The fact that the pyramids give sufficient evidence for the greatness of Egypt doesn’t stifle the curiosity and thirst for knowledge of the archaeologists. They would consider the thought baffling, if someone said to them, “You can see the pyramids, isn’t that enough evidence of the greatness of the Egyptians; rather than having to seek for more such evidence in the sand?
If, IF, God’s design and work is, in fact, visible in direct, recognizable means in the very creation, then I want to see it and better understand it simply because I want to see it, and because of a basic thirst for truth.
I would never cut off a long line of study or exploration on the sole basis of, “well, I already have enough evidence of God’s glory in the initial universe creation, therefore I don’t need to look for it elsewhere…”. I would never cut off any inquiry on that basis. If something is true, it is worth discovering.
Astronomers have not discovered “enough” of the universe, there is more to discover. Archaeologists have not discovered “enough” of the past, such that they should cease seeking further discoveries.
But doesn’t what ID is saying happens require a supernatural agent? The agent has been active for millions of years, performs it’s work with no visible presence, works on a molecular level, etc. And then there is the question, “If it isn’t supernatural where did the natural agent come from?”
That could be a reasonable hypothesis derived from the data, I suppose. But no, ID doesn’t require such belief as a starting point…
… no more than SETI would require belief in some supernatural agent in order to identify, as intelligently purposed, some signal they happened to receive that had clear evidence of intelligence in say, the cosmic background radiation… that they dated to near the beginning of the universe. They might, perhaps, derive that hypothesis from such a discovery (“what else could have been back there at that time”)… I suppose…
But also (and yes, maybe I watch too much Star Trek), but the “supernatural” hypothesis would rule out any and every possibility of natural intelligent agents that are noncorporeal, energy-based, transdimensional, transtemporal, etc.
Q, the Squire of Gothos, Apollo, the beings that seeded DNA into the earth and other planets specifically engineered so that humanoid life would one day evolve… none of these are “supernatural” at least in the way I understand the term. But the ID hypothesis and method, limited as it is to identifying intelligence, while remaining agnostic about the nature of said intelligence, could not rule out any of these or any other alternate hypotheses.
Not to mention, even (intelligently) directed panspermia of different sorts has been published in respectable scientific journals, including by none other than Francis Crick to my understanding… hence one could of course recognize and be convinced of intelligent design in the initial creation of life even if one believed natural forces sufficient to account for all further developments of that life. And in such cases as that, clearly, one need not require belief in a supernatural entity to posit that certain features of life as we know it simply aren’t best explained by blind natural forces, hence Crick’s own panspermia hypothesis. To my knowledge Crick was not espousing any form of supernatural agency; he simply postulated intelligent aliens to account for certain aspects of the genetic code that appeared to him, dare I say, better explained by the “ID hypothesis” than by blind natural forces here on earth?
Why does ID insist that “evolution” is “blind and unguided” when it is clearly not blind and unguided? Why does ID accept these unverified claims as true instead of making evolutionists prove these false claims?
Evolution is not wrong. Evolutionists are wrong. Evolution is not blind and unguided, as I have clearly demonstrated. Evolution is the process that God designed to produce life forms on earth.
because if someone believed evolution was not blind nor unguided, they would be advocating “intelligent design”? there are plenty of people, such as Michael Behe, who believe in universal common descent and evolution as generally understood, but who yet believe the process must have been assisted or intentional or guided by some intelligent or purposeful agent, at least at certain junctures, in some direct manner above and beyond what unguided or blind nature alone could accomplish, and that makes them, de facto, proponents of “intelligent design.”
Even acknowledging God’s overarching providence… Christians who believe that the laws of nature that God established and the related natural processes alone are sufficient explanation for the feats that evolution has been able to accomplish are identified with Biologos and/or the “Evolutionary Creationist” perspective. Those who perceive that some purposeful, intelligent guidance (of some sort, divine or otherwise) is necessary to account for at least some feats of biology, whether or not evolution was or was not the overall process involved, are identified as supporting “intelligent design” in some form or fashion, no?
No. I have read about or interacted with dozens of Christian biologists. They have said that their faith in God does not permit them to believe evolution (or any other process in nature) is blind or unguided.
They also say that this conviction about God’s guidance in nature does not emerge from biological evidence. What emerges from the biological evidence is common ancestry and evolution. Belief in God’s guidance finds support in other, non-scientific evidence.
