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

[Daniel_Fisher]

@gbrooks9

Find us an I.D. scientist willing to do this and you will have made the necessary adjustment to I.D. as a scientific effort!

then, do I understand you not to stand by your original statement?

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Daniel_Fisher

then, do I understand you not to stand by your original statement?

@Daniel_Fisher,

My “original” statement was more comprehensive than my prior statement! But my point was seemingly ignored. I stripped down my point to get your focus; I can see now that doing so can create the appearance of inconsistency. And for that I apologize.

My position was, and still is, that I.D. is ignored because of its history of ignoring some portion of the entire Scientific viewpoint.

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

[quote=“Daniel_Fisher, post:7, topic:36197”]
Behe for instance seems to believe in large amounts of biological development and change through the natural forces of evolution alone (I.e., “disproving” signals that may at first appear designed)… though he seems to view some of the biological data, though, as significant enough to demand intelligent agency.
[/quote]Science isn’t about belief. Claiming that it is not your own, but someone else’s, obligation to test your hypotheses (Behe’s testimony in the Dover trial) is a rejection of science itself. It’s also a major tell that Behe doesn’t believe his own rhetoric. For practicing scientists, our level of belief in our hypotheses correlates with our desire to try to falsify them by testing them empirically.

@Daniel_Fisher

Let me make a comparison to wrap up my perspective: I cheerfully grant that current ID proponents may be doing science very badly.

The point is that they aren’t doing science at all, with the exception of Axe, who is doing badly and not testing a real evolutionary hypothesis.

@Daniel_Fisher

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.

Stopping at “detection” is inherently unscientific. Can you name a single case of studying human agency that stops at mere detection, ignoring the far more pertinent questions of who, where, when, and how?

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Daniel_Fisher

Certainly that describes Stephen Meyer or Michael Behe who clearly articulate their position as hypothesizing that the designing activity was taking place millions of years ago.

“Millions of years ago” isn’t very specific. What efforts are they making to determine when the alleged designing activity occurring?

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Daniel_Fisher

When Behe dumps the use of the term de-volution I’ll pay more attention to him.

Spider Monkeys do not have thumbs. Is this de-volution? Or is it an enhancement for that species adaptation to their arboreal habitat?

[Daniel_Fisher]

@Jonathan_Burke

@Daniel_Fisher

I struggle to understand why it is within the realm of science to detect intelligent agency when studying rocks or cosmic radiation, but not when examining biological structures.

They’re both within the realm of science.

I fear I don’t understand you… By both, do you mean all three? Or only the first two?

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Daniel_Fisher

studying rocks or cosmic radiation, but not when examining biological structures.

Let me parse it for you.

• studying rocks or cosmic radiation, (1)

but

• not when examining biological structure (1)

1 + 1 = 2. Hence “both”.

[Kathryn_Applegate]

@Swamidass, well said; I share your view of MN and how BioLogos can on the one hand embrace design but reject ID. Science has rules, which are subject to change over time. One of the rules accepted by the scientific community at present is that we don’t appeal to supernatural explanations. Science can’t comment on the activity of the Christian God, but neither can it comment on the activity of any other god(s) that other people believe in. MN is practically useful and consistent with the pluralistic culture we live in. Furthermore, MN doesn’t mean we don’t think God can’t or doesn’t act supernaturally; science just isn’t the right tool for determining when that has taken place. In my view, ID unwittingly falls into scientism by elevating science to be the arbiter of what is true. If we can detect a Designer scientifically, well then…there must be a Designer. But to me, the witness of Scripture is much more powerful to this end than science can ever be. @Daniel_Fisher, thanks for getting this important dialogue going. You’ve hit upon one of the key differences between the Evolutionary Creation and Intelligent Design positions in this exchange.

[Daniel_Fisher]

Ma’am, thank you for your additional thoughts. I concur it is perhaps the most core distinction that separates BioLogos from the perspective of ID, But as I mentioned to Dr. Swamidass, it is the philosophical willingness of ID (at least in principle) to “follow the evidence wherever it goes” that makes me more able to trust its method and perspectives, (even if not its rigorous science in practice), rather than the BioLogos’ principle to “follow the evidence unless it leads one to conclude intentional design.”

I have many philosophical issues with MN, but most can be summarized with the analogy I’ve developed:

Why, exactly, would we say that an archaeologist can legitimately (I.e., scientifically) use the scientific method to conclude that the various indentations and marks on an ancient stone reflect intentional purpose rather than being the result of blind natural forces, unless that archaeologist believed those marks to have been carved directly by God (such as the original 10 commandments)?

