quote:

---

Scientists on the board will no doubt have heard of Thomas Kuhn, who proposed the system by which scientific theories are tested and revised. To summarise the system goes something like this: I've already said that Darwin and Marx started at the same point, under the fashionable philosophy of Neitzche (God is Dead).

---

Which is UTTER RUBBISH and furthermore an OUTRIGHT LIE - firstly, Origin of Species was published when Neitzche was 15 years old - so how on earth could Darwinism have emerged from Neitzche's philosophy? Marx was already an established academic at this date as well - okay, it was 8 years before Captial was published, but his theories were already well developed.

I don't know what "references" you expect me to read and frankly given your fixation with a few contemporary secondary sources I don't really much care - I have degrees in both Science and History, and the latter rather disapproves of depending upon secondary sources.

If your sources have articulated to a dependency upon Nietzche from Marx and Darwin, they are categorically and unquestionably being deliberately misleading.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gbuchanan:

Marx was already an established academic at this date as well - okay, it was 8 years before Captial was published, but his theories were already well developed.

---

Although Marx was a great admirer of Darwins rather fearsome intellect, and its fair to say that some of his thinking was influenced by evolutionary theory. He sent him a copy of Das Kapital as a token of his esteem.

Which was found, pages uncut, amongst Darwins effects after his death.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doug:
Although Marx was a great admirer of Darwins rather fearsome intellect, and its fair to say that some of his thinking was influenced by evolutionary theory. He sent him a copy of Das Kapital as a token of his esteem.

---

I also apologise for the misappropriation of the phrase 'Darwinian' theory in my last post. I acknowledge Darwin's own stated philosophy and when I use the term 'Darwinian' theory, it is in its broad sense as material, purposeless and random, not as Darwin's individual philosophy. What term should we use for such a theory? Neo-'Darwinian' synthesis?

Glenn said that philosophical paradigms have never been static. This thread is a discussion of just such a paradigm shift. It is not secondary or tertiary issues, but the primary issue of the governing western paradigm.

Whether or not Marx, Darwin & Neitzche ever met or corresponded, or Neitzche post-dated Marx and Darwin by a couple of decades, the fact remains that they lived under the same philosophical paradigm, which Neitzche neatly summarised. Marx and Darwin were too busy employing their significant intellect in ways that were more practical.

Glenn pointed out that post modernism is the current western paradigm. Reading the Council for Secular Humanism's statement of belief, we find that post-modernism is a sub-set of secular humanism, because 'religion' is only for weak people who can not face a material world boldly and honestly. What is the basis for secular humanism? According to their Article 8...it's science.

But science is being 'attacked' by Behe et al, which in turn is undermining the authority of secular humanism.

The question in relation to science and secular humanism then is this:

• Are ID scientists making unreasonable or untruthful statements reading molecular systems?
  
• Are ID scientists adopting their view of the empirical evidence due to a prior commitment to theism (i.e. misinterpreting the empirical evidence) or is there a genuine reason for their conclusion?
  
• Are ID scientists simply a product of a shifting philosophical paradigm, which, as the paradigm shifts, will grow in number?
  

Much of the scientific objection is being made by Dawkins et al who see this as 'unwarranted attack', but on what basis? The scientific challenges are real and empirical. The problem with Dawkins, Orr, Miller et al is that they are arguing philosophically from a philosophically static position.

Behe et al are not regarded by any of the scientific establishment as making unreasonable or untruthful statements about the complexity of molecular systems. Irreducible complexity is a fact of science.

I don't believe Behe et al have a strong prior commitment, unlike the creationists, to discredit neo-Darwinian synthesis from a prior commitment to theism. Their conclusion seems to have been drawn, quite naturally, from what the empirical evidence suggests to them, and so their vague theistic philosophy has been reinforced at best.

This reinforcement of a theistic philosophy is the start of a paradigm shift, given the monolithic commitment of the scientific establishment to materialism before the mid nineteen nineties, any scientists who say life might be the product of intelligence risk ridicule and termination of contract.

ID philosophy stems simply from the fact that scientists are beginning to see evidence of design. The theory of intelligent design stems from a philosophical paradigm shift from material, purposeless and random to the product of intelligence.

This is why I make extravagant claims about the death of Darwinism (neo-Darwinian synthesis). It is not because empiricism has ceased, nor will it cease, but that the empirical results are beginning to be viewed from a shifting philosophical paradigm. This paradigm shift is in its infancy. It is barely a decade old. As the paradigm shifts, it will (as all paradigms do) effect law, morals, ethics and theology. The next 10 or 20 years may see this shift accelerate. In the mean time, there will be bitter controversy, because what is at stake is more than just a precious scientific theory, it is a whole way of thinking for society.

