More brilliantly fallacious straw men have never criss-crossed my eyes
Anyone else tired of hearing the following definitions of intelligent design in the media?
- "Intelligent design holds that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by a higher force - God."
- "Intelligent design says that life is so complex that God created it."
No link provided here; this is absolutely unnecessary since almost every article in the popular media about ID contains variants of these statements. Providing a link would be like providing a hyperlink to the Internet. In fact, after 5 years of reading news items about ID, on nearly a daily basis, I have yet to see any statement resembling a good definition from a popular media source.
Atheists and those committed to antiteleological worldviews would like us to falsely believe that ID is a strictly religious idea, but even news sources that are constantly ridiculed for supposedly pumping the religious right agenda, like FoxNews, cannot get ID right.
In fact, I have developed a very keen sense of perceiving this error before even viewing the article. If I simply put the mouse pointer over the hyperlink of an article about ID, this new sense informs me of the error. This extraordinary sense has yet to be incorrect, because this misleading statement is in every media article I’ve read! I am kidding about the ESP, of course.
Any reporters reading this please note: the statements quoted above are not definitions of intelligent design. Some in the ID community call this Incredulous design. ID is based on observed physical effects of intelligent activity, not being amazed by nature. Here are some definitions of intelligent design, and here as well. Anyone knowledgeable about ID knows instantly that the reporter has an agenda, or does not know what ID is, if the quotes above are given.
I agree with you Wiglaf. A lot of people in the media seem to balk at researching the basic facts about intelligent design.
Comment by Wulfgar — March 22, 2006 @ 10:27 pm
Another delicious straw man brought to you by The York Daily Record:
“Intelligent design is the idea that the complexity of life demands a creator.”
from http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3634734
Comment by Wiglaf — March 24, 2006 @ 12:31 pm
“I agree with you Wiglaf. A lot of people in the media seem to balk at researching the basic facts about intelligent design.”
… including Dembski and Behe?
“Another delicious straw man brought to you by The York Daily Record: ‘Intelligent design is the idea that the complexity of life demands a creator.’”
What part of that is an incorrect statement?
Comment by Dan — March 24, 2006 @ 7:49 pm
#1 Intelligent Design is agnostic as to whether or not the designer is a creator in the traditional or classical sense of the word…making the statement altogether false.
#2 The fundamental basis of ID is not mentioned in the statement, it can barely be said to even be a bad representation of ID. For an explanation of fundamental bases, follow the links in the blogpost.
Comment by Wiglaf — March 25, 2006 @ 1:33 am
Your first point: ah, but come now dear Wiglaf… could your Designer be any being other than a god?
And your second: yes, IDists like yourself use plenty of contrived arguments, whether it’s CSI, Irreducible Complexity, or other fundamental bases of Design. But the overall conclusion of ID is indeed that “the complexity of life demands a creator,” hence the title of your “theory” - Intelligent Design.
Now if your “theory” (which I use in quotation marks because there is no published scientific evidence for it, and hence I use theory in the colloquial sense) were called, say, Biological Probability, then maybe the focus on a Designer in the “theory”’s definition would be appropriate.
Comment by Dan — March 25, 2006 @ 6:28 pm
Sorry, change that last word to inappropriate.
Comment by Dan — March 25, 2006 @ 6:29 pm
“Your first point: ah, but come now dear Wiglaf… could your Designer be any being other than a god?”
Ah, but come dear Dan, this is your third logical fallacy on this post. Which one? This one. There are other options, and surely you know them. One possibility that I entertain is that the universe itself has the necessary intelligence to yield the biological complexity we see.
And your second: yes, IDists like yourself use plenty of contrived arguments, whether it’s CSI, Irreducible Complexity, or other fundamental bases of Design. But the overall conclusion of ID is indeed that “the complexity of life demands a creator,”
It seems that we both know what each word means, and perhaps we both know what ‘Intelligent Design’ means. But you can’t seem to divorce your logical fallacies, and stop bringing in all of the ways that you dislike it, and deal with the actual idea.
hence the title of your “theory” - Intelligent Design.