[Bill_II]

@Daniel_Fisher

Why, exactly, would we say that an archaeologist can legitimately (I.e., scientifically) use the scientific method to conclude that the various indentations and marks on an ancient stone reflect intentional purpose rather than being the result of blind natural forces, unless that archaeologist believed those marks to have been carved directly by God (such as the original 10 commandments)?

If I can inject my idiosyncratic view here. If an archaeologist was to identify an ancient stone for which the carvings could not have possible been done by the people of that time, such as the surfaces were impossible flat, they would conclude that the carvings were not done by those people and be unable to identify who did it. Was it God? That would be a faith claim and not a science claim. They wouldn’t, simply on the basis of MN, say it must have been done by a human. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

[pevaquark (Matthew Pevarnik)]

@Daniel_Fisher

Why, exactly, would we say that an archaeologist can legitimately (I.e., scientifically) use the scientific method to conclude that the various indentations and marks on an ancient stone reflect intentional purpose rather than being the result of blind natural forces, unless that archaeologist believed those marks to have been carved directly by God (such as the original 10 commandments)?

That is a huge leap and @Swamidass said this multiple times above with SETI.

It’s pretty obvious that some stone structures or something reflect the intentional purpose of an early hominid (a finite non-godlike being). But here’s where the entire thing goes bonkers. Let’s say there is some kind of mysterious structure that we don’t know exactly how it came about by natural means. Like this pattern found in the ocean:

And let’s say we have no idea how it came about via natural means, what should we conclude then? That is was an infinite god-like being, an ‘intelligent designer’ if you will? According to ID philosophy, why yes we should. The natural mechanism was unknown in this case and a good hypothesis could have been somekind of ‘god-like being.’ But obviously we would be wrong in this case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B91tozyQs9M

But generally speaking, what specific data are you trying to argue from? From ‘DNA being like a code?’ From structures that are irreducibly complex, yet many such structures can be explained by steps that have alternate functions than the final product? I learned very quickly watching the PBS documentary on the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial that Michael Behe had no good arguments and wasn’t aware of a very large body of scientific research that showed how systems like the immune system and his mechanical motor flagellum could have arisen via natural processes. What is the ‘obvious evidence’ of special creation? I don’t think there is any at all.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@Bill_II

my idiosyncratic view

Hey – what if I want to get me one of those? Does Biologos have a gift shop around here somewhere?

[Swamidass (Peaceful Science)]

I think you have this backwards @Daniel_Fisher.

@Daniel_Fisher

But as I mentioned to Dr. Swamidass, it is the philosophical willingness of ID (at least in principle) to “follow the evidence wherever it goes” that makes me more able to trust its method and perspectives, (even if not its rigorous science in practice), rather than the BioLogos’ principle to “follow the evidence unless it leads one to conclude intentional design.”

Many of us, including @Kathryn_Applegate and myself it seems have followed the evidence. We followed it both to evolution (for me it was against my upbringing) and to design. We just clarify that this is a philosophical move, not a scientific conclusion. I’d say that we are following the evidence where things lead; in fact a very large portion of us have changed our minds on evolution because of the evidence, without abandoning the doctrine of creation. We are a community defined by following evidence to uncomfortable places.

In contrast, ID may talk about following evidence where it goes, but that is not their reality. There is not track record of changing positions because of evidence or retracting falsified arguments. Many know the answer before seeing the evidence or understanding how science works. From the Wedge Document we know they were committed to a specific answer before doing any inquiry.

The general pattern of ID is to look for science to confirm what is already known in their personal faith. Moreover, there is high resistance to understanding or even acknowledging the existence of mountains of data for evolution. This is most certainly not “following evidence wherever it leads.”

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Daniel_Fisher

But as I mentioned to Dr. Swamidass, it is the philosophical willingness of ID (at least in principle) to “follow the evidence wherever it goes” that makes me more able to trust its method and perspectives, (even if not its rigorous science in practice), rather than the BioLogos’ principle to “follow the evidence unless it leads one to conclude intentional design.”

@Daniel_Fisher,

Wow. Well, I guess it’s pretty clear who the real objective party is, right?

So, it’s really the I.D. supporters who we can trust? You know who I mean, those are the ones who are so quick to say:

“Common descent doesn’t really make much sense.”

or

“Evolution is impossible because it always leads to a loss of genetic information.”

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@Daniel_Fisher

Why, exactly, would we say that an archaeologist can legitimately (I.e., scientifically) use the scientific method to conclude that the various indentations and marks on an ancient stone reflect intentional purpose rather than being the result of blind natural forces, unless that archaeologist believed those marks to have been carved directly by God (such as the original 10 commandments)?