I find that thought exciting and refreshing.

Neil

What me, Alan, Glenn and so on have been calling it all along - philosophical materialism.

quote:

---

But the time between theories is characterised by bitter controversy ... A theory of 'design' supports a different philosophy. Hence, we have a bitter controversy.
Are [we] in the beginning of the bitter controversy stage of a shift in the theory of the origin of life and the origin of species? Only time will tell.

---

As you say 'Only time will tell'. As I understand Kuhn what presages the paradigm shift is an accumulation of problems which the existing theory is, after repeated attempts, unable to explain, and which tell against the theory. We have a long way to go before that stage is reached. I think it unlikely that it will be.

Bitter controversy is no guarantee of paradigm shift (astrologers are in bitter controversy with science about their theory but there is no chance that astrology will end up mainstream science).

quote:

---

what is at stake is more than just a precious scientific theory, it is a whole way of thinking for society

---

The above quote illustrates what is probably one of the worst ways to pursue scientific inquiry. While social "sciences", such as economics or psychology, may concern themselves with the "way of thinking for society", such considerations are (or at least should be) far outside the realm of the physical sciences. And biology, including evolution falls under the heading of physical science.

I think part of the negative reaction to evolution as a scientific proposition is our own sense of vanity. I have never heard anyone object to either the Special or General Theories of Relativity because they were formed under the "philosophical paradigm" (to borrow Neil's phrase) of Moral Relativism. To cite another example, Einstein himself admitted that his objections to Quantum Mechanics were probably the worst scientific mistake of his life. This objection spawned his oft quoted (and rarely understood) statement that "God does not play dice with the Universe". In essence, Einstein's objections were based on the philosophical unpalatablity (to him, at least) of a probabilistic, chaotic, and (potentially) non-causative Universe rather than any particular physical and scientific reason. Of course, Einstein was at least scientist enough to admit his error when he recognized it.

Does this mean you all agree that we are witnessing the start of a potential paradigm shift?

quote:

---

The above quote illustrates what is probably one of the worst ways to pursue scientific inquiry.

---

Philip Johnson agrees with you on that.

quote:

---

At any rate, the reason so many people object to Evolution while there is little hue and cry about Relativity or Q-Mech is that neither of these assault our own ego the way that Evolution does.

---

Arguing human ego from the biblical side of the coin, evolution is perhaps the product of an oversized human ego. The Hebrew word groups describing worship include 'homage to', 'service of' and 'respect of' God.

By rejecting God, and appealing to materialism as the mechanism driving 'evolution' man's ego swells beyond humble homage, service and respect.

As I postulated earlier, the west saw how Marx neglected human greed. Perhaps we'll look back in years to come and see how philosophical materialism neglected the unfashionable concept of rejection of God.

For example, many coming from the position which you are assaulting believe that, as humans are no more than advanced animals, we should not expect to be able to control the fate of other animals through farming, meat-eating etc. They probably see traditional Christian teaching as egoist.

Certainly philosophical naturalism does have an impact on the way morals are being shaped in our society, but I do not believe that it really provides a sufficient framework to provide a useful philosophical or ethical baseline - indeed one can argue that Marxism and Fascism were philosophically inspired by the concept of the "survival of the fittest", though in differing directions. I don't think anyone will contest the Origin of Species is a weak baseline for ethics, and most secular philosophers I've heard of would agree - remember that for instance Dawkins is primarily a scientist and scientific philosopher, not a social one, so he is far from being dominant in that other sphere. What many philosophers mean when they use the same label is significantly different, btw.

It is interesting that you are attacking the moral impact of philosophical naturalism through the science which underpins it. Firstly, ID for example is not science by any means, and I can't see it currying favour before it moves towards something that is testable rather than rhetorical.

Secondly, the connection between science or even the philosophy of science which emerges from scientific conclusions, has a very poor record indeed in surviving long term or contributing to the general patina of philosophy. Clearly many scientific discoveries and practices, e.g. innoculation, genetic modification, the nuclear weapon, have profound impacts upon moral philosophy and the philosophy and morals of scientific practice, but this is quite a a different phenomenon. Your attack would be much better based upon the inadequacies, well proven, of the route folks like Dawkins are walking.

Many moral dilemmas and ethics will be impacted by scientific discoveries in the physical and biological sciences, but that's also a different matter.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cr?sos:
(snip)
At any rate, the reason so many people object to Evolution while there is little hue and cry about Relativity or Q-Mech is that neither of these assault our own ego the way that Evolution does. Both of these theories present radically non-Christian themes, (snip)

---

What are you talking about? What is non-Christian about relativity or quantum mechanics?

You are staring at a monitor attached to a computer which relies almost entirely for its operation on the "tunnel effect" - a quantum
mechanical notion.