Let me explain my position. Evolution is from God. Evolution as outlined by Darwin has two basic aspects. Aspect 1 is Variation whereby genes are caused to change so new alleles are created. Aspect 2 is Natural Selection where some new alleles are selected in and most are not. Natural Selection is where guidance takes place.
It is my position that “ecology” is the source of Natural Selection. It was ecology, or climate change, that caused the dinosaurs to go extinct. It was the the ecological fact that God created mammals better able to adapt to the new environment, so they/we were able to survive and thrive.
Did God plan/design things this way? Yes. Did God plan the change of climate? Yes. Did God create mammals to take the place of dinosaurs? Of course. Can I prove it beyond putting 2 + 2 together and getting 4? No. Should that make a difference? No.
BioLogos owes it to those faithful and wise scientists who agree with evolution even though they know that God does not work through blind and unguided processes, to solve this puzzle, esp. since it seems to me that the answer is clear.
Yes, God did it and God did it through evolution/natural selection/ecology pure and no so simple.
If we don’t pay attention to climate change God might decide to replace us, too.
I will admit my knowledge of ID is limited but you are talking about the origin of life which is a different question from how did we get here.
Based on what you have said, and correct me if I am wrong, you believe everything is designed, from DNA to a bird’s wing to dolphin’s sonar to the human brain. Given we have a record that this has taken millions of years (which I don’t think you have disagreed with) then how do you explain the uncountable design decisions that have been made. To me refusing to discuss the designer in ID is just avoiding the question that would destroy ID.
Marvin:
Thanks for your response.
I would agree that I don’t understand evolution. I don’t think anyone does.
However, I would like to get a better handle on how theistic and/or evolutionists think. As yet, the logic does not seem to add up for me. I don’t know whether the basic arguments are about real facts on the ground, the absence of facts, semantics or philosophy.
They are indeed quite different, yes, to be sure… but for my purposes and philosophical questions they are entirely in the same category.
If, in theory, it would be conceivable or possible for me to recognize design in the creation of life by examining life as we know it, then it would be in principle possible for me to recognize the same in a novel body part or organ of a later organism.
In other words, design is either conceivably recognizable in biological system, or it isn’t. If it is, then it is still an open question as to whether it is or isn’t in fact seen in abiogenesis, or in other structures or systems, and would be examined in a case-by-case basis. I simply object to the pattern of ruling out design a priori as a possible conclusion before beginning the inquiry… whether or life at the beginning or of any subsequent feature.
EVERYTHING is designed? certainly not. there are plenty of adaptations due to natural selection working upon random variation, and thus I can recognize plenty of biological features, improvements, adaptations, and the like, wherein unguided natural processes being selected through natural selection is a completely adequate, and i think more reasonable, explanation than intentional design. Changes between Darwin’s Galapagos finches come immediately to mind.
But, yes, certain feats, including the basics of those you mentioned, seem to me far better explained by intentional and purposeful design… but this does not mean i am suggesting that, once a working wing is established and designed, that variation and natural selection could not still introduce small variations that continue to adapt the animals, introduce incremental improvements, etc.
Two thoughts… Firstly, ID refuses to discuss the nature of the designer because it is not a scientific question, and it is beyond the limited means of science to make those kinds of determinations. I personally believe the designer of course, to be the God of the Bible, who became incarnate in a Christ… but these i hold for metaphysical reasons. they are philosophical or theological questions.
But if someone came to me and claimed they believed that both the introduction of complex life and any subsequent leaps in design they perceived in the history of life were introduced by an alien civilization…
My disagreement with such a person would be strictly, completely, and entirely metaphysical, theological, or philosophical. I could point to nothing whatsoever in the science in front of me, nothing in the biological record, nothing in the DNA, nothing in the structure of dolphin sonar or the physiology of the human brain that somehow proved in some scientific manner that any design we both saw was the result of supernatural, rather than natural, agency…
(Could you even imagine what conceivaly be used to discriminate between those hypotheses? "Look, the designer ended this codon with a “C” instead of a “G”… that is clearly evidence of supernatural vs. natural agency…"
Even all that said, I am very wary of tainting any strictly empirical or scientific study, and basic search for truth, based on our concern about this or that possible philosophical ramification. I never want to find us, in any context whatsoever, suggesting, “we shouldn’t follow this line of inquiry… because it may require us to embrace philosophical position X.”
