The New York Times, August 22, 2006.
Battling Ignorance
To the Editor:
Lawrence M. Krauss’s essay against “creationism” in the schools (“How to Make Sure Children Are Scientifically Illiterate,” Aug. 15) never engaged any genuine philosophical or scientific arguments related to Darwinism or its absolute commitment to methodological naturalism: that is, design is never allowed to explain anything in biology.
Nor did Dr. Krauss even mention the careful method of design detection laid out by intelligent design proponents like the philosopher and mathematician William Dembski or the biochemist Michael Behe. They are clearly not creationists.
The best way for students to learn science and critical thinking is to present a debate on Darwinism. Students are now denied the opportunity to think for themselves. That is a dogma no one should accept. If Dr. Krauss is worried about students’ being ignorant of science, he should support a debate, not a monopoly.
Douglas Groothuis
Littleton, Colo.
The writer is a professor of philosophy at the Denver Seminary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
None of Mr. Stockwell's comments address the scientific arguments for detecting design in nature. He, rather, takes a supposedly exaulted stance on the superiority of science and the dangers of superstitution. Well, this is part of the rhetorical template of most anti-ID people, but it contributes nothing to the philosophical arguments. How long can they avoid the issues?
Douglas,
In regard to your question:
"How long can they avoid the issues?"
Perhaps until they have legitimate answers. God bless!!!
In Christ,
JLG
John says:
Science is not about mere beliefs, it is not about worldview philosophies, nor is it about addressing absolutely anything that people think up. Nor is a science class about the slippery topic of the philosophy of science. [end quote]
This is epestimic nonsense!!!
What are "mere" beliefs? If science "not about" them, is science about some other type of belief, perhaps beliefs empirically justified, e.g., justified per the scientific method? What about that premise, namely that science is only about that which can be empirically justified? Is that open to empirical justification? It doesn't seem very likely, and that renders your position a contradiction--Scince is therefore not about science, and that is absurd.
Science is totally concerned with worldviews, for science purports to tell us how to view the world--science actively indoctrinates its students with a radical empiricism that cannot sustain its own truth claims. Further, restricting science to methodological naturalism effectively enforces metaphysical naturalism. Thus, the bias against non-naturalists (making them out to be non-scientific) is simply the enforcement of a highly problematic worldview.
Of course we would not want science to include "anything that people think up." But, what about theoretical sciences that rely on mathematics, e.g., physics (and evolutionary biology to some extent)? How do we know, given methodological naturalism, that math isn't just something people make up? If this is the case, which it must be since math is not physical, how are we justified in claiming such fields that rely on a correlation between math and reality as science?
Most generally, this is all philosophy of science! Philosophy of science sets the ground rules for what counts as science. Thus setting some arbitrary philosophy of science as THE philosophy of science, e.g., methodological naturalism, rules out other, perhaps better, philosophies of science a priori--where is the empirical justification for this move?
Lastly, there is not one argument in your comment. You simply make assertion after assertion. Why, even without your highly debatable claims, should we think your conclusion is justified, i.e., probably true? Even on your own terms, where is the empirical evidence that would transform your unfortunately indicative point into a normative definition for science that is not merely a priori? I'll answer this last question for you--there is none.
Jeremy swings.
I majored in biology in college, with an emphasis in microbial genetics and up until I was 27 my worldview was scientific naturalism.
At 27, I had a sudden conversion to Christianity, The Holy Spirit took me by the hand and lead me to the truth in Christ. It was surprising, and honestly scary. The following years were not without their doubts. Indeed, a lot of what Christianity tells us did not make sense to me for quite some time, so I began to probe it, study it, and question it.
I now believe that ID has the upper hand in being the best possible explanation for many things we observe in our universe... that is, if you are allowed to consider all possible explanations in the "pool of possible explanations". The arguments in favor of ID as being the best explanation are many and I'm not going to sit here (in bed with laptop) and type them all out right here and now... but suffice to say, they are compelling to say the very least.
What I find interesting in light of this, are the many presuppositions that naturalists must adhere to for their view to remain in tact and "true"... and yet they are so very intolerant of ID proponents.
It's downright silly that the most common objection is "ID isn't testable". I say this because naturalism is also not testable. Can you conduct a single test that empirically proves that all life is the result of purely natural forces, including the very origins of life? No. You rely on a variety of tests and theories and then you come to a conclusion.
The same holds for ID. You look at a multitude of phenomena in the world and you then come to the conclusion after looking at an ACCUMULATION of evidences and can reasonably conclude that intelligent design is the best possible explanation for the universe. But you aren't allowed to do that, because it's not science you see... because "we cannot allow a divine foot in the door".
Why not? Is it not possible that intelligence caused the universe and life? Or, did the universe pop into existence from nothing?
On origins, the naturalist is much more at home saying "I don't know" then allowing themselves to consider that God, yes the God of Christianity, very well may have done all of this.
Indeed, the objections that come from this group, and other non-science philosopher types regarding scientific issues are more a matter of unfamiliarity with science.
Kindly inform one, who has spent a good portion of his life in the study of biochemistry and biology, exactly what is your understanding of the scientific case for life's origins; most specifically the origin of a functional genome and a genetic code according to which it functions. What evidence in this regard would exclude a rational inference of intelligent causality?
That's a good question. However, the issue we are discussing is "evolution" which is the origin of species, not the origin of life.
The term Darwinism appears in the post which most interpret as excluding intelligence as a causal component. This is relevant to the entire history of life- origins to the present.
As to the question of evidence for excluding "a rational inference of intelligent causation", I would have to say that there is no such thing as a direct inference of "intelligent causation".
There is no such thing as a direct inference for any cause of life which is one of the points I'm making.