He suggests that this is because, as to the the theory of evolution

quote:

---

It wounds our self-image to be taken down from our pedestal as something special and separate from the rest of the Universe

---

I think that this is correct. In a few hundred years we (in the christian west) have gone from seeing ousrselves as at the centre of a small, young universe, to being on a small planet in an immensely big and old universe. The theory of evolution is seen by some as denting even further our reasons for feeling special. Hence the resistance to the theory.

Of course being special is possible still even if, as I believe, the theory of evolutionn is correct.

However I should have thought that relativity and QM would be helpful to the argument (against some Darwinist philosophy).

Relativity - the speed of light is an absolute barrier that cannot be exceeded. Here's something we can't do. Only geocentrists need complain.

Uncertainty principle in QM - the more you know about one aspect of something the less you can know about another. We can't know everything.

As far as Neil's question about what is non-Christian about Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, allow me to clarify.

Relativity presents us with a Universe where space and even time are relative, dependent upon one's frame of reference. If A happened before B in one reference frame, it is possible for B to happen before A in another, posing all kinds of problems for cause-effect order. Time itself is malleable and can shrink down or expand out. A length of time which is six days long in one frame of reference may be 14 billion years long in another. The Relativisitic Universe is a Universe which denies absolutes and everything is a matter of perspective. This is very different than the Christian Universe which contains an absolute God who deals out absolute truth and perspective is irrelevant. Considering the number of times I've heard various Christians decry "moral relativism", the analogy to physical Relativity doesn't seem so much of a stretch, and I'm surprised it hasn't suggested itself to more Christians before this.

As far as Quantum Mechanics goes, it presents us with a probabilistic Universe, one driven by chance and chaos. This is a radically different Universe than the Christian Universe, in which God has a Divine Plan, which is deterministic, immutable, has even the smallest details worked out in advance, and cannot be thwarted or changed in any way. The philosophical gulf between these world-views is a question of Schroëdinger's cat versus God's falling sparrow.

These and other questions might be better addressed if more time was spent considering Darwinist science (or any other science for that matter) and less time worrying about "Darwinist philosophy" [from John Collins post of 28 July 2001 09:57].

I have been accused of attacking science, and believing bad science. I am probably guilty of both, I don't know. Perhaps my misappropriation of the myriad of terms used in this field has led to that impression and my confusion. The reason I have been so persistent is I know that my argument is true, I just need to be clearer about what I'm arguing.

This morning, the good old BBC World Service provided an example which will clarify my argument. The article shows that I am not attacking good science, but I am attacking philosophical materialism dressed up as science. On the BBC this morning, scientist Heather Cooper provided a perfect example of what I have been attacking as 'science'.

Cooper was describing the work of the 'Genesis' space probe, which will sample particles from the solar wind and bring them back to earth for analysis. The mission will take two years, so we can expect results of this research in perhaps 4 to 5 years time at the earliest. So far, so good science.

But then Cooper said this

quote:

---

'What I find incredibly exciting is that 'Genesis' will explain our origins. We will know where we come from and how we got here.'

---

My point throughout this thread, though not put clearly, is that that is not good science!

It is at best hopeful speculation that the particles of solar wind will provide one of the many hundreds of missing pieces in the 'origin of life by natural process' puzzle.

But worse than that, Cooper's statement is of a prior commitment to philosophical materialism. She states boldly that it is just a matter of time before scientists find and place all the hundreds of missing pieces of the puzzle, proving the natural causes, and disproving God. Is Cooper's prophetic statement based on scientific fact or faith? I say faith.

Lastly, Cooper's confident, bubbly, cheerful and excited delivery (which I can not replicate in the quote) gave the listener hope that what she said would come to be. She practically adopted the style and techniques of a TV evangelist. Indeed, naming the probe 'Genesis' has to be one of the most barefaced statements of how science will provide our new creation account, without God.

But, there was no science in her statement, just faith and hope in philosophical materialism. If I wasn't skeptical, I might have believed her. My concern is that millions of World Service listeners will have swallowed her 'scientific' statement and will go on believing that God does not exist.

Collecting particles from the solar wind is good science, I have never intended to argue otherwise. The rest of Cooper's statement is just wishful thinking, faith and hope in material causes.

Heather Cooper, like every other philosophical materialist, does not wish to consider the prospect of moral accountability to a creator God. I don't have a problem if that is her choice of religion, she is free to chose her faith. I do have a problem that she is given free reign to proselytise and evangelise freely under the label of 'science' when she is clearing talking about matters of her religion.

