Clarifying Issues: My Response to the BioLogos Series reviewing “Darwin’s Doubt” | The BioLogos Forum

Note: Last fall we ran a series of reviews of Stephen Meyer’s book Darwin’s Doubt. As part of that, we invited Steve to write a response to those reviews in the hopes of furthering dialogue between our organizations and viewpoints. He graciously agreed to do so, and sent this to us last November. Our conference schedule and the holidays prevented us from highlighting this conversation in the way we wanted to on the blog, but we are pleased to do so now. Tomorrow we will conclude the series with a final post by President Deborah Haarsma.


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://biologos.org/blog/clarifying-issues-my-response-to-the-biologos-series-reviewing-darwins-doub

I am available to answer thoughtful comments and questions related to my response.

@StevenMeyer

As a proponent of ID, what I see as a chief difficulty for ID in making headway in the scientific community is a lack of strict quantifiable criteria. I know that Dr. Dembski, for example, has proposed 1 in 10^150 as a probability bound for determining intelligent causation. However, that still leaves the problem of how to apply this to particular examples. When do we know that all the relevant variables have been taken into account when making our calculations?

It seems that absent an ability to apply the criteria reliably, we are left with saying something like, “It looks like ID is the best explanation for this phenomenon.” And there seems to be something unsatisfying about such an answer. At least, if I were a scientist I think I would be unsatisfied with it. Assume that a scientist comes to the conclusion that ID is the best explanation for x, where does she go from there?

@StevenMeyer
I agree with you that the reviews of DD are much to do with support for methodological naturalism. MN in turn depends on accepting solely material efficent causes as explanations, which seems to me an odd philosophical position for theists to embrace.

Yet I think that behind the “methodological naturalism” theme lurks the theological idea expressed by Francis Beckwith and Peter Enns in response to Eric Metaxas recently - that to link God in any way to “evidence” is demeaning to him, since the Christian God is not subject to evidence but is “the Ground of All Being.”

This approach necessarily renders any level of natural theology not only risky (the evidence might change) but sub-Christian.

I note, though, that BioLogos is happy to espouse cosmic fine tuning (they reprinted a piece by Polkinghorne on it is response to Metaxas’ article), their justifcation being that this “evidence”, being about creation itself rather than events “within” creation, means that methodological naturalism isn’t breached. I guess they must have faith that science will never provide evidence for the Multiverse that fills the gap before the Bang!

The CFT supported by BioLogos is still about evidence in relation to God, though, which suggests that if the theological scruples are carried through rigorously, the world can tell us nothing whatsoever about God. At some point, one must, as you have, connect God to the actual events in his creation, whether that be within natural processes like evolution, or “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics”.

If he is totally Other, he is totally irrelevant to the physical world.

I moved a post to a new topic: Evolution and the rationality of the world

@StevenMeyer

Although I do not feel a need to take a position on either TE or ID, as a scientist, I am struck by the language used in these discussions, such as for example, the neo-Darwinian outlook is inadequate, while intelligent design is inferred. As a general comment, I find this unsatisfying for a deeper discussion of faith and science. I am not sure that any comments regarding the methodologies of scientific research make any difference.

If we focus on the bio-sciences, how would the debate for or against ID serve to progress our understanding of this planet and the species it sustains? Is ID an alternate paradigm, and if its supporters think it is, just how can it be articulated so that normal scientific research can be carried out - I use the term “normal” to mean as scientific research is done via hypothesis, experimentation, and a theoretical framework that would accommodate data and also provide greater insights.

My (non-biological) scientific outlook has been grounded in theory that can account for my experimental approach, and can also accommodate speculations (if I propose such and such, I am confident that I can show it to be sound, or equally important, I can also show that it is unsound experimentally?) This is an aspect that I cannot perceive in much of what I read on the bio-sciences, and generally I think is the fundamental weakness for both neo-Darwinism and ID.

My general comments can be accommodated by restricting scientific work to physical objects and accepting speculation as part of the scientific approach. I am at a loss however, to understand how this would be theologically acceptable, especially if people want to modify our theological view regarding God as Creator, by either speculating on what God may have done via random and undirected events, or by inferring that an external agent used apparently undirected and random events in an intelligent way. Theologically these positions do not make sense to me.

