A plethora of thoughts on Intelligent Design

Faith & Science Conversation
82

Ben

Let me reply more fully to your post. You’ve suggested I inadvertantly proposed an ID hypothesis, and that’s true - if I’d wished to propose a hypothesis I’d have done it as a non-researching theistic evolutionist, not an ID proponent trying to prove design. And it would have gone something along these lines:

  • As a theistic evolutionist, I know that tRNAs are God’s creation, either by lawlike or contingent efficient means (or, conceivably, by miraculous means).

  • On the face of it, the accepted Neodarwinian mechanisms would appear to produce a circularity in their evolution, tRNAs being required for protein synthesis and large proteins for tRNA synthesis.

  • Ergo, this seems to be unevolvable in principle - though as a negative conclusion, this would be hard to demonstrate. So what efficient causes did God use, and were they lawlike or contingent (providential)?

  • But there is a hypothesis called “RNA world”, considered to exist prior to the onset of Neodarwinian genetic evolution proper, for which there are various pieces of evidence including ribozymes, which could (I am told) solve my problem by obviating the need for proteins to produce the first tRNAs. The recourse to such a hypothesis regarding my tRNA problem suggests my initial hypothesis was correct, and the circularity real, but this alternative may provide the answer by bypassing the circularity with a new theory

  • However, RNA world itself is not without problems, such as lack of any present or fossil examples of such organisms, the great instability of RNA compared with DNA outside cells, the limited enzymatic capabilities of RNA, the lack of good candidates for self-replicating RNA that has enzymatic activity and the variation necessary for a process analaogous to Neodarwinian evolution, and the difficulty of conceiving the transition from RNA to the present DNA/protein system. For these reasons, it cannot be more than hypothesis at present (as compared to Darwinian evolution, of which we have countless real examples), and my tRNA conundrum remains a conundrum.

  • Given the difficulties in replicating the key elements of RNA world, it would seem that, granted its existence, the creation of tRNAs would still be highly contingent and providential, rather than lawlike, to almost as great an extent as if RNA world were disproven.

  • And if enough evidence existed to raise RNA world to the status of theory, the very special outcomes of its chemistry (ie life) would be a good example of the lawlike design of the universe. And that, to answer jon, is why RNA world is a design hypothesis.

83

This one is replying to methodological naturalism. Sorry about the brain dump on Monday. haha

Nothing has a completely physical origin! But I understand what you mean, and you’re probably right. Unfortunately, it may take another 100 years for the scientists to realize that they’ve “hit a wall.” My focus is: What do we, as Christians, do about it in the meantime? What is our message to this science-worshipping culture?

You’re probably right about this, too. But, again, what is our response? Very many Christians think the wisest choice is to rail against the system and try to change it. I don’t see the point of this. The scientists have no incentive to change, as your example of the cocky grad student shows. And since the call for change is coming mostly from non-scientists, it falls on deaf ears. The only practical alternative, as far as I can see, is to lock science into the box that it has crawled into and claimed as its own – empiricism. Educate the public on the limits of science. Point out scientists who exceed their limits and draw unwarranted metaphysical conclusions. Show people that science cannot answer their ultimate questions. Science is a fundamentally incomplete picture. Purpose, value, meaning, beauty, love – these are the things that make life worth living, and science is silent on all of them. I believe that message will resonate with people, but … who knows?

Yes, I am highly skeptical that it is possible, for my own theological reasons. Nevertheless, I’ve been wrong many times before, so I wouldn’t discourage someone from making the effort.[quote=“Eddie, post:156, topic:5673”]
And the whole project is motivated by the desire to find an account of the origin of life that does not require Mind. Scientists are supposed to be objective, and not let their desires influence their research like that. In principle, a scientist should be supremely open to either alternative: that life required Mind to get started, or that it did not.
[/quote]

I don’t think the whole project is motivated by a desire to find an account that does not require God. This would require that every scientist involved in research into origins would be an atheist, which we both know is not true. Any scientific research into origins, since it follows methodological naturalism, is seeking only physical explanations for physical phenomena. A few people will be satisfied with that explanation, but most will not. “God has set eternity in their heart” (Ecc. 3:11). The vast majority of the human race recognizes that there is more to reality than can be seen or observed. The religious impulse is universal and virtually inextinguishable, regardless of what science says about the matter (pun intended). We’ll probably just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Thanks for the tips on Denton’s books.

