1 Like
The level of extreme and vehement opposition to Sternberg’s decision simply to publish an ID article, after indeed having it peer-reviewed, tells me there is something much more going on. One doesn’t need to be a conspiracy theorist to recognize that what happened to Sternberg would indeed happen to any other publisher that dared to try to publish an ID paper, even if he found it of scientific merit, and even if it were successfully peer-reviewed as Meyer’s paper had been.
the journal, in criticizing Sternberg’s decision to so publish, stated the following:
The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings.
translated, this says: “Meyer’s paper does not meet the scientific standards of our journal solely because his article defends intelligent design. we have already determined that any paper or position that supports ID is by definition unscientific, and thus will not ever be published, nor will the ideas or arguments therein even be entertained.”
this isn’t a conspiracy theory, this is the self-admitted position of this scientific journal. they will not publish anything if it supports ID conclusions.
i don’t think NPR, after all, is a foremost peddler of “conspiracy theories”…
I just don’t get how the quote would have any chance of reaching those who “seek empirical evidence of God’s involvement”. I’m pro-faith so I’d like to see it succeed. But I just don’t see what it is about that quote which will ramp up their trust enough to settle for hope when their native inclination is to come up with a new bull-dozer argument which will convince everyone.
Good luck though!
This has intrigued me for many years. Faith as I understand it, is the evidence of things unseen and things hoped for. So seeking empirical evidence for God in whatever activity is, by definition, outside matters of faith. I guess the closest we can come to is personal experience, but that is subjective… 
And then there is all that theology on transcendence etc … 
4 Likes
There may be times when the distinction between prescriptive vs descriptive is important. But in this case the insistence that you descriptively “can’t” do something has the same practical effect.
If the larger scientific community, or Biologos, says that intelligent design “can’t” be demonstrated scientifically or empirically, then it matters little whether they intend this to be prescriptive or descriptive. Any claim by anyone of seeing or finding evidence of intelligent agency will still be summarily rejected.
I have no doubt nor dispute that for the most part, Biologos and others embrace MN for “descriptive” reasons, not prescriptive. But in what way does that change our discussion? The fact still remains unchanged that, because of their beliefs about the (descriptive) limits of science, any conclusion about intelligent agency is not premature, it is wrong, no?
Thus I still maintain their position on MN, by definition, codifies their rejection of ID, unless I’m still missing something. I will completely grant your observation that Biologos is using methodological naturalism “descriptively,“ and that it is in no way a “prescription.“
How, then, does that in any way whatsoever change what I observed above?? MN still completely excludes intelligent agency from ever being considered. I will even change the words to clarify we’re talking about description…
The word “can’t” may have been a sub-optimal choice of words for the purposes of my point in that it preserves ambiguity between being prescriptive vs. merely descriptive. Replace it with the word “hasn’t” and I think the point is much better served.
Well … it would seem it has been wrong thus far anyway.
Change the words “are not able to include” to “have not been able to demonstrate”, and I’m with you.
But I guess our disagreement must persist when you add the conclusion:
This would follow only in the same way that, for example, perpetual motion machines have been “excluded” or unfairly kept out by our views of thermodynamics. It isn’t that anybody will ever get into trouble for attempting to make one. It’s that they’ve never succeeded thus far. Hence our lack of confidence that this will ever change.
It isn’t our disagreement, per say… I am in essential disagreement with you that the method of science should not summarily rule out certain conclusions a priori. It is Biologos own claim and method that I am disputing.
The term “methodological naturalism” would simply never be used to describe the fact that they haven’t yet discovered a non-natural (I.e.) intelligent cause to some phenomenon, even while their “method“ would indeed allow consideration of such.
If they were describing what you seem to think they’re claiming, then their position would be better described as “empiric naturalism” or “demonstrated naturalism“ or some such. “Methodological” naturalism implies a certain naturalism inherent in the “method”, rather than the conclusions, does it not?
Or, forgive me for sounding dumbfounded… but are you really suggesting that by the term “methodological naturalism,” nothing whatsoever is implied about the “method”, and the term simply and solely means that they have not yet found any evidence of intelligent agency, although their method is indeed entirely open to such?
That’s a very good point. I think you are correct that the descriptor “methodological” does admit more than a simple expression of confidence that “because this has always worked so far anyway…we are sure it will always will” to something more like a prohibition - at least as it must sound to proponents. Is it an unfounded confidence, though? If your friend claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine, you might chastise others for not giving your friend a fair hearing. But can you blame them for any “premature” skepticism they may exhibit?
1 Like
How can the Designer be a part of nature, when the Designer is the Source of nature?
Please friends, let us not allow ourselves to be drawn off topic. The question is not intelligent design or not. The question is whether evolution is random or not? That is or should be a relatively simple, yes-or-no scientific question.
It should be clear that natural selection is not a ransom process. If it were random then it should not be called selection, because selection means than a rational process was used to select using specific criteria, so it is not random. Dawkins and E. O. Wilson affirm that this is so using the “Darwinian Imperative.” This explains how it may be possible to create rational humans using in part a irrational random process, Variation, bit it means that evolution is guided and not random.