@StevenMeyer

Hi Steven, I would first like to thank you for the time and effort that you have placed in preparing your response to the critique of your book—Darwin’s Doubt. I would also like to state, for the record, that I respect the work that you do—If it wasn’t for the challenges that ID proponents like yourself present before evolutionary creationists, and the scientific community at large, things wouldn’t move forward. So, thanks again!

You stated in your opening words, “I—and many others—have long assumed that the debate between our two groups was mainly a scientific debate about the adequacy of contemporary evolutionary theory. Surprisingly, the reviews collectively have shown that the main disagreement between ID proponents and BioLogos is not scientific, but rather philosophical and methodological.” My comment here is long, and I apologize for that, however I hope you will bear with me, since I deal precisely with the philosophical and methodological implications involved in the disagreement between ID proponents and TE/EC proponents. I’m not sure I could make my point in less words.

We know that Darwinian and neo-Darwinian biology explain evolution in terms of change over time through the agency of natural selection working on random variations—“natural selection” is the determining factor that selects from these random variations for survivability of the fittest. In evolution theory, “fitness” is the “ability to adapt” to the changing environment. Therefore, “adaptability” suggests the existence of “goal and purpose” in the process of natural selection. This goal and purpose would necessarily be the assured survival and prolongation of life of the organism. The predominant central goal and purpose of [all] life is this driving characteristic of survival—from the microbial world, to the animal kingdom, to the urban jungle. Of course, by genetic, environment, and stochastic processes, certain organisms become best suited to given environments, but this fact does not diminish the certainty that [all] organisms have a teleological strive to survive.

The theory of evolution might be able to be explained in biological terms without mention of teleology, however, this does not suggest that teleology is not at work in the process. It only means that the methodology behind biological evolution has been established upon the principles, methods, and rules of discussing evolution in non-teleological terms. Underlying these principles, methods, and rules of methodological naturalism is established the systematic and rigorous standards of philosophic convention that regulate this inquiry procedure for the given sciences. Intellectual deliberation must therefore proceed by abiding to the methodological standards of philosophic convention—necessarily this implies making correct arguments by using metaphysically valid terminology.

Darwinian and neo-Darwinian biology must abide by these ascribed standards to not impute teleology into its deliberations for evolution—teleology is necessarily a philosophical consideration. Although the randomness plus natural selection of Darwinian and neo-Darwinian biology can explain the process of evolution within its own methodology, biologists should understand that teleology is a fundamental principle in nature. Biologists should therefore be more than knowledgeable that evolution [can] be described philosophically—the teleological implications that have been constructed into the neo-Darwinian theory itself).

The BioLogos position is clearly presented, "…in broad strokes, we’re not deists; we believe that God is “mightily hands-on.” Mightily hands-on denotes a “steering” towards a certain goal and purpose—in other words, intention. Therefore, although it is “notoriously difficult” as a leading voice of BioLogos stated, concerning “Divine action—and the action of agents in general,” we can confidently extrapolate from James Stump’s declaration that the BioLogos’ official position [is] teleological in nature, regardless of his statement that—“The issue…is not one that we’re going to rush into and squelch discussion by mandating an official position for those in our community.”

As illustrated above, Darwinian and neo-Darwinian biology explains evolution in terms of natural selection acting on random variations. Biologists adhere to this methodology as established and maintained by the leading members of the scientific community. In biological terms, it explains well the process of evolution. However, it lacks in one important respect—it excludes the premise of the teleological involvement for the selecting process of natural selection—which is actually the adaptability (ability to adapt) of the organism to its environment. If the significant element that the organism “strives to survive” were to be clearly and specifically presented it would establish the veracity of natural selection and the theory of evolution as a whole. It’s fair to say then, that, although teleology is a fact of nature, a certain number of biologists (as well as many others in society) are of the opinion that natural selection is a blind process with no goal and no purpose.

Taking into account epigenetics and environmental mechanisms we move beyond the basic assumptions of neo-Darwinism and into a whole new field of inquiry. That epigenetics seems to strongly support a built-in teleology shouldn’t be viewed as being in opposition to neo-Darwinism. Instead, epigenetics should be treated as a distinct science specialized in the specific characteristics of a new field of neo-Darwinism.