Now if your “theory” (which I use in quotation marks because there is no published scientific evidence for it, and hence I use theory in the colloquial sense)
My “theory”? Seems like you’re the only person on this post calling it a theory, please don’t put words in my mouth. Dan, is this another fallacy? Anybody out there know if there is a logical fallacy for putting words in people’s mouths?
were called, say, Biological Probability, then maybe the focus on a Designer in the “theory’s” definition would be inappropriate.
The ID argument is inherently probabilistic (among other evidences), and the probability being calculated is whether the effects warrant an inference to design. If all we were doing was figuring out how to calculate a plethora of inferences in different ways, perhaps your new title would work. However, we are calculating an inference to one particular thing: design. The name is honest and accurate.
I would venture to guess that even if ID researchers called it “Biological Probability,” it would still fall victim to the same false criticism and disinformation, and this title would also add a layer of dishonesty, as if all we are doing is mathematical probability. I can see the news coverage now: “Biological Probability is the idea that the complexity of life demands a creator.” No, Dan, I have serious doubts whether changing the name would help it in the media or any other venue. But, if this name is helpful for you to grapple with the idea independent of fallacy, please do so.
Comment by Wiglaf — March 25, 2006 @ 10:00 pm
“
”Sure, but I don’t take any of them seriously, and I don’t really think that you do either. Aliens? Even if you were serious about aliens, how on earth could aliens have accomplished molecular tinkerings on Earth without leaving a trace. Really, you MUST BE JOKING.
Regarding the rest - well, if ID was actually a theory in the scientific sense of the word, and merited any scientific standing, don’t you think that CSI or IC or any of your other fundamental bases would have a scientific study to their name, peer-reviewed and experimentally verified???
Yes, the Discovery Institute has a list of references to “peer-reviewed and peer-referenced” studies, books, etc., that supposedly support ID. But have you looked through that list? Each of them either fails to provide any evidence for any fundamental basis of ID and is published in highly dubious journals, or they don’t actually mention any words that are specific to ID in the research articles at all.
But, yes, you’re probably right… the basic tenets of ID so effectively violate the philosophy of science in the attempt to include methodological supernaturalism as a viable avenue of science, that no matter what you call it, I probably wouldn’t accept ID as it stands now as science.
Comment by Dan — March 26, 2006 @ 11:04 pm
Sure, but I don’t take any of them seriously, and I don’t really think that you do either. Aliens? Even if you were serious about aliens, how on earth could aliens have accomplished molecular tinkerings on Earth without leaving a trace. Really, you MUST BE JOKING.
Dan, I want to be as gracious, charitable, and kind to you as I possibly can. I do not want to talk down to you or be condescending, but you are approaching absurdity. I must ask you if you are reading what I am typing. I see that you have a bad habit of putting words in people’s mouths and minds; this is the second time on this post alone. I said nothing about aliens. You brought up aliens. I’m not joking about aliens, because I said nothing about aliens. I said I entertain the idea of the universe having the necessary intelligence. Please reread my post. The universe. Like pantheism or panentheism, except naturalistic. Got that? The universe.
Please feel free to complain to the Discovery Institute about their list, they probably have reasons they present the information as such.
As far as methodology, empirical verification, and peer-review, please sit back and watch what happens in the next 10-20 years. I think I will rather enjoy it.
Comment by Wiglaf — March 27, 2006 @ 12:32 am
The Universe itself is intelligent?!?! … and you contend that I’m the one approaching absurdity?
I’m afraid we just don’t remotely see eye to eye on this.
I’ll believe it when I see it.Comment by Dan — March 27, 2006 @ 5:22 pm
“Argument from personal incredulity”, anyone?
Look, Dan, you have to do better than this. Saying someone is ridiculous is not the best way to address ideas you disagree with. Remember you don’t have to see eye to eye with all of us here… in fact, I don’t expect we ever will. But that doesn’t mean we can’t have productive discussions and learn from each other.
You asked if the designer could be anything other than God. Wiglaf gave you another possibility, a view he entertains, and if you want to keep arguing your strawman version of ID (God must’ve done it) you need to have something better to bolster it then that we’re all absurd. We may all be absurd, but you haven’t demonstrated why that has any bearing on the question. Isn’t it your opinion that ID itself is absurd?