Now as for the specific statements of Ms. (Dr.?) Cooper, many scientists, particularly those involved with particle physics and/or space exploration, do tend to get caught up in grandiose language. I can't speak for her specifically, but I suspect that it has something to do with repeatedly trying to explain very abstract concepts to laymen (in the scientific, not ecclesiastical, sense). I've also noticed that this tendency tends to be directly proportional to the attention of the media, though this last seems to be true not just of particle physicists but of people in general.

Neil, you still seem to be wed to the idea that if it is shown that the entire Universe, and us included, can be explained in scientific terms, without invoking God as an explanation, then God will be disproved. This is a load of rubbish. If the Genesis probe does explain our origin, then great, another piece in the puzzle of how God made us is found.

There is no need for me to suggest an alternative to the study of material objects, I have never meant to propose one. The study of material objects is a good and healthy pursuit. What is not good and health is atheists claiming that the study of material objects disproves God. This thread has already agreed that the study of material objects is neutral on that question.

Regarding your own response to my example of Heather Cooper, you can not seriously mean that the Boeing 747, telephones and vaccines disprove the existence of God. You also used a classic 'religious' straw man of holy wars and burnt heretics as the alternative. May I humbly suggest you read the outline of fallacious argument techniques I outlined earlier in this thread before posting such thoughts, they do not address the issue.

Scientifically, I am as excited as Heather Cooper at the prospect of collecting particles of solar wind using a space probe, it is an amazing result of science. I am as excited as you that science has advanced to the stage that we can send probes into space, and that I can write this post on a Palm device whist eating lunch. The products of the investigation of the material world are exciting and useful.

However, with reasonable skepticism, something we should all posses in large quantities, I can see through Heather Cooper's science to her probable underlying philosophy. She appears to believe that there is no God. That's fine, I don't have a problem if that's what she believes, it's her choice.

But when she speculates that the 'Genesis' probe will provide the final pieces of the materialist creation story, my skepticism tells me she's no longer in the realms of science but philosophy, day dreaming, thinking wishfully, postulating, putting an atheist spin on it, proselytising the public, evangelising her belief that God does not exist.

She's entitled to do that, but she needs to be honest that that is what she is doing. She should clarify that this is her belief (if that is what she believes). She should say that she hopes that the probe will provide some clues, because that will support her alleged philosophical belief that God does not exist. To say that the probe will tell us the origin of life it not a true statement. How many scientists believe that the only piece of the puzzle which it missing are particles of solar wind?

My problem is this: that Heather Cooper is typical of philosophical materialists (if that is how she would label herself) who evangelise their atheism or deism, illegitimately, under the banner of science. Saying 'solar particles are the last piece in the puzzle of the origin of life', is not good science it is bad philosophy.

All I propose is that we learn to distinguish between the times when scientists are talking about material objects and the other times they are proselytising their materialist atheist faith.

The answer is quite simple. I don't believe the universe is the product of a random, material, purposeless process.

I believe, as I pointed out with the carbon dioxide-oxygen cycle, that the universe displays evidence of specified complexity.

Specified complexity is displayed by any object or event that has an extremely low probability of occurring by chance, and matches a discernable pattern. According to contemporary design theory, the presence of highly specified complexity is an indicator of an intelligent cause.

As a simple illustration, I am a structural engineer...no jokes about engineers being simple please. As an intelligent designer, I must specify the grade of steel, size of weld, diameter of bolt, length of beam, depth of concrete and so on to make a building stand up. Any school child can draw a house, but it takes intelligent specification to give the right combination of materials and sizes to make the house stand up.

Engineers who design manufacturing processes have a much greater complexity to their specification to get the process to produce the right goods at the end of a process (anyone who knows anything about the production of semi-conductors will know what I mean).

I believe that the results of objective study of material objects display this specified complexity. This is a purely philosophical view as someone else looking at the same results might see them as the product of a purposeless and random material process.

It is a simple distinction. It is not God of the gaps, because everything is specified.

quote:

---

She states boldly that it is just a matter of time before scientists find and place all the hundreds of missing pieces of the puzzle,

---

I think she's probably correct.

quote:

---

proving the natural causes, and disproving God.

---

Non-sequitur. Why do you relate these two? Does a full understanding of embryology mean God didn't make me?

quote:

---

Is Cooper's prophetic statement based on scientific fact or faith? I say faith.

---

It's based on the historical fact that science has, indeed, gradually explained more and more of the universe. That we may get a fully understanding of abiogenesis is a reasonable extrapolation.

As for 'specified design' - well, yes. Of course. But this is not an alternative to naturalistic explanations, but complementary to them.

How did I come to be? Human reproduction, sex, gametes, chiasmata, embrylogy, diploidy - lots of things come in to it.

Why did I come to be? God so deigned it.

Who caused me to come to be? God on one level, my parents on another.

quote:

---

The answer is quite simple. I don't believe the universe is the product of a random, material, purposeless process.