Accordingly, to bring this discussion full circle, “In vitalist philosophy, before phenomena move toward certain goals of self-realization they are initially guided by mechanical forces.” In this context, the definition of teleology implies that “final causes exist,” however, the definition of teleology also implies that “purpose and design” are part of or are apparent in nature. Therefore, “final causes” can have different levels of consciously intentional “purpose and design.” However, that “final causes” exist [should not] unquestionably suggest that they have “purpose and design,” in that conscious intention is involved. Final causes can also have “purpose and design,” in that they are influenced and determined, or, given direction or tendency to by mechanical forces. (Note that the reference to different levels of conscious intention necessarily includes the primitive “instinctive behaviors” of earlier, or baser, forms of life). The origin of life clearly presents the borderline between strictly deterministic mechanical forces and different levels of consciously intentional “purpose and design.” We should therefore rest assured and be of the opinion that [this] is the intimate point where intelligent design should be considered to have emerged—with the [origination] of life on earth, through deterministically directed mechanical forces, [life itself] becomes intelligent to design and evolve into the various species of our world.

During the Dover Trial on intelligent design evidence for irreducible complexity was presented before the court and declared to be myth. According to Behe’s reasoning, if any one part of the bacterial flagellum “motor” was missing it could not function. He therefore believed it could not have evolved—but was rather designed fully assembled. However, this was found to be a false assumption. As part of his testimony Behe also wrongly attributed biologist David DeRosier’s statement in the 1998 “Cell” article, entitled—The Turn of the Screw: The Bacterial Flagellum Motor. In the journal, David DeRosier writes—“More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human.” DeRosier later affirms, “What I wrote was that this machine looks like it was designed by a human—but that doesn’t mean that it was designed—that is by intelligent design.” He said, “This, more, has the earmarks that it arose by evolution.” It’s interesting, isn’t it, that even DeRosier feels compelled to distinguish between—designed (determined mechanical forces) from designed (intelligent design).

At this point we must determine the definitions of the words “life,” “intelligence,” and “design” in order to answer the question of whether the “first life” could have originated without “design.”

Life: “the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.”

Intelligence: “capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.”

Design: Verb—“to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), especially to plan the form and structure of.” Noun—“an outline, sketch, or plan, as of the form and structure of a work of art, an edifice, or a machine to be executed or constructed.”—Note that determined mechanical forces [can] “prepare” the preliminary sketch or the plans for a work to be executed through momentum, impetus, or course of events. As such, this would be considered the outline, sketch, or plan of nature’s formation (creation).

To infer that the “first life” was designed by intelligent design, life and intelligence would necessarily be an essential prerequisite. Since “first life”—by necessity—is “first life,” no life could have existed before the “first life.” Accordingly, since design (in the strict definition of the term) cannot exist without intelligence, an intelligent agent cannot exist without life. Therefore the premise that life was designed by an intelligent agent is false.

Alternatively, if we inferred that through deterministic mechanical forces nature had the capacity to bring together, in the right environment that was previously prepared, the necessary ingredients for life, and energized these ingredients into life—the premise that life was [originated] through deterministic mechanical forces would be true.

Therefore, the answer to the question of whether the “first life” could have [originated] without “design?”—is a resounding Yes! For the purpose of clarity it should be repeated—“The origin of life clearly presents the borderline between strictly deterministic mechanical forces and different levels of consciously intentional “purpose and design.” We should therefore rest assured and be of the opinion that [this] is the intimate point where intelligent design should be considered to have emerged—with the [origination] of life on earth, through deterministically directed mechanical forces, [life itself] becomes intelligent to design and evolve into the various species of our world.”

To argue in support of the false premise that life could not have [originated] without design is a lost cause. There is no way around the rational and empirical underlying principles of scientific inquiry which are directed and guided by the rigorous and systematic standards of philosophical methodology.

Close to the end of your response you stated, “One cannot discover evidence of the activity of a designing mind or intelligence at work in the history of life because the design hypothesis has been excluded from consideration.” However, the evidence of the activity of a designing mind or intelligence that you are looking for [has] been discovered and is part of every living cell in every living organism on our planet and elsewhere in the universe where life has most probably evolved. Similarly, the design hypothesis [has] been considered, and the evidence [has] lead to the neo-Darwinian paradigm.

Hence, the discrepancy ID proponents and TE/EC proponents are experiencing comes down to a lack of congruence for the respect of methodological naturalism, and in metaphysical considerations—What is real? What is true? How should cosmology be organized? I am sure I made my case in answering these profoundly pertinent questions and believe that there will be many who will agree with what I have had to say. I wait patiently for any comments.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

@StevenMeyer
In your response you said,

Surprisingly, the reviews collectively have shown that the main
disagreement between ID proponents and BioLogos is not scientific, but
rather philosophical and methodological.