I do realize you weren’t the first one to use that term in this thread; but the first use was in a rather different context and I don’t think justifies this.
Comment by Hannah — March 27, 2006 @ 5:40 pm
Hannah - the “Argument from personal incredulity” first requires some evidence to be of application here. In the case of an Intelligent Universe, what basis does Wiglaf make that claim? Certainly nothing scientific that I’m aware of… but perhaps you could enlighten me on just how the Universe might be doing something intelligent.
However, if you think that my view of ID, with God as the only remotely plausible Designer, is a strawman, then so be it. In the end, there’s no scientific evidence accessible to science that can indicate that a Designer exists at all, regardless of it’s identity.
Comment by Dan — March 27, 2006 @ 6:29 pm
Ok, Dan, I’m going to give you another chance here to redeem yourself. Deal with my argument or please do not respond to me at all.
This hypothetical argument takes place within the confines of currently accepted scientific methodological naturalism. This includes the inescapable fact that the multiverse idea is supernatural; beyond our natural universe. That is to say, even if there are other universes, until we can empirically verify what they are like, they are irrelevant to scientific investigation of our universe.
We’ll go step by step so that it is clear what I am saying.
1) Science currently sees that it is undeniable that the universe, of its own nature, has somehow yielded the complexity we see: galaxies, stars, biological organisms, and intelligent life.
2) Science currently defines humans as intelligent beings.
2a) Intelligent human beings have never made galaxies, stars, biological organisms, nor intelligent life.
2b) Additionally, intelligent human beings are not even sure how the universe yielded these phenomena.
3) If the universe has acted solely through random chance and blind natural forces to yield the material complexity we see in our corner of the cosmos, then there are only two possibilities that I can foresee:
3a) The laws of the universe were set up to yield the perceived complexity we see (teleology), or
3b) The universe itself directs the forces and chance acting within it to yield the perceived complexity we see (intelligence).
A real-life empirical case of my argument is in order:
1) Both the universe and human beings have generated specific types of matter from energy and other sub-atomic particles. (speaking here about the highest atoms in our periodic table)
2) Humans generated these new atoms utilizing a process derived by intelligent activity, directing chance and natural forces to yield an intended goal (telos!) of a new form of matter.
3) So both human intelligence and the universe have produced new types of matter.
3a) Utilizing the logic of analogy with a strict adherence to general natural uniformity, leads us to the inference that the universe coincides with intelligence and teleology somehow.
Some invoke time as an intelligence-substitute. Unfortunately, this does not work. As far as we can tell, all of these events happened as soon as the conditions in the universe made them cosmically possible, including life. Teleology or intelligence seems a better explanation than time.
Let’s make this argument personal. Dan, when was the last time you generated a star, a planet, a living thing, or an intelligent being from raw matter? Yet we call you intelligent, while you have done none of these things, nor do you understand how they initially happened. So somehow, an unintelligent universe can do things that intelligent beings can’t do. Additionally, we intelligent beings barely have an idea how the universe did these things. If the universe is not intelligent, then I am not sure what we humans are. Possibly sub-intelligent, or at most undeveloped intelligence.
I think this naturalistic perspective sheds some very interesting light on the topic of natural teleology, intelligence, and how current science smuggles random chance and blind forces in as an intelligence-substitute.
An interesting side note that would practically take a book to logically draw out, but I think you can get it in one sentence. Why would a living thing, which resulted from random chance and blind forces, have ‘survival’ as its most basic desire? The only possible causes entertained by current science do NOT explain the effect.
If you need any supporting documents, or something is unclear, please let me know. Also, please keep in mind this is not my view, but one I consider as a theoretical possibility.
I don’t think it’s such an absurd idea to entertain the possibility that the universe itself is intelligent. Neither do I think it absurd to listen to someone else’s view before calling it absurd. I think not listening to other perspectives and putting words in people’s mouths are absurd ideas.
Comment by Wiglaf — March 27, 2006 @ 7:37 pm
First off, I’m far from being knowledgeable on quantum mechanics and multiverse concepts that have been discussed some in the last couple of decades, with only such knowledge on the subject as has been published in the likes of Scientific American.
