I meant to imply that in my post, but I appreciate the clarification.
2 Likes
That is the case sometimes. I think that is the complaint that T. aquaticus has, for example. I don’t reject your point. However…
I lost count of the number of times that TE evangelicals on BioLogos or in ASA forums said things like (I paraphrase): “Science deals with the factual side of nature, whereas questions of purpose, meaning, and value belong to theology or philosophy, so design inferences can’t be scientific, but only philosophical or theological stances taken toward nature.” If we were on BioLogos, five years ago, I could point to examples of this probably at least once a week; it was a kind of standard response TE response to ID claims. Another version of it was: "We can see design in nature, but only through “the eyes of faith” " – which meant that design was not an objective property of any natural object or system, observable or measurable with devices (like mass, crystalline structure, electrostatic charge, etc.), but only a subjective gloss on the phenomena, which an atheist would not apply, but which a Christian would. Scientists, when speaking as scientists, were not allowed to speak about “design” in physical, chemical, or biological systems or entities. They could do so only when they took off their scientist’s hat, and said that they were speaking just as a Christian, or just as a person, etc.
Do you see the point? The point was not specifically about methods of testing, etc. A “demarcation criterion” (or more than one) was being applied, to ensure that all design inferences were necessarily outside of science. That is very different from saying that so far design inferences have not provided adequate means for testing themselves. It is one thing to say that so far design arguments have not met the standards required, and other to say that in principle design arguments never could meet the standards, due to a strict and inflexible demarcation between science and faith, or science and theology, or whatever.
The TE argument to which I’m referring is that it’s wrong ever to look for evidence in design in the context of science, that all of ID is based on a huge category error. And Gould-like notions are called in by some TEs to justify this rejection. I’m not blaming Gould for that.
Of course, there is another wrinkle in this: TEs are not consistent on this point. Many of them will say that design arguments, in principle, don’t belong to science, but to theology or philosophy, which, one would think, would cause them to stop responding to ID arguments. But in fact, they respond to ID arguments all the time. They call them “bad science,” and try to show the scientific errors, as if, if those errors were not present, ID could be “good science.” But it’s inconsistent to say that ID arguments are “bad science” when one believes that in principle they aren’t science at all, and couldn’t ever be. And it’s also a waste of time; if ID arguments couldn’t possibly be scientific, then they couldn’t be either good or bad science, so why invest even a minute responding to them at all? So there is very muddy thinking when some TE leaders take both lines against ID simultaneously.
Anyhow, it is this line of argument among TE/EC leaders that rankles me, not the line of argument you are talking about.
I totally agree with that. Even Gould thought of NOMA as a generality, and recognized the hazy border between them.
2 Likes
I believe there is forensic evidence of the Perpetrator, and especially of a primary M.O. 
I agree! Unfortunately, those TEs who take a NOMA-like stand tend to treat the border as non-hazy, and the distinction between truths of science and truths of faith as obvious and easy. They will often quote or paraphrase Galileo: “religion teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go”, as if there is no fuzzy borderland at all, and the object of each study is rigidly separated. Of course, that serves their agenda, but it’s not Gould.
And of course, it’s not clear that “design” automatically belongs in the realm of “purpose, values, and meaning” and has no bearing at all on “the way nature is.” It’s that methodological sleight-of-hand that I’m objecting to.
2 Likes
Scientists can speak about design with their scientist hat on if they want. The problem is that those claims will then be held to the standards of science, and ID hasn’t done particularly well in that arena. Thus far, design hasn’t gone beyond the subjective “it looks designed” stage. To use an analogy, you can’t complain about being discriminated against in major league baseball if you can’t throw, field, or hit.
I have run into a more nuanced version of that argument. The TE’s I have read claim that God is working through the laws of nature, so any design that may be happening is not detectable by science. That is why they balk at the idea of using science to detect God’s actions.
1 Like
If you’re doing science and not belief, you should be able to come up with a hypothesis and empirical predictions from it, as detectives do when questioning suspects.
Yes, they use that argument, too. But in employing it, they tend to downplay the possibility that God may work sometimes through the laws of nature, and sometimes not. Or rather, they freely grant that God works outside of the laws of nature in the Biblical miracles, but strongly resist the idea that God ever worked outside of the laws of nature in creation. But the ease with which they say, “I believe a man rose from the dead” doesn’t seem to fit with their ultra-skepticism when anyone suggests that God created anything by violating any natural laws. They take their scientist’s hat off with alacrity when affirming some stuff about Jesus, but not when talking about unobservable things that happened billions of years ago. They are almost certain God didn’t violate any natural laws back then. A curious division, in my view, and one whose explanation is more likely to be found in the psychology of these believers, than in any consistent philosophical view about natural causes, scientific methodology, etc.