---

Nor do I!

[UBB fixed]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
... I can see through Heather Cooper's science to her probable underlying philosophy. She appears to believe that there is no God. ...

... she's ... putting an atheist spin on it, proselytising the public, evangelising her belief that God does not exist.

... she needs to be honest that that is what she is doing. She should clarify that this is her belief (if that is what she believes).

... Heather Cooper is typical of philosophical materialists (if that is how she would label herself) who evangelise their atheism or deism, illegitimately, under the banner of science.

---

Atheist? deist? Even a theist could talk (rather incompletely of course)as she does on the level of science if she rejected the need of a God of the gaps idea for theism to be correct.

I have ordered Behe's book, by the way.
Glenn

[UBB fixed]

An overall process isn't random if "failures" are eliminated, which is exactly what natural selection does.

To take a bizarre illustration, if everyone who did the lottery and didn't win the jackpot were instantly shot dead, then everyone in the country who had played the lottery would be a winner. If someone then said that these lottery winners "couldn't have got there by the random process of the lottery" they'd be right.

In the lottery of being here, the penalty for losing is - not being here.

Life on Earth is not random. Natural selection is not a random process.

I'll quote myself first:

quote:

---

I believe that the results of objective study of material objects display this specified complexity. This is a purely philosophical view as someone else looking at the same results might see them as the product of a purposeless and random material process.

It is a simple distinction. It is not God of the gaps, because everything is specified.

---

Now you:

quote:

---

As for 'specified design' - well, yes. Of course. But this is not an alternative to naturalistic explanations, but complementary to them....lots of complementary explanations. Only the first one of those is in the realm of science. The others are not, and for the same reasons, nor is ID.

---

This means we agree, doesn't it? ID is a philosophy. ID is not science, but a way of viewing the results of methodical science into the way material objects function.

Just to make sure. Please explain what you mean by naturalistic explanations

quote:

---

you can not seriously mean that the Boeing 747, telephones and vaccines disprove the existence of God

---

No, I don't mean that and I didn't say anything even remotely like that. What I indicated was that these are examples of the validity of materialist examination when dealing with material phenomena, the validity of which you, Neil, called into question with your posting of 30 July 2001 02:05.

Which begs the question that if there is a dividing line between what material phenomena can be investigated rationally and those which are "Not Meant for Man to Know", where is that dividing line and how do you determine where it is?

As far as the question of specified complexity goes, it is only significant if it can be demonstrated that other combinations of events have a significantly higher probability of occurring. For an American example, last year's professional baseball season had an extremely low probability of working out the way it did, hit for hit, strike for strike, and run for run. And given the fact that baseball follows a structure of rules it can definitely be said to have a "discernable patter". However, the fact that there was a baseball season last year and that it worked out in such an improbable manner does not mean that it was divinely ordained, or even that some human agent fixed all the games in advance to work out the way that they did.

What troubles me most is Neil's statment that

quote:

---

I believe that the results of objective study of material objects display this specified complexity. This is a purely philosophical view as someone else looking at the same results might see them as the product of a purposeless and random material process.

---

quote:

---

"a way of viewing the results of methodical science into the way material objects function" Neil Robbie, 31 July 2001 00:13

---

Exactly what it says.

Explanations that make no mention of, nor make any reference to, nor ascribe anything to, God, a god or gods. Or anything else supernatural.

quote:

---

If it is a "purely philosophical" view, then how is it an "objective study of material objects"? If you're going to be injecting your own "philosophical view", your study can hardly be described as "objective".

---

Thank you, that is exactly my point. If you are a philosophical materialist, you look at the results of science as purposeless, random, impersonal, undirected, meaningless or in other words, godless. A philosophically materialist conclusion is not objective. It is philosophical.

Karl, you and I do not agree after all. If all deductions from the scientific observations are that the process are

quote:

---

Explanations that make no mention of, nor make any reference to, nor ascribe anything to, God, a god or gods. Or anything else supernatural.

---

Let me give an example from mutation-selection.

Here's a quote from Elliot Sober's, Philosophy of Biology.

quote:

---

The fact that the mutation-selection process has two parts…is brought out vividly by Richard Dawkins in his book The Blind Watchmaker. Imagine a device that is something like a combination lock. It is composed of a series of disks placed side by side. On the edge of each disk, the twenty-six letters of the alphabet appear. The disks can be spun separately so that different sequences of letters may appear in the viewing window.