84

Jon, I don’t see anything resembling a hypothesis anywhere in your comment. If you disagree, would you kindly highlight it? Most hypotheses can be stated in a sentence or two, and no one needs to wear a particular hat to state one.

BTW, why do you think that the RNA World would “exist prior to the onset of Neodarwinian genetic evolution proper”?

2 Likes
85

This is in response to your second post (replying to my first).

By the grammar of the sentence, I take “the whole theory” as unpacking “evolutionary understanding,” ergo “evolutionary theory.” But … he bounces back and forth. The statement is part of a section called “Evolutionary Perspective,” which begins by comparing the origins of terrestrial plant life with lignin. That paragraph ends with the statement: “The belief that Darwin’s mechanism explains what needs to be explained is therefore largely an assumption.” The next paragraph tries (not very successfully, in my opinion) to offer an alternative explanation for the formation of coal prior to the appearance of lignin-degrading fungi. The third paragraph starts with the sentence that the whole theory is being called into question. Next, he says, " For example, gene duplication followed by adaptive divergence is assumed to be responsible for the development of the monolignol biosynthetic pathway [63]. However, the actual ability of this mechanism to develop new enzyme activities remains the subject of vigorous scientific debate." This “vigorous” debate consists of articles by Gauger and Axe, Gauger “and others,” Behe, and an article by O. Turunen, whom I am not familiar with. In any case, three out of four vigorous debaters are Axe, Gauger, and Behe. That seems to be his growing body of evidence. Hmmm.

I disagree. The author does assume God’s existence at the start, and his purpose is not to show people that there is a mind behind it all, but that YHWH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is behind it all. It is a significant difference. Psalm 19 does not praise Mind, it praises God, the Lord. Paul does not say that all men have an intuition of design or “Mind,” but that the knowledge they have is of God, whom they neither honor nor thank. Paul, if I may speak for him(!), could care less if men recognized a mind behind it all. His primary concern for the entire letter is found in vv. 16-17: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith,e as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’”

But I think you missed my most important questions in regard to Rom. 1:18-20.

Again, Paul says that men already have a rudimentary understanding that God does, in fact, exist, and that such knowledge has not done them any good because they suppress it in unrighteousness. Given those facts, it seems superfluous to seek to demonstrate a fact that people already know, deep down, but refuse to acknowledge in their unrighteousness.

I think Joshua is just extremely busy at the moment. I, too, am going to have to limit my participation here in the coming weeks. (Everyone – please stifle your disappointment! haha) You are right, I am positing an unnecessary either/or. But I do that because I honestly believe that is what the Bible teaches. Salvation is in the name of Jesus and no other. Others may pursue arguments for God from nature, but I would rather focus my efforts on the gospel. I suppose I shouldn’t be so hard on those who walk another path. I also repent from condemning Flew! God is the judge, not me. Doh!

True

Also true. I try not to say stupid things in the presence of atheists. Often unsuccessfully!

86

Ben, you were able to find a testable hypothesis when I didn’t make one, but not when I did. The only explanation I can think of is that ID makes testable hypotheses, whereas TEs (at least, this one) don’t.

Wasn’t the Neodarwinian synthesis based on the combination of known Mendelian genetics (now known to be based on DNA) with Darwin’s theory of natural selection based on observation of living forms? If that’s the case, we have no direct evidence that Mendelian genetics applied to RNA-world life, and no observations of RNA life on which to assume that natural selection operated analogously to the way it does today in RNA world.

88

I must say, I enjoy your thorough thought process, whether or not I agree with the conclusions. This is just a quick note. I’ll reply for real tomorrow.

I realize that. But the anti-supernaturalists are opposed to Mind because it opens the door to God, who is the one they truly fear. As well, most of the time, it just doesn’t feel right to me to speak of Mind when what I intend is God. Just think of me like an orthodox Jew who insists on typing G-d instead of God.