But regarding your presuppositions, I would regard (1) and (2) as true statements, and (3) as ID-biased speculation. To be honest and fair, you should include the possibility that complexity could have arisen given a number of conditions for the Universe (different natural laws). Sure, it would probably give rise to a different perceived complexity, but how do you know that intelligent and complex is are exclusive to our Universe?
Your real-life empirical cases:
1) That human beings have recreated some high-order matter & energy phenomena that occurs within the Universe. True.
2) Humans accomplished (1) because they have intelligence. True.
3) False logic - because humans accomplished an act out of intelligence does not necessitate that the Universe did so.
3′) The “Logic of Analogy” requires the critical properties of importance to be shared. In this case, I would argue that a key component of both teleology and intelligence is thought/purpose. Unfortunately, we cannot tell what the Universe is thinking or why it is the way it is - all we know is that the Universe requires natural laws to remain the way they are for the Universe to remain the way we perceive it.
In other words, I’m rather sure the Universe would still exist if its natural laws were different, in some other form.
Strawman argument - thank you for providing a description of a Creationist viewpoint, replacing abiogenesis with star formation, etc. Stars, planets, living organisms, etc., do not appear instantly from raw matter, they develop in a long series of steps.Actually, no - most biologists consider that reproduction, not survival is the most basic desire. And, yes, it would probably take a book to explain it (Dawkins tries, and I know you’ve read the Blind Watchmaker), but life’s evolution is not truly random, although yes, it is blind. I’d be happy to explain it more for you. If, however, you want to provide supporting documents to make a point, please do - but even more helpful would be a scientific study demonstrating teleology.
Anyway, sorry I couldn’t make it to your meeting today - too much work lately. I hope our online discussions will suffice for this week.
Comment by Dan — March 27, 2006 @ 11:16 pm
Dan,
I am very pleased, this is real progress, thank you for an enjoyable response.
But regarding your presuppositions, I would regard (1) and (2) as true statements,
Finally we agree on something!!! That’s wonderful!
and (3) as ID-biased speculation.
Ok, I can accept your view on that.
To be honest and fair, you should include the possibility that complexity could have arisen given a number of conditions for the Universe (different natural laws). Sure, it would probably give rise to a different perceived complexity, but how do you know that intelligent and complex is are exclusive to our Universe?
I’m not certain that complexity and intelligence are exclusive to our universe. In fact, I’m not sure if there are other universes to say that we are the only universe with those traits, exclusively. I am speaking here about what we do know. We know that there is complexity in our universe, and that there is at least one form of intelligence in our universe. What could have arisen given different laws is an interesting question, but I’m much more interested in the way things are, and science is interested in the same thing I am.
Your real-life empirical cases:
1) That human beings have recreated some high-order matter & energy phenomena that occurs within the Universe. True.
2) Humans accomplished (1) because they have intelligence. True.
More agreement! I think we’re making progress!
3) False logic - because humans accomplished an act out of intelligence does not necessitate that the Universe did so.
3′) The “Logic of Analogy” requires the critical properties of importance to be shared. In this case, I would argue that a key component of both teleology and intelligence is thought/purpose. Unfortunately, we cannot tell what the Universe is thinking or why it is the way it is - all we know is that the Universe requires natural laws to remain the way they are for the Universe to remain the way we perceive it.
No, my argument is not of necessity, it is of inference. In science, we often know causes by effects, and not the other way around. Come on now, Darwin would have never passed your test. He admitted he had no idea how the chosen traits favored by natural selection were passed on. And it was fortunate for him that he didn’t take a stab at it. I have serious doubts that he would have posited a structure as complex as the DNA double-helix. But, fortunately for science, you don’t make the rules, Dan. Causes are known by effects, in many, many cases.
In other words, I’m rather sure the Universe would still exist if its natural laws were different, in some other form.
Fortunately for science, and for us humans, the universe is not in another form. It is the way it is. Again, what other forms the universe could have had are interesting, but I’m more interested in the way it is, and so is science.