For one, humans can be studied. We have plenty of data and observations about humans throughout history. We have dissected them, and psychoanalyzed them, and “understood” them as objects of inquiry. So, if a scientist were to claim that something was a result of human intelligence, they could compare the object they were studying with objects that were positively known to also be results of human intelligence. How would you go about proving something was the result of divine intelligence? When has God subjected himself to scientific investigation so we can hold up our wealth of data to some unknown and compare? I just cannot imagine how this scientist would offer any proof or basis for his belief that God carved the ten commandments that rested on actual observations and not truth claims derived from revelation.

[Daniel_Fisher]

Ma’am, perhaps you misunderstand the point of my analogy. If an archaeologist, say, happened to have found a fragment of that original tablet that God had carved into a rock, with the legible, ancient Hebrew inscription… my point is simply and only that he would be able to recognize the writing as the result of an intelligent agent, in contrast with it being the result of purely blind natural forces. I am NOT saying that he can somehow prove, scientifically, that this tablet was the one carved by God, that God carved it, that he is now subjecting God to scientific inquiry, or anything of the sort. He could be completely oblivious to the fact, not knowing that the fragment he discovered was, in fact, the one God carved. He could be an atheist archaeologist who held no belief in God whatsoever, and completely unaware that he discovered the very tablet that God carved.

My point is simply that he could still recognize the Hebrew writing on said tablet as the result of an intelligent agent, no? Can we agree that far at least?

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@Daniel_Fisher

My point is simply that he could still recognize the Hebrew writing on said tablet as the result of an intelligent agent, no? Can we agree that far at least?

Yes, no one is arguing with you on that point, I don’t think. You said that if he claimed to believe they were put there by God, all of the sudden people would call foul and say he wasn’t being scientific anymore. Are you saying that it is unfair of people to call his attribution of intelligence to God unscientific?

@Daniel_Fisher

Why, exactly, would we say that an archaeologist can legitimately (I.e., scientifically) use the scientific method to conclude that the various indentations and marks on an ancient stone reflect intentional purpose rather than being the result of blind natural forces, unless that archaeologist believed those marks to have been carved directly by God (such as the original 10 commandments)?

I guess the archaeologist can believe what he wants. But if he is going to offer a scientific observation about the intelligence involved, he is going to have to compare known and verifiable things about the kinds of products humans produce with aspects of the tablet in question. ID has a problem not because they believe God is an intelligent agent involved in creation, but because they don’t have any established and verifiable products of divine intelligence to compare an alleged product of divine intelligence to. All they have is incredulity that “nature alone” could produce something.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Daniel_Fisher

My point is simply that he could still recognize the Hebrew writing on said tablet as the result of an intelligent agent, no? Can we agree that far at least?

@Daniel_Fisher,

Okay, it’s obvious that you are a big fan of Intelligent Design. If you do some careful searches through the BioLogos archives, you will find the occasional comment and quote that supports the fact that BioLogos’ basic position - - that God has designed and created humans through a combination of miraculous and lawful processes.

So, indeed, Intelligent Design, of a very specific definition, is a normal part of the BioLogos literature - - though not usually termed with I.D. labeling.

So from what part of the I.D. world do you hail?

Do you adhere to the idea the Earth is 5 billion years old? If not, what’s your thought on that?
Do you adhere to the idea that cumulative micro-evolution virtually inevitably leads to speciation?
If not, what’s your thought on when speciation occurs? Ever?

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Christy

Yes, no one is arguing with you on that point, I don’t think.

Correct, no one is arguing with him on this point. He has been told this several times.

[Daniel_Fisher]

@Christy

Yes, no one is arguing with you on that point, I don’t think. You said that if he claimed to believe they were put there by God, all of the sudden people would call foul and say he wasn’t being scientific anymore. Are you saying that it is unfair of people to call his attribution of intelligence to God unscientific?

Perhaps I was not clear in my illustration, if so I apologize. I would be the first to argue that any leap from the strictly scientific and empiric “this was designed” to the logical or philosophical “the God of the Bible was the designer” would absolutely be unscientific but rather philosophical / metaphysical…

But it sounds like we agree at least far as that the archaeologist can make a scientific observation that the Hebrew letters on the rock are the result of an intelligent agent rather than natural forces, so long as he or she refrains from any “attribution of [this] intelligence to God”?

If not, what have I missed? If so, then I remain at a loss as to why the recognition or deduction of intelligent causes in biological systems must be called unscientific, so long as those that do recognize such are careful to make no such “attribution of intelligence to God.”