I resist the idea that Mikey from the Life cereal commercials died after washing some Pop Rocks down with a Pepsi. I don’t resist that idea because it can’t happen, but because there is no evidence that it did happen and tons of evidence that it didn’t happen. That’s the logic the TE’s are using.
Who, specifically, was not allowing this, Eddie? It’s a figment of your imagination.
Irrelevant, since the topic I was discussing was not science, but epistemology, i.e., demarcation criteria regarding the spheres of science, religion, philosophy, etc. The people I mentioned have continued to write about demarcation criteria. Some of their stuff in this area has been published in peer-reviewed journals (much to Eugenie Scott’s chagrin, in Meyer’s case).
Obviously you missed dozens of statements along this line that were expressed on BioLogos, both by columnists and by TE commenters. “We see design in nature only through the eyes of faith” – or words very close to that – were extremely common on the site at a time when you were reading it regularly. If you weren’t paying attention, there’s nothing I can do about it.
Scientists who actually generate new knowledge deal with epistemological demarcation criteria every stinking day, Eddie.
And ignore most of the relevant evidence, and even egregiously misrepresent the evidence.
The peer-review system is not perfect, as Meyer got away with double-publishing, not to mention evasion of the reviewing protocol.
What are your heroes’ h-indices?
There’s nothing there about anyone allowing anyone else to do or not do anything. You’re just confirming that it’s a figment of your imagination.
Were the BioLogos people going to these peoples’ houses and gagging them so they couldn’t talk about the subject? Surely there is a difference between disagreeing with someone and silencing someone.
1 Like
But you do resist the idea that Jesus rose from the dead, that he fed five thousand, that he healed lepers etc. instantly, that Moses parted the Red Sea, etc. How do you explain the “selective” scientific rigor of the TE leaders, when they pooh-pooh the idea of invoking a miracle to explain the first life, but aren’t phased at all by miracle claims which would involve equally great disruptions of the causal nexus? Why aren’t they trying to find naturalistic explanations for the Resurrection, the Red Sea, walking on water, etc. with the zeal they employ in trying to construct naturalistic narratives for the Cambrian explosion, the origin of life, the origin of the human conscience, etc.? Doesn’t that strike you as a wee bit inconsistent?
Yes, morality as a subjective concept follows naturally from materialism, though in my experience I’ve found few atheists who’ve thought through their atheism enough to grasp that. I’ve never encountered one who actually lives that way.
I understand the is/ought fallacy, but thank you for the explanation.
2 Likes
That’s not too difficult, really, in my experience. It would be foreign to and not permitted, however, by those who disallow that God can indeed act into space and time. We are again talking about documentable groupings of improbable events, meaningful sets and series of the same, and as @terrellclemmons said, events that perform a function (Welcome to Terrell Clemmons: Questions on Methodological Naturalism - #147 by terrellclemmons), not just the occasional ‘coincidence’.
I can predict that other Christians, and potentially and probably myself as well, will experience or again experience such evidence of God’s providence. Additionally, I can predict that some who are not yet Christians, but will be, will experience them, reminiscent of an account in Tim Keller’s book, The Reason for God, the details of which he did not further relate:
2 Likes
Not having read “Is Theology Poetry?” I’m not sure what to make of this.
If you’ve followed this thread and the CAA facebook discussion that preceded it which you participated in, you should have a pretty good idea of the concerns I am wrestling with about TE/EC. And part of my reason for engaging at length in this thread is to try to understand TE/EC better. Maybe you’ve noticed, also, that I haven’t said a lot about what I think, but rather I’ve asked questions and listened to what other people have to say.
With that said, if I were going to write an article about TE/EC, would you be okay with me quoting you as a prominent TE/EC proponent giving this as your answer to the question of how you integrate science and Christian faith? Would there be anything you would want added to it to supply some context?
… I mean, not that I need it. This is a public forum. But out of respect for the subject and for you, it seems like a good idea to invite you to clarify or supply context if you would like to.
5 Likes
If you think that, then you don’t know what demarcation criteria I’m talking about.
“Evasion of the reviewing protocol” is either an ignorant statement, or a lie. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to ignorance. The reviewing procedure was according to the standard practice. Sternberg has laid it out on his website. I would take his Christian word over your baseless charges any time.
Pardon my French, but who gives a crap? Lots of Ph.D.s in science have high h-indices, meaning they can do high-level technical work in a narrow field very well, but that doesn’t mean they can think about any deeper or broader issues, to save their lives. We are talking here about deep issues in the relationship between religion, science, and theology, and there is nothing in the training of the vast majority of scientists (I know what the pattern of science training is, so you can’t snow me on that) that equips the typical scientist to think about these issues. In fact, the reward system in science effectively penalizes scientists who go in the direction of anything like philosophy, especially if they dare to do it early in their careers.