Let’s make this argument personal. Dan, when was the last time you generated a star, a planet, a living thing, or an intelligent being from raw matter? Yet we call you intelligent, while you have done none of these things, nor do you understand how they initially happened. So somehow, an unintelligent universe can do things that intelligent beings can’t do. Additionally, we intelligent beings barely have an idea how the universe did these things. If the universe is not intelligent, then I am not sure what we humans are. Possibly sub-intelligent, or at most undeveloped intelligence.
Strawman argument - thank you for providing a description of a Creationist viewpoint, replacing abiogenesis with star formation, etc. Stars, planets, living organisms, etc., do not appear instantly from raw matter, they develop in a long series of steps.
Dan, nice try on thinking you caught me in a straw man. Unfortunately for your claim of creationism, I made it abundantly clear in my extended explanation that what I am speaking of here are processes involving forces and chance, not miracles. I also specifically stated this argument is based on naturalism. Please reread if this is not clear in your mind. You were the only one who used the word ‘instantly’. I was speaking of processes, you have dragged in spontaneity. It is clear that stars have not always existed in their present form, and that at some point in the past, the matter that constitutes them was not in the form of a star. Ergo my statement “from raw matter.”
Oops…oh my…did you put words in my mouth again? After I went to all that trouble to explain that I was speaking about naturalistic processes, you put thoughts in my head. I guess I should grow to accept this about you. Dan you can’t always anticipate where someone is going, especially if you don’t know where they’ve been. Perhaps you should use as much mental energy trying to engage what the person is saying, instead of crying wolf.
An interesting side note that would practically take a book to logically draw out, but I think you can get it in one sentence. Why would a living thing, which resulted from random chance and blind forces, have ‘survival’ as its most basic desire? The only possible causes entertained by current science do NOT explain the effect.
Actually, no - most biologists consider that reproduction, not survival is the most basic desire. And, yes, it would probably take a book to explain it (Dawkins tries, and I know you’ve read the Blind Watchmaker), but life’s evolution is not truly random, although yes, it is blind. I’d be happy to explain it more for you.
Nice dodge, answer the question. Why would a physical phenomenon resulting from random chance and uni-functional forces desire to reproduce? No book necessary, I can understand clear statements at face value.
If, however, you want to provide supporting documents to make a point, please do
I think my points have been made, no support necessary. It seems we have both benefited from this exercise in conversing. Now that you’re dealing with what I am saying it is much more enjoyable.
- but even more helpful would be a scientific study demonstrating teleology.
Wow, you left that teleology statement wide open. I think you may have wanted to specify what type of teleology. Would you like to?
Comment by Wiglaf — March 28, 2006 @ 4:43 am
Having not participated in this exchange, I have only one observation to make: to assert that the universe itself might be constructed in such a way (i.e. with the requisite physical, chemical, and biological laws) as to bring about the complexity we all recognize in biological systems via natural processes is essentially to reassert what has traditionally been called deism. While deism has a respectible intellectual pedigree (many of the “founding fathers” of the United States were deists, including Thomas Jefferson), as numerous contemporary theologians (including Hans Kuung) and atheists (including Will Provine) have pointed out, the deity of deism is both pointless and irrelevent, not to mention essentially powerless to intervene in the system of natural laws He has established, once such establishment has occurred.
Furthermore, wouldn’t it be more faithful to the spirit of Newton (”I make no hypotheses!”) to simply omit reference to the “author” of such laws and simply accept that they exist as a priori axiomatic assumptions? That’s essentially the position of mainstream scientists, virtually all of whom accept the existence of “natural laws” without speculating about their origin.
Comment by Allen MacNeill — March 28, 2006 @ 3:25 pm
Allen, that is a brilliant point, I see what you are saying. I think you are right.
simply omit reference to the “author” of such laws and simply accept that they exist as a priori axiomatic assumptions?
That is exactly what I honestly tried to do with my thought-experiment on the universe. Thank you for making an observation in the same vein.
That’s essentially the position of mainstream scientists, virtually all of whom accept the existence of “natural laws” without speculating about their origin.
