My old friend Steven Novella replies to my post about his post on Michelle Bachman's endorsement of intelligent design. I'll try to reply to the points he raises soon.
I think that this question gets to the core of our disagreement, and I'd like to know what he thinks:
Is the theory of evolution, as accepted by nearly all scientists, compatible with intelligent agency as a cause in biology?
I didn't ask whether intelligent agency were true. I didn't ask about esoteric theories of what constitutes 'science'. I didn't ask about scientific naturalism and philosophical naturalism.
I asked whether the theory of evolution can include the inference to intelligent agency.
It's a yes or no question. I'd like to know his view, and his reasons.
If evolution is controlled by space aliens or something, it would be a new theory of evolution, not Darwinian or even Lamarckian.
ReplyDeleteIs the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution compatible wth the idea of an intelligent designer?
ReplyDeleteWell, there's no evidence of an intelligent designer. There's no mechanism that has been found that could allow an intelligent designer to act in such a way, and there has been no sufficiently specific claims that can test such a mechanism. And finally, the existing theory sufficiently explains what is found both today and from fossil records to make extra agencies unnecessary.
Ithe ToE is not inherently opposed to a "designer", more it doesn't need one to work as a viable Theory. If evidence was forthcoming that showed intelligent agency was both apparent and necessary, then it would be incorporated into a new Theory.
Anon wrote:
ReplyDelete'Well, there's no evidence of an intelligent designer'
As long as you don't make broad assertions and pretenses at omnipotence / omniscience. I suppose you MUST mean 'no evidence' forthcoming in your DeSitter universe.
Out here in the 1-4th(nth) Dimension there is plenty of evidence.
'Life' is one of my favourites. 'History' is another.
the ToE is not inherently opposed to a "designer", more it doesn't need one to work as a viable Theory
Well, the problem is that your 'ToE' does not work too well at all when exposed to 'facts'.
Like Marx, it looks great on paper (it also requires no creator - funny that) but falls short when removed from the theoretical and placed in the practical.
Finch beaks,WHOLE finches, hominids, and even practical science don't need the ToE, rather it needs them - rather desperately it would seem. Darwin was observing-not creating-finches.
Tweet that.
If evidence was forthcoming that showed intelligent agency was both apparent and necessary, then it would be incorporated into a new Theory.
Well, first you need some light on the void, fish, things that 'creepeth' on the earth etc.
Once you have established a matter and energy pattern in there and time and space begin to unfold ex nihilo , perhaps you will find some evidence.
If not, maybe once life begins and seems to be 'pre-programmed' or 'front loaded' with mysterious information?
It could be that the creator has just not started on your cosmos yet. God knows!
Nice you have built in language algorithms, the ability to quote talking points, and the internet in there though!
Maybe you're not in a DeSitter universe after all! Maybe it's a Bill Maher universe?
I am sorry if I sound like your points are not being taken seriously...well no I am not.
Serious comments for serious comments.
Reciprocity, my dear Anon.
You make a comical post, I will joke along with you.
Yup, your response was a joke, that's for sure.
ReplyDeleteWhen you've actually done some research on what the ToE actually is, and you can state this in your own words, perhaps others might take you a bit more seriously. As it stands it appears you are woefully uninformed about the science of biology and evolutionary theory.
But you don't do, let alone understand, science, much like Dr Egnor.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteGlad it made you chuckle.
The theory of evolution (Darwinian) is very easy to understand, as are most reductionist theory.
In my country we learn about it in HS and study it in university biology courses. We are a little more critical of it than you seem to be wherever you are, Anon.
Theory is after all theory. Working or broken.
I will admit my ignorance in the fields of biology and even some of the sciences.
No shame in asking questions, and I ask them all the time. I would, however suggest, that I have probably spent more time reading on these subjects, discussing them, and seeing the practical application of them than you have spent ALIVE - or at least living.
As for my own words, I have only quoted for response. You have encountered debate on Bill Maher universes? You have been described as living in a cosmic void? I think my jabs were highly original. In fact, I am STILL laughing at my own jokes! HAHAHA!
Your talking points, on the other hand, could be cut and paste from any recent atheist diatribe on the web.
Isn't this about the time you begin to accuse me of being bipolar or passive aggressive? Living in a fantasy, or being deluded? Maybe 'bat-sh*t' crazy? I am sure there are some good lines you could google up.
**removed duplicate post**
ReplyDeleteHi CrusadeREX,
ReplyDeleteMy view is more or less in line with anonymous. The notion of an intelligent agent is superfluous since the theory of evolution as currently understood already provides an excellent framework.
For me, the single most telling failure of ID proponents is the inability to demonstrate why the addition of the intelligent agent enhances the theory we already have. Furthermore, the inability to define what or who this agent is or even their proposed mode of action suggests that the proponents are simply making stuff up.
I think Dr Egnor's challenge would be best answered by creationists / ID proponents themselves. All you need to do is re-formulate the ideas of Cr/ID as a testable theory and then go to work demonstrating that your new theory is best.
