Does a commitment to methodological naturalism mean you have to ignore evidence of special creation

[Swamidass (Peaceful Science)]

@Daniel_Fisher

my core question about whether the endeavor itself - using science to discover evidence of intelligent agency - is or is not rightly considered science.

@Daniel_Fisher

Sure, but if this pattern of political activism were absent from current ID politcal goals, would the approach become thereby recognized as “scientific” just like SETI?

In principle, detecting intelligent agency of finite non-godlike beings is within the domain of science. Detecting the intelligent agency of godlike beings (i.e. anything resembling the Christian God) is not.

@Daniel_Fisher

my question at core is as to whether the search for intelligent design in biology (perhaps SIDB?) - in itself -can rightly called “science”,

Absolutely this can be science. We already look for evidence of design like this in biology (GMO detection, the impact of sexual selection, cultural selection). That is not a problem and is totally accepted. http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTotal-MLZW201104002.htm

Science is certainly allowed to study the action/intelligence of finite non-godlike beings doing the designing in any domain, including DNA.

Here we make a model of known processes (H1) and of the design process (definable because it involves a specific mechanism based on the action of a finite being) (H2). Then we test if H1 or H2 fits the data more (in some cases this comparison is implicit, but it always requires H2). If H2 fits better, we take this as some evidence that the design process we specified gave rise to the biological system. Using formal models, can quantify the strength of this inference too.

These methods work NOTHING like ID, which is trying to prove detection of design without ever considering the designer (which is impossible in science). ID argues that H2 is impossible for the type of designer they are thinking of (who is it if it’s not God?), so they will not try. Or rather that they have invented new ways of detecting design that do not need to use H2 (even though everyone else does). Instead they look for a gap between H1 and the data. That gap could be (1) a new process we have not discovered, (2) noise or experimental error, or (3) a signature of intelligence. Without ruling out #1 and #2 (which is provably impossible in Information Theory), they just assume that any gap is #3, a signature of intelligence. They stop there. Of course there is “noise” every where, even in systems we perfectly understand. So, of course the method fires off positive all the time.

The only way to resolve this is to get plausible way of creating H2 for God’s process of design. There are a few attempts that failed (e.g. the Biotic Message of Walter ReMine). However, these models do not have any basis for their assumptions and end up not matching the data as well as common descent. If the Designer is the Christian God though, we expect there will never be a way of doing this, and many early Christian scientists would call attempts at this a type of blasphemy (see Bacon’s Idols).

Which is why things like ID are disallowed in science.

@Daniel_Fisher

You have carefully laid out for me, here and and elsewhere, various reasons why you find the ID movement and its proponents to be doing bad science - and I don’t significitantly disagree. But it also sounds like you are arguing that the endeavor itself - of trying to detect intelligent agency in biological systems - is itself - inherently an “unscientific” (or non-scientific) pursuit. This simply doesn’t follow from a critique of their methods. And that is my core contention with the BioLogos perspective that I am trying to better grasp and understand.

Almost but not quite. I have no problem with detecting design and intelligence of finite non-godlike beings in biology. That is within science’s domain.

For theological reasons, this cannot be extended to the intelligence and design of the Christian God. If you believe the Christian God, than ID does not make sense theologically. We mostly believe:

1. God’s thoughts, plans and intentions are largely inscrutable outside revelation. We cannot expect to understand how
2. God is more powerful than we can imagine and can do things beyond our comprehension.
3. God regularly acts in this world in ways that we most often cannot give any account (e.g. how would anyone prove that God caused the state of Israel to be reformed without reference to revelation?),
4. We are commanded not to subject God to the “test,” which parallels pagan notions that they should not “test” the gods in nature.

To be clear, this is not a special rule for biology. It applies everywhere. We cannot be certain or clear of God’s action anywhere unless He tells us in Revelation. The belief that creation was separate from the Creator, and therefore could be subjected to tests in science is cited as one reason early science made sense in a Christian context.

This also explains why attempts to prove God from nature never gave rise to science, and why many early Christian scientists (and BioLogos) resist using science for natural theology. To them (and to me) it may be possible, but it runs counter the purpose of science, and very quickly starts to seem like idolatry. That is why I oppose ID, and why I think MN is misnamed. The rule is right, but the reason is not well explained.

You should really read this too:

Dr James Tour and the Great Pascal