Hi David,
My Gordon email no longer works since I am Endicott now. A Google search with my name and Endicott reveals my email address.
Justin
Hi Peter,
This is not accurate of a Lakotosian philosophy of science. Core hypotheses CAN be changed, but they are not every time an experiment doesn’t work. They are given “time” to develop as hypotheses are constructed to connect them to the real-world data. If hypotheses must be constructed repeatedly that are ad hoc and don’t offer novel predictions themselves, the core hypothesis is deemed a failure and replaced with one that better explains the data.
Justin
Hi Bilbo,
I understand where you’re coming from and I’m not attempting to discount ID’s scientific potential in this post. Rather, because people ranging from YEC to OEC to EC espouse it, ID is not a unified program in a Lakatosian sense. Instead it could be considered an add-on to other existing programs. I feel this will hurt ID in the long run and also believe EC could suffer similarly if it does not become more unified as well. The opposite of this is the case with YEC and that is one of the big reasons why it is an attractive position to some.
Justin
Thank you for the chart. It helps clarify things. I am almost in the EC column, but I am actually and concordist. If the text of Gen1 is properly interpreted, it fits modern cosmology perfectly. Of course, the trick is in the proper interpretation. But even so, I don’t understand why there is so little interest in this approach.
1 Like
Hi @jtopp,
I wouldn’t know if ID is unified in a Lakatosian sense, but it does seem to offer a way of exploring the biological world and determining what should be attributed to intelligent design. If I may continue to use the SETI analogy, a scientist may not have a theory on whether there are ETs, but does have a specific criterion for identifying intelligently designed signals (narrow-band radio emissions). That seems to be all that is needed in order to do research, doesn’t it? Likewise, a scientist may not have a theory on whether God or someone else designed living things, nor when or how the designing took place. However, if Michael Behe’s argument in The Edge of Evolution is sound, then they do have a specific criterion for identifying a biological system that has been intelligently designed: any irreducibly complex system that has at least three different proteins. And that seems to be all that is needed in order to do research, doesn’t it?
Justin - When will you be writing about your take on “foundationalism”??? Very interested because I share the view that this issue is a key to many such academic debates.
Dr. Topp,
Your post is one of the most honest pieces I have so far read in BioLogos. It shows sincere respect for the opponent and clarifies that the origins debate does not happen by force between rational-scientific/irrational-pseudoscientific positions. That understanding should be communicated persistently in order to avoid some innecessary extremes that are somehow common in our discussions here.
2 Likes
Hi John,
I agree. It will be a section or potentially an entire chapter in my future book on this material.
Justin
Thank you very much for your kind words!
1 Like
Justin, I think you would find the work of Hiram Berry relevant to his discussion, because you are so parallel to it. “To put it more simply, better and more accurate explanations of the data are not enough to convince people of the truth of evolution!” So true. You offer an explanation. Berry offers another, which is rooted in psychology more than Lakatos. You can see his essay here (I hope): http://intl-ttj.sagepub.com/content/39/3/249.abstract
Wayback Machine
I would submit the problem is not due to Lakatos and research programmes. Remember, scientists change research programmes all the time. And they do so based on data. So, they don’t have the problem you noted:
“When I was a proponent of YEC, would reading the excellent books of Darrel Falk, Francis Collins, and others have changed my mind and moved me to evolutionary creation? Hardly. In fact, when I first read a review of Collins’ book The Language of God I thought Collins was a “sell out.”” I would ask "sell out of WHAT? “Selling out” has the concept of loyalty, which scientific theories are not supposed to have. They succeed or fail because of data. If the data is supportive, they “progress”. If the data is contradictory, they regress. When people get stuck in one mode like you did and use language like “sell out”, it is because of emotion.
ALL of us have statements of ultimate meaning. Those statements work best when they are inherently untestable. Berry argues that creationists have tied their statement of ultimate meaning – God exists – to a VERY testable theory on HOW God created. Evolution refutes the creationist theory and therefore challenges the statement of ultimate meaning. We can see this by the common assumption among all creationists that evolutionists are all atheists. So, rejecting evolution is mandatory for creationists to preserve their statement of ultimate meaning.
“It was only after I had a better understanding of philosophy, theology, and hermeneutics that I was “ready” for the evolutionary creation interpretation of the scientific data.” I am going to ask you what that “better understanding” did for you. I submit that it allowed you to dissociate the HOW that God created from the ultimate statements “God exists” and “God created”. I submit you found that YEC was no longer essential for God’s existence or creation, but instead evolution could be looked upon as HOW God created. I submit your emotional block was removed. And I suspect that is happening to the students you mention.
"Unlike the clear core hypotheses that comprise the YEC and OEC programs, it is not so clear that the one I have proposed for EC encapsulates the beliefs of all who espouse this research program. "
I submit that this is because one of those “core hypotheses” is a literal interpretation of the Bible. Sola scriptura has morphed into a belief that the Bible MUST be literally true or Christianity is false. The original sola scriptura stated that the Bible was the only guide people needed to find God; they didn’t need priests. However, instead of being used to find God, a literal interpretation of the Bible has now, to many, become a god to worship. If the literal interpretation is wrong, then their god is gone. Another site I suggest that will help is http://www.newreformation.org/heresy3.htm
Those of us who are scientists and theists, IMO, have 2 responsibilities in the evolution-creationism discussion:
- Discuss how evolution is not atheism and work to separate the statements of ultimate meaning from the HOW of creation. Yes, discuss the misrepresentations of data made by professional creationists, but always put that in context that God and God creating are not threatened in any way.