I agree with regard to knowledge. I also agree wholeheartedly with regard to science. Regarding other things, like fun little thought experiments on blogs; let’s speculate! Sometimes we gotta go out on a limb. We wouldn’t have theories or hypotheses unless someone strayed from the facts into a plausibly supportable claim.
Allen, thank you for that observation. Question: do you think that scientific knowledge may one day reach a level of accuracy and understanding regarding natural laws, such that we can plausibly speculate about their origin?
Comment by Wiglaf — March 28, 2006 @ 4:05 pm
No, you misunderstand. I’m saying that the evidence we have available to us does not necessitate that your inference is the correct one. From an objective point of view, there are quite a number of inferences that could explain the Universe, and no way to tell which one is the best explanation.
Ok, but you were asking if I, myself, had seen such things occur. How could I see a star or planet form in my lifetime? Or did you mean to phrase your question differently?
You just love to claim that, don’t you? Please, don’t be offended because I discuss implications of your statements, because everything I’ve said is relevant to your questions and statements as I understood them.
You truly want to make this personal, don’t you?
Who’s dodging? Your presupposition (that life arose by random chance) is only true in the most abstract sense. Indeed, at the very base of life, we’re all a vast network of chemical reactions… why would such chemistry reactions have desires at all?Well, I think I had a good laugh at reading the “Intelligent Cells” cite that ResearchID had linked to last month… so perhaps something close to that, which would be applicable for me given my background in cell and molecular biology.
Comment by Dan — March 28, 2006 @ 5:27 pm
Dan,
I don’t think that science can say anything at all about whether the Universe is intelligent, is what I’m saying.
I think that’s a good position. Additionally, I think you’re right and I agree. This proposed view of mine is highly speculative. It is a thought experiment. If I didn’t make that clear before by saying “Also, please keep in mind this is not my view, but one I consider as a theoretical possibility.” please let me acknowledge it now. This view is speculative and not scientific.
How would you go about proving such a thing?
I don’t think it is possible to prove, only to entertain as a theoretical possibility. The original question was whether other intelligent designers besides God could be invoked, I presented one.
Ok, but you were asking if I, myself, had seen such things occur. How could I see a star or planet form in my lifetime? Or did you mean to phrase your question differently?
No rephrase necessary, I asked if you had made a star. A straight-forward question. A person making a star is not impossible in the future, nor requires a miracle. I hope that one day our science will lead us to a point where we could do something like this, I think it would be a great accomplishment for science.
You just love to claim that, don’t you? Please, don’t be offended because I discuss implications of your statements, because everything I’ve said is relevant to your questions and statements as I understood them.
You truly want to make this personal, don’t you?
I don’t love to claim it, I would rather have a straight conversation. I understand now that you don’t understand what I’m saying. I think the problem is that we have dialectical and separate understandings about many things. It only makes sense that we would have these misunderstandings. I don’t want to make this personal; I just want you to stop putting words in my mouth. Your extrapolated conclusions are yours, not mine. Discussion is fine, as long as you know what is yours and what is mine. You seemed to be implying that I was a closet fundamentalist. On that point I hold to a clearly evolutionary position, both cosmologically and biologically.
why would such chemistry reactions have desires at all?
Great question, what do you think?
perhaps something close to that, which would be applicable for me given my background in cell and molecular biology.
I’ll keep my eyes and ears open for something along those lines and let you know what I find. I think I may have one such experiment dealing with quasi-telic/pseudo-intelligent behavior in protozoan activity; I’ll look into it and get back to you.
I think with each progressive post I am enjoying our conversation more and more. Thank you for entertaining my speculation, your input has been helpful.
Comment by Wiglaf — March 28, 2006 @ 6:23 pm
Interesting thoughts, and yes, it’s nice to come to see the other’s point of view a bit, even if we still have significant disagreements along the way - it’s certainly releiving to have my fears that you’re completely “off your rocker” to be somewhat answered.
Like in Star Trek 2 and 3? Maybe, although that sounds a bit far-fetched. But who knows.As for seeming to think that you were a closet fundamentalist - well I didn’t think you were a Young Earth Creationist, that’s for sure. But yes, I do think that you’re heavily biased by some form of Paley- or Aquinus-like religious philosophy, which had its role in the development of “natural philosophy,” but has become archaic in modern science.