If Natural Selection guides evolution, then evolution is not random, but designed. This would seem to prove ID’s point, but I now find out that IS id not interested in Naqtural Selection. For some reason Natural Selection which was designed by God to create human beings in God’s own Image is not considered by ID to be evidence for Intelligent Design!?
So again the question is Is Natural Selection a rational process or a random process?
1 Like
I wouldn’t say natural selection is itself rational due to constraints of algorithmic information theory. natural selection cannot create novel information, neither can combining it with random variation produce novel ibformation.
Information may or may not be embedded in natural selection by a rational source, but that is a question to investigate.
You entirely miss the point.
There was no chance. I was just curious to see how the obvious conclusion would be rationalized away.
2 Likes
One way people of faith recognize God’s involvement in providencial occurances, occurances that unbelievers dismiss as mere improbabilities, is teleological, that events and grouping of events have purpose infused in them. I will again appeal to Maggie’s wonderful sequence as evidence. It is evidence, among other things, of God’s M.O.
This has also been discussed elsewhere:
There is a difference between a set of circumstances that is improbable, and a set of circumstances that is improbable and also performs a function. [emphases added]
And I would include evolutionary events in that as well, evolution being a subset of God’s providence, and why I am an ‘evolutionary providentialist.’
Eric,
Let us say that that once upon a time a person w3as born with the first opposable thumb. We don’t know when or how. The question is, how was the choice made to preserve the genes that did this trait, or was it left chance that this would happen or not?
Natural selection does not create anything per se, but it selects in or out variations which are created by chance. These variations are new and can go on to combine with others when approved by natural Selection to make more new variations. Are you saying that this cannot happen according to your theory? .
This has been discussed some time ago, but it is worth mentioning. Intelligibility of the universe and teleology can be inferred as we are able to intelligently access and describe nature, and we can say things go from one state to another in a scientifically meaningful way. MN seems to depend on this but cannot detect or quantify these specifically. Those who disagree seek to promote absolute random processes, which in a funny way contradicts the method in MN.
I feel like ecology can still be described as a natural phenomenon. It’s a byproduct of random mutations and events that ultimately favor the mutation that results in its host having a higher survival eating resulting in more opportunity to reproduce which carries on offspring , some of which, will most likely have that same trait passed down about will stand a better chance at surviving resulting in that mutation becoming a basal trait.
Indeed I would not. If someone goes into such a discussion with an extremely skeptical, yet ultimately open mind, I would have no objection. But Science is in the business of seeking the counter-evidence that forces us to change our theories, that is how our theories become ever closer to truth, I understand. One may remain extremely skeptical, while in the spirit of basic academic freedom (if not a basic commitment to seeking truth) allow alternate theories to be discussed and weighed on their merits. But refusing to allow certain hypotheses a priori from even being discussed is another thing altogether.
(I do find it a very odd complaint or critique of ID that “their papers are never published in mainstream scientific journals”… when these journals have made a firm (sometimes explicit) commitment that they will not publish any papers that support ID.)
Einstein, I understand, was extremely skeptical of Heisenberg’s interpretation. But to my knowledge he never tried to exclude Heisenberg’s interpretation from being published in science journals.
I have no issue with anyone being most skeptical of ID, or critiquing its claims on their merits (or lack thereof) with a most critical eye. The best critiques will often come from those who hold alternate theories and thus can counter-argue the consistency and superiority of the alternate position.
But an a priori ruling out of even considering Intelligent agency as the immediate cause for certain biological features is extremely problematic to me.
As I have mentioned elsewhere… if a committed atheist biologist examines a biological feature and concludes that it arose by natural means, this is supremely uninteresting to me.. Of course he was going to arrive at that conclusion. He would not, could not see intelligent agency… Not in a mouse, not in a fox… He would not see it here nor there, he could not see it anywhere. Thus whether intentional or not, he has begged the particular question that most interests me. I know in advance what conclusion he will reach about whether or not some biological phenomenon is “naturally occurring.”
Thus when any Christian biologist commits to following the identical methodological approach as said atheist, their conclusions are identically uninteresting to me as well. They have similarly begged the very question I am asking.
Or put another way… my core question that fascinates me is as to whether certain biological features are “naturally occurring,” or are they rather the result of intelligent agency, nature alone being incapable of achieving such phenomena. Obviously I lean a certain way in the topic, but I like to have my ideas critiqued.
But when Biologos method says that it will persist in seeking a natural explanation for natural phenomena, do you see how that begs the question I am asking?
When I’m asking, “IS this a “natural” phenomenon?, or is this NOT a “natural” phenomenon?”
It begs the question to be told, “we should seek a natural explanation for this natural phenomenon.”
1 Like
I don’t think ID has shown any scientific merit. Yes, it boggles the mind how complex subcellular machines can be, but neutral drift produces complexity. You can’t allow for God’s providence to be working behind the scenes, so to speak, apparently. I believe in lowercase ‘id’.
If I invited you over to play poker, and you noticed that every time I dealt ten times in a row, I happened to deal myself a royal flush, I doubt you would be very moved if I said, “ You can’t allow for God’s providence to be working behind the scenes, so to speak, apparently.”