Regarding the accusation of cut & paste talking points. These conversations have a tendency to gravitate to very predictable lines of argument simply because they begin with very old arguments. Dr Egnor's question has already been answered. It shouldn't surprise anybody that if you ask an old question you might receive an unoriginal answer.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou then make a very good point:
ReplyDeleteI think Dr Egnor's challenge would be best answered by creationists / ID proponents themselves. All you need to do is re-formulate the ideas of Cr/ID as a testable theory and then go to work demonstrating that your new theory is best
I agree. That is up to the ID folks, not the Atheists. Not only is it our province of thought, it is an inaccessible one to the Atheist mindset.
What you describe is not an easy or short task, as the academy and peer review process is openly hostile to non-materialist thinking.
I am not bemoaning skepticism here, just the arrogance of the established 'regnant priests of a powerful orthodoxy' (a Berlinksi quote).
Their indignation is understandable, but hinders any effort to make the case for ID. In an effort to protect their credentials, they limit the progress of this research, and much more
I would also suggest to you that the evidence in mounting in FAVOUR of ID. Not just in biology (information theory, complexity etc etc) but also in the realm of other disciplines. Physics being prime.
Super potentiality and Quantum mechanics rely on non-materialist forces to explain the very fabric of our reality.
But, to your point: This article and the question posed are a clarion call for proponents of ID to do just that, as well as request from one friend to another for an explanation of that individuals position.
In short: Your point is well taken, Salim.
Regarding the accusation of cut & paste talking points. These conversations have a tendency to gravitate to very predictable lines of argument simply because they begin with very old arguments. Dr Egnor's question has already been answered. It shouldn't surprise anybody that if you ask an old question you might receive an unoriginal answer.
While your position may be relative to Anon's, you have a far better approach, Salim.
No need to make excuses for people who cannot converse without grand assertions and insulting rhetoric. It is not the 'answer' that made me laugh at Anon, Salim - even if it is a tired old monistic view - it was the style. If this subject bores him/her, they should not feel compelled to write on it...or copy others writings on it. If interested, they should rather take the time to formulate a response, as you have. Don't you agree?
Talking points are boring, and this subject is fascinating.
Thank you for advancing your ideas in a civilized (and interesting!) fashion :)
Apparently I cannot post the first part of my response.... Sorry Salim. I will try again in a few minutes.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSomething strange happening here... will tray again later Salim.
ReplyDeleteSorry about the mess, Mike. Wordpress is messing with me :(
I personally enjoy the discussion even thouh I think we are unlikely to reach a conclusion. Greater minds than mine continue tonargue this issue so what hope having I of achieving some kind of final state. That said...
ReplyDeleteI am unaware of any real evidence regarding ID. There are new concepts (e.g. the work of Behe and dembski) but their work seems more like rhetoric and apologetics than real research. My evidence for this is that in all the years since ID was originally proposed there has been no advance at all in determining the identity or methods of this putative designer. Meanwhile the evolutionary biologists seem to be managing just fine.
Regarding physics - spiritualists like Deepack Chopra often like to claim that quantum theory validates their spirtual beliefs however I think this is based on a wilfull misunderstanding or possibly even a distortion of what the physics researchers seem to believe. From what I can tell Physics is not embracing any form of spirituality.
Physics may be profoundly mysterious but its rooted in materialism.
Okay... I think it will allow me to post the FIRST part of my response, Salim.
ReplyDeleteHi Salim,
Sensible and direct comments deserve the same response. I commend your form.
Allow me to respond as a layman (Historian and Military), but seriously to your comment.
You wrote:
The notion of an intelligent agent is superfluous since the theory of evolution as currently understood already provides an excellent framework.
It does not provide real substance. It lacks practical attraction and is counter to natural intuition.
Religion and creationism also provides an excellent framework and is compatible with modern science. Design theory can provide answers to vexing problems within the evolutionary landscape. The Cambrian explosion (recognized by Darwin himself as a serious impediment), for example. Language,various qualia, paranormal/supernatural experiences, and even the human mind - are further examples of subjects beyond the scope/reach of Darwin's work but well within the worlds of Design,Theism and various non materialist philosophies.
In addition, Theism/Design provides for meaning and purpose in an obvious way. That purpose is not only essential for mental stability of the individual, it leads the scientific mind to INQUIRY,REASON,LOGIC, and away from futility and randomness.
The only counter to this argument seems to be promissory materialistic doctrine ('Atheism of the gaps'). The 'future' and 'science' are invoked and will somehow be able to discover a material cause for these 'supernatural' and inexplicable events. It will somehow find meaning in the entropy.
A second coming of 'Science' is predicted.
Faith by any other name...
Still cannot post my response, Salim.
ReplyDeleteDon't know what the problem is.
Will try again tomorrow.
No worries Rex, just reply when you feel inspired to do so.
ReplyDeleteContinuing from my previous point - the unoriginality of Dr. Egnor's question: He's actually asked the oldest question there is in the battle between science and religion.
Asking if evolution can be reconciled with the existence of a god of some kind yields much the same answer as if you ask if god is compatible with science as a whole.