Sounds good. As I’m sure you have figured out, I quite enjoy getting involved in these sorts of discussions, too. Cheers!Comment by Dan — March 28, 2006 @ 7:22 pm
Intelligent Design Theory and the Supernatural
The God or extra-terrestrials reply
Elliot Sober
Comment by ivy privy — April 13, 2006 @ 5:01 pm
Ivy - personally, for dealing with the “well we don’t specify the identity of the designer” argument, I think a good reference to the Flying Spaghetti Monster as an equally valid possibility for who the designer might be. Responses to the FSM (see the hate mail section on the FSM website) especially illustrate where the “real IDers” are coming from.
Also, with Cornelius Hunter’s recent talk still fresh in my mind - what was up with his definition of supernatural causation?! “Poking me” would constitute a supernatural event? Perhaps someone should show him a dictionary.
Comment by Dan — April 13, 2006 @ 6:01 pm
Sounds like a good read. There is confusion on the implications of ID.
Darwin and his theory neutral on supernatural designers? I’ve read the Origin and written research on it, and this claim seems a long, long, long, loooooooooooong stretch. This I have to read…
Comment by Wiglaf — April 13, 2006 @ 6:08 pm
It seems to me that the main argument in this discussion ended with the agreement that it may be possible that design of some sort has occured in the universe, BUT that there is no evidence for such a purely speculative view. Why speculate? Someday, if we’re lucky (and it doesn’t look too good right now the way the world is going) we may be able to understand and analyse the question of whether design in nature should even be addressed by scientists. However, since it can be agreed that no knowledge to suggest this is available now, it is a moot point and should not be discussed any further until perhaps many years down the road. Religion in this country has caused impoverished people to vote for conservative representatives at many levels of government based on their religious morals. At the same time, these officer’s overriding obvious agendas are bad for the very people who vote for them with such religious fervor. Because of this, and other atrocities that can be traced back to religious views, it is irresponsible for educated people to even discuss ID. While the media twists ID towards creationism, (which I think it really is anyway) the message that people recieve is that it is a religious view of biology and other sciences that is being accepted by some well educated people. This seems unnecessary in light of ID’s completely speculative nature, and it propagates irrationality, misunderstanding, and ignorance which is totally unnecessary. Basically, ID is unnecessary at this point in time. It has no place in our current knowledge base, and I would argue that it has detrimental effects on our current social/political situation.
Comment by Will Schubert — April 13, 2006 @ 10:51 pm
ivy privy —
The way Sober has framed his claim, I think he is going to get intellectually slaughtered from all sides on this one. Darwin neutral on the supernatural? I would love to have seen Richard Dawkins’ or Daniel Dennet’s initial reaction to Sober’s analysis of Darwin. For the sake of lockstep, anti-IDers may remain silent, but I would guess IDists are likely to milk this for all its worth.
Sober’s analysis of ID is intriguing; seems quite an innovation, though. Separating his original premise with four unique and (from what I can tell) unverifiable extrapolations is indeed a stretch. I’m not terribly familiar with the application of Irreducible Complexity to the special sciences of psychology, neuroscience, and the like. I’m not sure if IC can be used in that way, but I am almost certain it is not possible to apply Behe’s claim to mind in general.
To say that Darwinism is silent on the supernatural seems to defeat its original and perpetuated purpose, does it not? If Darwinism doesn’t do away with the supernatural, what does it do? Restricting Darwinism the way he does would have the effect he desires. However, Darwin spent a lot of time disproving supernatural design. Some historians would not shy away from claiming he was obsessed with disproving supernatural design in biology. In his writings he identified Christianity as a “damnable doctrine”; obviously he didn’t like it too much. I suppose, historically, religious people have taken that to mean that Darwin was anti-religious, but that conclusion may or may not follow.
I have to wonder why Sober strayed so far from what Behe and Darwin themselves claimed? In my opinion, Sober’s paper is unhelpful and does not bring even one bit of clarity to the issue of ID, science, and the supernatural.
Comment by Wiglaf — April 17, 2006 @ 1:14 pm