How many different combinations of letters may appear in the window? There are 26 possibilities of each disk and 19 disks in all. So there are 26 times 10 to the power of 19 different possible sequences. One of these is METHINKSITSAWEASEL…the probability that METHINKSITSAWEASEL will appear after all the disks are spun is 1/2,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, which is a very small number indeed…

But now imagine that a disk is frozen if it happens to put a letter in the viewing window that matches the one in the target message. The remaining disks that do not match the target then are spun at random, and the process is repeated. What is the chance that the disks will display the message METHINKSITSAWEASEL after say, fifty repetitions?

The answer is that the message can be expected to appear after a surprisingly small number of generations of the process…

Variation is generated at random, but selection among variants is non-random

---

Now, Scientifically, we have observed that DNA sequences are not random but contain codes, or language. So, Dawkins has proposed that DNA sequences form a bit like the words in 'The Wheel of Fortune' or 'Hangman', where once a letter is in the right slot it slicks. Perhaps he was thinking of a one arm bandit with a hold feature, which allows the player to freeze a wheel.

Can you see the flaw(s) in this argument?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
Can you see the flaw(s) in this argument?

---

quote:

---

You seem to say you think things are specified,

---

With the eye of faith. This is not a scientific deduction, but a philosophical one. It is outside the realm of science.

quote:

---

but then disagree that God could have specified them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
This means we agree, doesn't it? ID is a philosophy. ID is not science, but a way of viewing the results of methodical science into the way material objects function.

---

quote:

---

Although the analogy between this process and the mutation-selection process is not perfect in every respect, it does serve to illustrate an important feature of how evolution by natural selection proceeds. Variation is generated regardless of whether it "matches the target" (i.e. is advantageous to the organism). But retention(selection among the variants that arise) is another matter. Some variants have greater staying power than others.

... Variation is generated at random, but selection among variants is non-random.

---

This makes it clear that the common feature between the discs making METHINKITISAWEASEL and DNA in this analogy is random generation plus non-random selection, not some other feature.

Hence I cannot see a flaw in Sober's argument. What flaw(s) do you see?

Gbuchanan, you asked

quote:

---

sounds like a philosophical view of a mechanistic process - is this what you intended?

---

That is exactly what I intended, and have been trying to say all along - that we can all view the results of mechanistic processes through one of two philosophical eyes - either atheist or theist, unless you can propose a third way of considering mechanistic objects philosophically.

Karl, you have helpfully stated that you wear two hats, a scientific hat and a Christian hat. Well I wear two hats, an engineering hat and a Christian hat. I hope my engineering hat will help you see the way specifications fit into the picture, just as you and other scientists on this thread have helped sort out much of my messy thinking about science.

But first, let me start by asking you this question. Richard Dawkins famously said of Paley's watch something like (this is my paraphrase)

quote:

---

biological organisms give the appearance of being designed, without having been designed

---

How does that statement differ from what you said that science is finding

quote:

---

Explanations that make no mention of, nor make any reference to, nor ascribe anything to, God, a god or gods. Or anything else supernatural.

---

Is there a philosophical difference? I can't see one?

Glenn and Alan, can I come back to your questions about the flaw(s) in Sober's argument once we have clarification on the question I have asked Karl?

The thing is, Dawkins' statement there is philosophical, because it addresses a 'how' question. My statement was about the nature of science. That is the difference - they are addressing different questions.

The question of an object having been designed by an intelligence rather than being the result of non-intelligent processes is a legitimate scientific question. In the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence we have to think of ways to try to determine if certain radio and other emissions from space might show features of design. An archaeologist looks at an artefact or site and tries to determine if regularities in its features indicate any element of construction by an intelligence rather than by non-intelligent natural forces alone. Suppose too, that humans went extinct and another intelligent life form evolved in a few hundred million years time. Their scientists would have to assess whether artefacts preserved from our time were naturally evolved or intelligently designed.

In these cases we (or the future scientists) can compare the artefact or emission with our ideas of how we might design things, or, for the archaeologist with examples of similar artefacts known to have been made by other cultures.

Behe’s claim that certain biological systems are designed is thus not one that can be ruled out as unscientific. However, the only means for assessing his claim is to pursue research into whether natural unintelligent processes could have evolved the systems in question i.e. carry on sciense as normal. He believes he has shown natural explanations of these systems to be impossible, others disagree and think that his arguments are flawed. There is no reason in principle why natural selection cannot evolve irreducibly complex systems, but at the moment our knowledge of biochemistry is insufficiently sophisticated to ascertain the steps involved in his example cases.

There is a bigger issue behind Behe’s views and that is the question of whether there should be a theistic science, one which has an explicit place for God’s direct actions in its explanations. The problem with this is how to determine when God’s action needs to be invoked. Do we defer to some persons interpretation of scripture or other alleged revelation from God? Surely not, how do we know he/she is correct? One way we would have to try to test such claims is by trying to see if an explanation can be constructed that does not rely on God’s intervention. In other words we would do what scientists already do, operate using a non-theistic methodology. Science is thus necessarily non-theistic, but since this is only true of its methods it need not be a worry to anyone.