90

However, not all scientists are anti-supernaturalists, and secular science recognizes the possibility of artifacts and processes being the product of mind. The real issue is that when asked to produce methods of determining design and apply them, IDers don’t have any. When pressed, they complain that secular scientists wouldn’t accept such methods anyway, which is totally untrue because secular scientists have methods of determining design, and they apply them. Curiously, IDers do not.

Paul Nelson wrote this in 2004:

“Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’—but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.”

Philip Johnson wrote this in 2005, and the situation still hadn’t changed:

“I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked-out scheme.”

Michael Behe said this in 2006, and the situation still hadn’t changed:

“There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.”

1 Like
92

Hi Eddie,

It’s a common assumption (and sometimes accusation) that ECs do what they do because they wish to earn the praise of their non-believing colleagues.

This is just not true in my experience. I have yet to meet an EC - and I’ve met a lot of them - that hold the views they hold because they care about what their colleagues think.

The ECs I know do what they do because they see that the evidence for evolution is solid, and they follow their conscience in how they present that evidence to their brothers and sisters in Christ. Often they do so at great personal cost.

So, can we please dispense with the notion that ECs are out to earn “the praise of man” as it were? It’s a gross mischaracterization of their motives.

3 Likes
94

Hmm - I myself have left open the possibility of a divine origin of life. I wrote the following in a blog not very long ago:

As an aside, as a Christian biologist I would be perfectly fine with the answer being either “natural” or “supernatural”. Both natural and supernatural means are part of the providence of God, and the distinction is not a biblical one in any case. Perhaps God set up the cosmos in a way to allow for abiogenesis to take place. Perhaps he created the first life directly—though, as we will see, there are lines of evidence that I think are suggestive of the former rather than the latter. Similarly, I would have been fine with God supernaturally sustaining the flames of the sun for our benefit, as English apologist John Edwards claimed long ago. I do happen to think that solar fusion is an elegant way to “solve” this problem, and as a person of faith I think it evinces a deeper, more satisfying design than some sort of miraculous interventionist approach for keeping the sun going. I recognize, however, that seeing design in the natural process of solar fusion—or abiogenesis—is not the sort of argument that some Christian apologists are looking for. - See more at: http://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-venema-letters-to-the-duchess/biological-information-and-intelligent-design-abiogenesis-and-the-origins-of-the-genetic-code#sthash.pRCfcTc8.dpuf

So far, I’m not aware of anyone calling me out for being wishy washy on methodological naturalism. Perhaps they will, but as of yet, nothing.

1 Like
97

Less than you might think, actually. Have you ever been to a scientific meeting - or better yet, gone out for beverages after a scientific meeting? Scientists are quite a diverse bunch.

3 Likes
99

This is a sidebar, but as someone who waded into the topic of evolution relatively recently, I can definitively say that the usage of the terms Darwinian and neo-Darwinian is often deceptive. For example, a writer will criticize natural selection as inadequate and then imply (or state) that “Darwinian evolution” is therefore false. Strictly speaking, the statement is not false, but the average person is intentionally left with the thought that evolution itself is false, because they do not understand the distinction. I’m not a fan of writers who do this.

1 Like
100

Yes, I am. But since I am bald, I value every hair!

All true. Nevertheless, it seems to me that natural theology’s emphasis on mind/reason as immaterial (from Aristotle?) is the source of the error that led to the identification of mind/reason with soul/spirit. This is not the Biblical view of man, nor of spirit. It is an argument from silence, but I think it should not be overlooked that the Scripture can say “God is love,” but it nowhere says “God is mind.” A pretty weak argument, but interesting to note, nonetheless.

Good point. Worth noting. Still, I wish for all to know God as covenant Lord, not just Creator.

Yes, I will concede this point.

It is reliable and true knowledge, but it is suppressed in unrighteousness. The question is how to proceed. Do we remind people of what they already know but refuse to acknowledge? I am skeptical of the value of this approach. But … if others want to try it, I suppose I shouldn’t discourage them entirely. Perhaps it plays a role in evangelism, as you mentioned previously. I wonder if anyone has done any research on this? Specifically, has anyone conducted surveys/interviews and compiled data on adult converts and the reasons they give for their conversions? If anyone could point me to a study, I would greatly appreciate it.

And this is why the Anglican church is in the shape that it’s in! Joke! Joke! Haha