In particular, the reviews have revealed that the central issue
dividing the BioLogos writers from intelligent design (ID) theorists
concerns a principle known as methodological naturalism (MN).

I don’t know why you find that surprising. That was my conclusion two years ago in my book, Mapping the Origins Debate. Or, more properly, I should say that my conclusion was that MN was a central issue separating what I call Planned Evolution (which at that time seemed to be the majority view in Biologos) from Directed Evolution and Creation models (including ID proponents). Although all ID proponents I have read oppose MN, some members of Biologos (notably Deborah Haarsma) appear to support what I call a Directed Evolution model, and therefore do not subscribe to MN. Thanks to @Jon_Garvey for pointing out the need for clarification.

@StevenMeyer

I must entirely disagree with you. You keep on repeating it, but there’s no hard-and-fast rule that science must exclude intelligent design at any cost and restrict itself to methodological naturalism. Science won’t exclude any phenomenon as long as there’s evidence for it and can be tested. But there’s absolutely no evidence for any supernatural intelligence existing outside of the natural world. Unless there’s evidence for such an agent and unless you can propose testable hypotheses to prove his presence in order to work out what he did where, when and how, intelligent design will never take off as a scientific theory.

You constantly draw analogies between man-made objects and life, and reason that since the former is designed the latter must also be designed. This is also flawed. Man-made objects are artificial, do not come into existence or survive on their own and do not grow, metabolise, reproduce or evolve. Life does all this without any external help. But most importantly, the designers behind man-made objects are well-known entities whose properties can be studied. No such designer is known for life. You’re simply invoking an imaginary designer that can neither be studied nor pinned down to a set of principles!

You have not shown that life cannot arise naturally. There are many processes that we don’t understand and the origin of life is one such thing. In your writings you very easily solve such problems by asserting a designer. Such assertions don’t work in science, what works is evidence and empirical methods to test your proposals, which you completely lack.

Anybody can propose whatever they fancy as long as they don’t have to furnish evidence or put their pet ideas through rigorous testing. That’s what both the ID camp and the theistic evolution camp are doing. Theistic evolutionists accept nature as it is, but claim that a supernatural agency set nature in motion with certain goals in mind. This position is also scientifically void precisely for the same reason - that there’s no evidence or testable hypotheses, only rhetoric.

As for the scientific flaws in Darwin’s Doubt, many informed critics have already pointed that out. Even your revised edition with responses to critics was dismissed, for example, by reviews such as this:

@StevenMeyer
I strongly agree with you that there should be no a priori self-limitations on the kinds of explanations available to science. Methodological naturalism is not an intrinsic requirement of science. If nature really did show evidence of design by an intelligent being, then that is something science would have to deal with. No explanation should be ruled out in advance of looking at the empirical evidence. I think most scientists would agree with me (us!) on this.
So I wish there had been better discussions here about the scientific inadequacies of the book, and of the defenses written by your colleagues. For example, this UD post you linked to,
Alister McGrath Mistakes Intelligent Design for a God-of-the-Gaps Argument | Evolution News,
begs the main question and simply quotes your repeated assertions in the book that design is the best explanation for different aspects of the explosion, ignoring the many ways that information and appearance-of-design arise in evolutionary processes (including non-biological evolution, such as genetic algorithms).

Seeing design in nature is a part of being human. It led our ancestors to find constellations among the randomly-spaced stars, and name them for the gods they thought controlled events in their lives. The more we have learned about how the world works, the more miraculous it all seems, and the more it seems to have been designed to support human life. Inference of intelligent design, and of an Intelligent Designer, fall into the realm of metaphysics, not science. Science would be much simpler if we could fill in “and then a miracle happened” for any gap in our knowledge, but scientific progress would stop. The “God of the gaps” approach can be satisfying now, but it can lead away from belief in God with further scientific developments.
As much as we who already believe in God find evidence of intelligent design in modern science, we must resist the temptation to think this constitutes a scientific proof for the existence of God, or that theology is a part of science. Intelligent Design in today’s organized form strikes me as being the old Argument from Design recast in the language of science.

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.