But this is to miss the point pretty thoroughly. The analogy, as I explained in my earlier posting, is about random generation plus non-random selection i.e. it is about the power of cumulative selection. Both Sober and Dawkins make this clear in their discussion of METHINKSITISAWEASEL. Any system which replicates itself reasonably faithfully but with some variation will evolve if there is non-random selection of the different variants amongst the offspring regardless of whether the selection is done by intelligent or non-intelligent processes.

Pennock is excellent on this whole topic and once again I thoroughly recommend his book which also critiques Phillip Johnson.

The vision of ID is to allow scientists the freedom to consider whether material objects display intelligence in their design or whether they are products of pure naturalistic forces. Therefore, from an ID perspective, the natural vs. supernatural distinction is irrelevant. The real contrast is not between natural laws and miracles, but between undirected natural causes and intelligent ones.

BTW, I’ll add Robert Pennock to my reading list, thank you.

Before going on to Karl’s post, I would like to say that all bets are off. Yesterday I was given conclusive proof that intelligence and wisdom are behind the beauty of the universe. Ship Board has a new baby, I am now a father. My wife gave birth to a beautiful girl at 5:00pm yesterday afternoon, Singapore time. I was not going to post anything for a few days, but it’s the middle of the night and I can’t sleep because I’m still buzzing from the birth, so what else can I do?

Karl, let’s go back to specification. You said

quote:

---

As for 'specified design' - well, yes. Of course.

---

In light of what Glenn wrote and focusing on the concept of a specified universe, can you answer two questions for me?

• Firstly, what do you understand by the term specified? What is specification?
  
• Secondly, is it a legitimate scientific question, at the end of painstaking methodological scientific examination, to ask if material objects display the properties of intelligent specification?
  

I’ll try to keep posting, but my frequency may decrease proportionately with my expected forthcoming lack of sleep.

All the best

Now back to the scheduled programme ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
The vision of ID is to allow scientists the freedom to consider whether material objects display intelligence in their design or whether they are products of pure naturalistic forces

---

Of course the philosophy of the scientist must affect the work done by individual scientists and the scientific community, but there are limits on how much philosophy affects the practice of science before the science itself is adversely affected. For example, I currently work in a branch of environmental science and my philosophical view that the evironment is the creation of God means I view what I do as being of greater importance and value than I might do if I was an atheist (not that I'm claiming atheists don't care about the environment, just that their reasons to care for it may be different from mine). Other scientists, because of philosophical views, may choose not to participate in experiments that involve animal testing; many nuclear scientists were actively involved in campaigning against nuclear weapons on the philosophical ground that they saw no reason they would ever be used.

These are examples of how philosophical views of scientists affect why/what science they do. I happen to believe that ID, as I've heard it expressed as an alternative to methodological materialism, puts science into too tight a strait-jacket such that the resulting science isn't as good as methodological materialism.

Karl, you’ve not answered my question about what you understand by the term ‘specified’, so I’ll attempt to do it for you.

Firstly, however, we need to clear up the difference now between methodological science and the philosophy drawn from that science.

When you said

quote:

---

Explanations that make no mention of, nor make any reference to, nor ascribe anything to, God, a god or gods. Or anything else supernatural.

---

To clarify the difference between functionality and origin, let's take Behe’s examples of bacterial flagellum, the mammalian blood coagulation cascade or the biosynthesis of AMP (the first building block of DNA). The functionality of each of these examples is now understood, so the job of science is done in that regard. Having understood how these biological mechanisms work, science can now work on understanding diseases where these mechanisms are found to be involved.

Can I assume that everyone agrees that understanding functionality and using that knowledge for the benefit of mankind is good science?

Now, philosophically, there are two views of how bacterial flagellum, the mammalian blood coagulation cascade or the biosynthesis of AMP (the first building block of DNA) came into existence, philosophical materialism and philosophical theism. One says the bacterial flagellum, the mammalian blood coagulation cascade or the biosynthesis of AMP (the first building block of DNA) are products of a random, purposeless, material process, the other says that they are the product of intelligence.

Is this still science? No, it is interpreting the results of science philosophically.

Agreed?

So, now we come to that word, ‘specified’ which you agreed with Karl. You see the universe as specified.

I am an engineer, involved in building tall office buildings from steel. When we tender contracts, the consulting engineer supplies the information required in two forms

• plans, sections and elevations - these were once called ‘blueprints’ when printing involved ammonia and the drawings had a blue tinge
  
• a specification, which states the properties of the materials and workmanship to be used in the contract.
  