- Act as Christians and discuss the religious problems of creationism (all forms from YEC to ID). And yes, this will include the courage to say call our creationists for heretical beliefs, such as bibliolatry. After all, 400 years ago Francis Bacon had the courage to tell his fellow Christians that YEC was heresy. We need the same courage:
“For nothing is so mischievous as the apotheosis of error; and it is a very plague of the understanding for vanity to become the object of veneration. Yet in this vanity some of the moderns have with extreme levity indulged so far as to attempt to found a system of natural philosophy [science]on the first chapter of Genesis, on the book of Job, and other parts of the sacred writings, seeking for the dead among the living; which also makes the inhibition and repression of it the more important, because from this unwholesome mixture of things human and divine there arises not only a fantastic philosophy [science] but also a heretical religion. Very meet it is therefore that we be sober-minded, and give to faith that only which is faith’s.” Francis Bacon. Novum Organum LXV, 1620 http://www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htm
Finally, Ian Barbour proposed years ago that religion is a research programme 
. Religion and Science We can discuss that aspect of religion if you want.
Justin, something I want to address from your previous blogs. You stated that Lakatos incorporated Popper’s “falsificationism” in that falsification is a way to demarcate science from non-science.
Popper did 2 things:
- Describe how science was done: falsify hypotheses/theories.
- Propose a demarcation criterion to separate science from non-science. Popper said that ideas that were not even theoretically falsifiable were not part of science.
Popper succeeded in #1 but failed in #2. In the laboratory, we are basically Popperians. I’m pretty sure you test hypotheses trying to falsify them in your research. But the naive falsification that Popper proposed won’t separate science from non-science. Larry Laudan has a very good essay entitled “Demise of the Demarcation Problem” that explains why.
However, Lakatos’ ideas are mostly in response to Kuhn and “paradigms”. They are also partly in response to the recognition that the naive falsification Popper proposed does not always work for very large theories. Scientists don’t immediately abandon large theories at the first experiment that seem to falsify them. Instead, as you noted, Lakatos says that scientists will produce a “protective belt” of auxiliary hypotheses to explain the the refuting data. These would be somewhat analagous to the ad-hoc hypotheses Popper talks about. If the auxiliary hypotheses do not lead to new predictions, then the research programme “degenerates” because there is nothing new to look for. At this point the scientist must decide whether to stick with the failing programme or switch to a new one.
In a way, Lakatos throws the centrality of falsification under the bus. There are other ways around naive falsification (independent testing of the ad-hoc hypothesis, different bundle of hypotheses, etc.) that still yield rational falsification of a theory.
Of course, there is no way to counter the irrational refusal to admit a favorite theory is falsified. But that takes us into the realm of psychology, which is why I think Berry’s analysis of why it is so hard to change is important.
Oh, one other point that might seem nitpicking, but I think is central to the problem. Your title of the blog is “Creation and Evolution “Research Programs” …”. It’s not creation. It’s creationism. As an evolutionary creationist, you think evolution is part of creation, not an opposite. Creation is a theological statement: God created. Creationism and evolution are both methods that God used to create. But you put them as opposites, which makes it look like evolution denies creation. And thus we are back to the fear of creationists: accepting evolution means denying God and becoming atheist.
We can see this by the common assumption among all creationists that evolutionists are all atheists.
This is false. They do generally say that christian evolutionists are inconsistent.
And finally, applying Bilbo’s evasiveness back to the OP, what’s clear is that the problem is not that ID proponents are unable to “somehow “enter” the program of another, which is epistemologically painful and pragmatically near impossible,” but that they fear entering any research program, even their own!
1 Like
Hi @BradKramer,
Yes, thank you. The question of whether or not Behe’s argument is sound should be separated from the question of whether or not it provides a basis for a Lakatosian research program. I remain curious as to why it wouldn’t.
@Bilbo I have no comment (here) on whether Behe’s ideas form a research program. I moved the posts because they were moving further and further away from the topic at hand.
1 Like
I agree. Good move. But since Justin Topp made a point of saying ID doesn’t meet the criteria for a Lakatosian research program, my curiosity remains unquenched.
Hi Bilbo. ID doesn’t compare with the other three programs, no, because it does not have the depth that the other do. One could construct a program around it, sure, but it could not be compared row by row with the others due to the diversity of opinion amongst those who support it. That’s why I feel it is an add-on to the others.
Calling creationism a “research program” that can contribute to scientific knowledge through competitive interpretation might be the most anti-scientific thing I have ever read on biologos. I’m all for respectfully and patiently teaching people about scientific facts, but I’m disappointed to see this kind of pandering on biologos.