@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.