So, specification is information. My Chambers Dictionary defines to specify as ‘to mention particularly, to make specific, to set down as required’.

Now, we agree that the universe was specified, but you believe that explanations for good science

quote:

---

make no mention of, nor make any reference to, nor ascribe anything to, God, a god or gods. Or anything else supernatural

---

As I outlined, working out how bacterial flagellum, the mammalian blood coagulation cascade or the biosynthesis of AMP (the first building block of DNA) function and applying that knowledge to practical applications is good science. Questions of God or the supernatural are not involved in this work of science.

But, using science to justify a philosophical viewpoint is philosophy not science. Saying something is ‘specified’, and yet only subject to natural forces can be a philosophical viewpoint. But there is a flaw in this argument (if that is what you mean by specified but natural).

This takes us back to Elliott Sober's METHINKITISAWEASEL and the flaw(s) in his argument.

According to the theory of step-by-step development, DNA or AMP must have developed randomly and when a function develops which benefits the organism, the organism is able to reproduce more effectively and so the function is retained in the population. But, DNA sequencing is specific and without the full sequence of METHINKITISAWEASEL, we have no functionality. Even if only one letter was wrong in the sequence, it doesn’t function. If the sequence read METHINKITISAWABBIT, the functionality is completely different. If the sequence was MWTFIGKHTASDWQAVEM, every second letter is correct but it is meaningless and has no function.

But, let’s say for this argument’s sake that somehow the genes did not require functionality as they assembled the correct sequence. Sober may well be right in his analogy that as the letters in the sequence stick in position, the genetic sequence could be assembled in 50 or 60 non-random attempts rather than being of negligible probability. The flaw is this, how do the letters know that they must stick in position? If they have no functionality, why don’t they just re-shuffle?

Sober’s analogy concludes as Glenn pointed out

quote:

---

Although the analogy between this process and the mutation-selection process is not perfect in every respect, it does serve to illustrate an important feature of how evolution by natural selection proceeds. Variation is generated regardless of whether it "matches the target" (i.e. is advantageous to the organism). But retention (selection among the variants that arise) is another matter. Some variants have greater staying power than others.

... Variation is generated at random, but selection among variants is non-random.
is really an analogy of specification.

---

How do variants have ‘greater staying power’? How can selection among variants be non-random? How does a variant know when to stick and when to twist?

Sober is in effect stating that variants show the properties of being specified. His flaw, from a philosophical materialist’s perspective is that there must be intelligence behind the specification.

Neil

PS Cro?sos you asked

quote:

---

Does it really matter what your view is? For example, if the "results of methodological science" indicates that the mass of an electron is 9.1×10¯³¹, does the electron "function" any different because of your "way of viewing"?

---

You said

quote:

---

I happen to believe that ID, as I've heard it expressed as an alternative to methodological materialism, puts science into too tight a strait-jacket such that the resulting science isn't as good as methodological materialism.

---

Given what I clarified above about the distinction between to methodological materialism and ID (that ID is not an alternative, as the former is involved in functionality and the latter origin), the following ID statement shows how ID differs from creationism. In what way do you think the ID tenent is ‘too tight’?

quote:

---

Although intelligent design is compatible with many "creationist" perspectives, including scientific creationism, it is a distinct theoretical position. This can be seen by comparing the basic tenets of each view.
Legally, scientific creationism is defined by the following six tenets:

• The universe, energy and life were created from nothing.
  
• Mutations and natural selection cannot bring about the development of all living things from a single organism.
  
• "Created kinds" of plants and organism can vary only within fixed limits
  
• Humans and apes have different ancestries.
  
• Earth’s geology can be explained by catastrophism, primarily a worldwide flood
  
• The earth is young—in the range of 10,000 years or so.
  

Intelligent design, on the other hand, involves two basic assumptions:

• Intelligent causes exist.
  
• These causes can be empirically detected (by looking for specified complexity).
  

---

The simple fact is that both the origins you propose are in fact true:

quote:

---

Now, philosophically, there are two views of how bacterial flagellum, the mammalian blood coagulation cascade or the biosynthesis of AMP (the first building block of DNA) came into existence, philosophical materialism and philosophical theism. One says the bacterial flagellum, the mammalian blood coagulation cascade or the biosynthesis of AMP (the first building block of DNA) are products of a random, purposeless, material process, the other says that they are the product of intelligence.

---

No! You persist in reading 'random, purposeless...' as a philosophical statement. It is not. It is a description of the process with respect to a scientific frame of reference. There is no purpose or direction within the sphere of science..

So the first explanation is not philosophical, it is scientific. The two explanations are complementary.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
ID is not an alternative [to methodological materialism], as the former is involved in functionality and the latter origin

---