phenomena are chaotic, yet still stay within certain mathematical limits. Secondly, once again, there is no reason to think that biological randomness implies ontological randomness. God could be using biological randomness in a yet-undiscovered way to precisely reflect His will.

2. Supernatural Intervention and Singling Out OOL

@Eddie

A problem that plagues any attempt to understand TE writing in this area is the fact that TE writers regularly conflate “design” with “supernatural intervention.”

Perhaps, but I would also say that ID proponents seem to be ambiguous about what “design” exactly is, and how it is “inserted” into nature, which contributes to the confusion. Now, I might be completely wrong as I don’t read a lot of ID literature, but ID proponents seem to spend a lot of time arguing for the insufficiency of evolutionary mechanisms. Not as much time is devoted to explaining design itself, or what exactly constitutes purpose.

@Eddie

So we are left in puzzlement about Venema’s overall position: could accidental chemical reactions, without miracles or designed setups, have produced the first life? Or would it have required at least some designed setup of nature, though no miracles? We simply can’t tell what his position is, if he has a position, or what his inclination is, if he has an inclination.

Perhaps it could be the case that he genuinely is agnostic about the matter, but he does not want to create the impression that OOL research is any different than matter/antimatter asymmetry or high temperature superconductors. We don’t talk about design in those matters, so why should OOL be any different? (Perhaps this is the point where we should come back to matter of what role is played by specific interpretations of Scripture.)

Now, I cannot guess Venema’s frame of mind, and I probably would express my own position somewhat differently, but I can understand with the desire to avoid elevating OOL or evolution as specific scientific research areas which are “more likely” to contain “miraculous” elements.

@Eddie

In contrast, those ID folks who are Christian (and most ID folks are Christian, though some are Jews, Muslims, Deists, agnostics, etc.) very unambiguously assert that design (not necessarily miracles, but design) was necessary for the first life.

Do you see how misleading it is to single out the “first life”? It implies that the “first life” is special in such a way that some special kind of divine guidance (perhaps you could call it an “intervention” or “miracle”, or not) is required. It also might imply that science will fail in explaining OOL in purely naturalistic terms. But as I take it, you have no scientific nor philosophical reason to believe why this is the case. The main argument you have is scriptural, and those are notoriously subject to a lot of disagreement even among orthodox Christians.

3. The Responsibility of Christian Scientists

@Eddie

Nobody’s criticizing the BioLogos people for not having a full-blown theology and science of the origin of life. It’s a difficult scientific and theological question. But it’s surprising how incoherent and uninformative the thoughts of all its management and columnists on the subject are, given that they have been writing columns and ASA articles and books on faith and science issues, on evolution and creation, etc. for years and in some cases decades now.

I think many people (here at least) agree that many Christian scientists focus too much on the science and neglect to carefully consider how it fits in philosophically and theologically (see: Christians in Science: Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility). And based on your comments I would agree that it would be good for them to be more careful when using terms like “random” and “design”. But this is also perhaps a reason why we shouldn’t take their statements about such terms too literally, and or believe that they some latent heretical views.