If something in biology is in fact designed, then we ought to be free to recognize it as such regardless of what potential complications or consequences that gives us to our philosophical questions. A medical examiner at Lazarus’s tomb ought to have been free to confirm he was really dead, and then confirm he was really alive, and thus confirm that a resurrection happened, irrespective of any philosophical consequences that would have regarding belief in miracles, divinity of Christ, the supernatural, etc. Those are critical questions, indeed… but they are all entirely subsequent to, or downstream of, the basic " scientific" inquiry.
And thus I think the possible conclusion of “designed”. should be acknowledged as a possible and legitimate scientific conclusion when examining biological systems, simply due to the evidence right on the table, regardless of what subsequent philosophical or theological questions that conclusion may or may not raise.
I’m not sure if you are missing the distinction I (and presumably other ID proponents) are making in the idea of what is or isn’t considered “designed” or “unguided”.
I don’t disagree significantly with what you said above… but if you are using the term in that very broad sense, what in the history of the world was not planned/guided. unless i’m not following what you mean, i could likewise say that God planned/designed for me to drink Apple Juice today, and that he planned/designed it to rain today. I don’t strictly disagree, but it isn’t the distinction between “designed” vs. “unguided” that is being used in these conversations.
By comparison, consider if i invited you and two other friends over to play poker. And, the very first deal, i dealt every player a royal flush. I daresay you would accuse me of cheating, of the cards having been “designed” or “guided” or “planned” to come out that way, in a way different than what we would expect if left to the normal processes of randomness.
Now, I suspect you would not be satisfied with my response if I said, “but of course this was planned… God had planned/designed this very outcome of cards the same way he planned/designed the change in climate…?” I trust not. Because I suspect that even recognizing and acknowledging God’s overarching control of all things, you might still distinguish between things that are in a practical sense “guided”, and things otherwise “unguided”, no?
Of course many of us as Christians recognize that God is has a plan for all things, and that everything whatsoever (even my apple juice) is according tomGod’s design and plan.
But yet we can still recognize that certain things are entirely explicable by the “otherwise” unguided unfolding of the laws of nature he established, and some things are clearly explicable only by direct, intentional, purposeful intervention, accomplishing things that the “otherwise” unguided laws of nature would never have been able to accomplish.
Can we agree thus far?
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
118
So it’s rational deduction beyond the empirical? There’s no other kind of evidence is there? Unless poetry is?
But isn’t the concept of design actually a metaphysical concept? Design depends on what we think is design. A rock arch created by wind erosion could be considered to be designed if you don’t consider what created it.
John 1:1-3 (NIV2011)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made.
The concept of design is closely related to the Logos, the Rational Word of God. Design is not dependent on what we think is designed, but what is the product of a rational mind. The universe in all its detail is the product of a rational Mind. This however does not mean that every creature is created de nova.
Now why would the God, Who cares even about the feathers of a common sparrow, make a distinction between different “kinds of design” in God’s creation? Even though we really cannot understand it, we know that there is no first class and second rate in what God does. God cares about each aspect of the Creation unconditionally.
It’s important to distinguish between not inferring design and inferring not design. The fact that an argument presented as supposedly indicating design doesn’t hold up well does not mean that we therefore conclude that it must not be designed, but simply that the argument is not good. What science tells us is that, if a designer was involved in the process of creating new kinds of organism, he / she / it / they did so in a manner consistent with the expectations of evolution by natural selection. That’s not particularly useful for questions about the designer. Nor is it the biblical approach, which starts from knowing God and from there infers that everything is a part of His plan, no matter what methods are used to bring it about. But it’s all that science can really do in this setting.
Let us say that Darwin said that 3 + 2 = 4 and science agreed with him. Then ID came along and said, We know that 3 + 2 does not equal 4. We think 2 + 1 = 4.
Then each side began to prove that the other was wrong, that 3 + 2 does not= 4 and 2 + 1 does not = 4, and believed that they were right because the other side was wrong.
Then someone took the 2 from the Darwinian 3 + 2 equation and the 2 from the ID 2 + 1 equation and came up with the right answer, 2 + 2 = 4.