In general, the answer is that science is doing fine without any non-material or spiritual insights. It's not clear how adding these into science will make science better. The only people who typically claim the need to introduce God into the equation are those for whom lack of god is troubling.
Hi Salim,
ReplyDeleteSensible and direct comments deserve the same response. I commend your form.
Allow me to respond as a layman (Historian and Military), but seriously to your comment.
You wrote:
The notion of an intelligent agent is superfluous since the theory of evolution as currently understood already provides an excellent framework.
It does not provide real substance. It lacks practical attraction and is counter to natural intuition.
Religion and creationism also provides an excellent framework and is compatible with modern science. Design theory can provide answers to vexing problems within the evolutionary landscape. The Cambrian explosion (recognized by Darwin himself as a serious impediment), for example. Language,various qualia, paranormal/supernatural experiences, and even the human mind - are further examples of subjects beyond the scope/reach of Darwin's work but well within the worlds of Design,Theism and various non materialist philosophies.
In addition, Theism/Design provides for meaning and purpose in an obvious way. That purpose is not only essential for mental stability of the individual, it leads the scientific mind to INQUIRY,REASON,LOGIC, and away from futility and randomness.
The only counter to this argument seems to be promissory materialistic doctrine ('Atheism of the gaps'). The 'future' and 'science' are invoked and will somehow be able to discover a material cause for these 'supernatural' and inexplicable events. It will somehow find meaning in the entropy.
A second coming of 'Science' is predicted.
Faith by any other name...
CNTD below...
Fingers crossed it takes in this time.
This should have been part ONE of the response, Salim.
It is not a matter of inspiration, Salim. I just don't seem to be able to comment more than a few words on this post. I have the first part of my response in TXT and it just will not copy. If this posts perhaps I can respond in blurbs.
ReplyDeleteSalim wrote: I personally enjoy the discussion even thouh I think we are unlikely to reach a conclusion.
ReplyDeleteI agree on both counts. One cannot come to consensus on matters of faith, unless it is with other 'believers'. That is true of both the Theist and Atheist positions. We can however be clear and explain our positions so that we are BOTH better understood. (even if not by each other :P)
Salim wrote:
ReplyDeleteAsking if evolution can be reconciled with the existence of a god of some kind yields much the same answer as if you ask if god is compatible with science as a whole.
It could be taken that way, but I do not think that was the intention of this post. The question is specific to evolutionary theory. The answer to both is yes, once the materialist assertions are recognized for what they are: pure inference. Theist see the picture in the dots, Atheists see dots.
Salim wrote:In general, the answer is that science is doing fine without any non-material or spiritual insights. It's not clear how adding these into science will make science better. The only people who typically claim the need to introduce God into the equation are those for whom lack of god is troubling.
ReplyDeleteThere is no need to add God to anything from the Theist perspective, Salim. He is already there. But to your point: The foundations of science are riddled with religious thinking of various forms. Even the 'method' itself is the brain child of a MONK.
The very desire to amass and catalogue patterns in nature was presumptive of design.
The medical sciences are a prime example of this. So, I would suggest to you that science has only been moderately godless since the post WWI era, and while there has been leaps and bounds of 'unchained' progress that has been outweighed by the environmental and HUMAN horrors such unguided and hence unprincipled research has resulted in.
A return to more humble and moderate thinking is well overdue and could result in more meaningful progress and less 'junk' science. Think: NS and Random mutations. The same arguments Darwin and Haekel put forward about the breading of men ('guiding' their evolution like livestock) should be applied to the fields of science. What to guide it with? OBJECTIVE morality - or simply put religious/faith based principles - NOT moral relativity and closed mindedness (materialism).
Finally, in his previous comment Salim noted:
ReplyDeletePhysics may be profoundly mysterious but its rooted in materialism.
Agreed, it is THE physical science. Like any TRUE science it is capable of probing it's limits. Physicists know this. They understand potentiality and the necessary problems that determinism faces when confronted with it. This is why we have people making the God inference and others making the ABG excuses. In my mind it is not an argument FOR God, but and argument AGAINST materialism, and hence promissory materialism - a foundation stone of New Atheism.
The assumption there is a Theist God is a leap of faith, or matter of personal experience. The assumption there CANNOT be a God/designer of ANY sort is to deny the evidence.
Rex,
ReplyDeleteI can understand why religious people might find an explaination which includes God or some kind of spiritual entity more "satisfying". I can also agree that some very unprincipled scientists (most notably the Nazi scientists who experimented on Jews during the 2nd world war) might have been less awful people if they had any guiding moral principles - Christianity or Humanism would have been better than what they were...
On the other hand, I think the issue is that mostly as scientists we are trying to explain phenomena. There's a very good explaination for the diversity of life on earth. A great body of work has been built on a completely naturalistic model of evolution.
On the other hand, proponents of ID have really not got any further than some of the first conjecture. The've not even got ID to the point where it's a falsifiable theory.
By the way, if you want to continue this discussion it's probably best to move to email. My address is very easy to find if you just google for my name.