What we actually do is model the processes of origin. Will Dembski notwithstanding, we do not "detect design"----we model manufacture. In short, those things that we see as being there result of an intelligent directed process, we do so because we can figure out the process by which the object was manufactured.
You don't have to be able to figure out a process; just know that a stochastic process is an inadaquate causal explanation.
Physics and chemistry are full of regular as well as stochastic processes that seem to operate on their own, without us having to invoke special "intelligent" intervention.
No deterministc processes generate the complex networks of interacting proteins or the encoded nucleic acids that characterize living cells. There is good reason for this. Reactions favoring the bonding of chemical groups unique to these biochemicals would not distinguish between functional and and non-functional outcomes. A cellular environment allowing for selection is needed for that.
So, yes, absolutely, if you are going to make an extraordinary claim that an object is manufactured, then you must deliver the manufacturing process, as well. Science is about identifying and modeling mechanisms and processes.
Science is about linking causes to their effects. A characteristic of intelligently generated outcomes is the insufficiency of unguided natural forces to produce the same effect.
Indeed we don't know very much about the possible prebiotic chemical environments, and the processes that could have led to the first cells. The fact that the subject is barely studied means that it is premature to give up the game and invoke ad hoc explanations that have no scientific meaning.
The subject matter has been studied on numerous occasions for more than a half century. The results are consistent- a smattering of biochemical building blocks generated under differing conditions and no biological systems or encoded nucleic acids. There is nothing but a game to give up if the anticipation is a living cell from a series of organic chemical reactions.
Of course, none of this has anything to do with origin of species. (Indeed, if cell biology confirms anything, it confirms the notion of common descent.)
Cellular biology indicates that some mechanisms are universal which is not a difficulty for intelligent design.
Why, it was just a few years ago that people thought that only enzymes could do the job of an enzyme, and now we know that RNA can do something similar. The classic checken and egg dilemma of protein versus enzyme seems to have some cracks in it. Only more science will show us the real answers.
The enzymatic qualities alluded to are limited and have not been found to catalyze the synthesis of proteins from nucleic acid templates in theorized prebiotic environments. Cellular enzymes encompass the broad range of function required for replicating cells. RNA does not. There are numerous chicken-egg scenarios not resolvable through OOL data.
Science is about linking causes to their effects. A characteristic of intelligently generated outcomes is the insufficiency of unguided natural forces to produce the same effect.
Science is about describing processes. First of all, there is no scientific theory to support your broadsweeping claim regarding "intelligently generated outcomes". Indeed, intelligence, all by itself generates absolutely nothing.
Where we do identify manufactured objects, we have knowledge of the manufacturing processes that generated those objects. We can then speculate on the "design" that went into that manufacture, but not until then. Indeed, I don't believe that there is a single counterexample that you can state to what I have said here.
The kind of appeal to "intelligent causation" that you are championing is simply throwing in the towel. It is too soon to give up the game.
Science is about describing processes. First of all, there is no scientific theory to support your broadsweeping claim regarding "intelligently generated outcomes". Indeed, intelligence, all by itself generates absolutely nothing.
Clicked too soon. Intelligence generates what natural forces alone do not. Does that mean natural forces are negated? Of course not.
Where we do identify manufactured objects, we have knowledge of the manufacturing processes that generated those objects. We can then speculate on the "design" that went into that manufacture, but not until then. Indeed, I don't believe that there is a single counterexample that you can state to what I have said here.
You occupy a tiny speck of the universe. Were future human space travelers to encounter objects in other parts of the galaxy they would be able to speculate about seemingly designed objects even without a designer identified based on known limits of natural forces.
The kind of appeal to "intelligent causation" that you are championing is simply throwing in the towel. It is too soon to give up the game.
To the contrary it opens up previously excluded avenues of inquiry.
Intelligence as the ID community wants it is a kind of mythic character that apparently can be anything, and can do anything.
A misrepresentation. Intelligence is linked to specific data when actual ID arguments are referenced. Nothing mythical about it.
That lack of constraints and restrictions on this "entity" makes the concept illsuited for inclusion in any scientific theory.
The constraints are as real as nature. Intelligence is not invoked to answer why a ball falls to the ground. A natural unguided force is sufficient. It is not sufficient to explain the origin of life.
Where we do identify manufactured objects, we have knowledge of the manufacturing processes that generated those objects. We can then speculate on the "design" that went into that manufacture, but not until then.
There is no disagreement that design can be a by-product of an unintelligently guided force of nature. What is inferred by IDers is intelligence not design. One can look at a computer screen, a paper or a stone containing symbolic notation and infer intelligence without understanding a thing about the means used to "manufacture" either the symbols or the material containing the symbols. The intelligence is conveyed by the encoded messages. The same holds for genomic encoded messages.
As for pessimism, there is none if one is searching for truth rather than confirmation of one's philosophical preferences.
Please direct me to the peer-reviewed papers wherein the necessary cases studies are presented describing this.
http://www.discovery,org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-downloadphp?command=download&id=647
In each case that you mention we do have a great familiarity with the manufacture of these items, as well. Writing is a technology, and written objects are manufactured objects.
Which misses the point that one who lacks any familiarity with the process by which the examples are manufactured nevertheless knows that encoded symbols are evidence of intelligence.
The primary flaw in your further statements regarding "genomic messages in DNA" follow from reasoning from analogy. DNA is not a message carrying code medium.
DNA is an information storage medium.
Indead the term "DNA code" is a misnomer.
Correct. The term is genetic code.
DNA is not an architect's plan transmitting instructions from the architect to a builder. DNA is a template that produces proteins, and which times the relase of those proteins. There is no "genomic message" being transmitted. It is templates upon templates.
Information transcribed from DNA is translated through tRNA and tRNA aminoacyl synthetases and the resulting transmitted information is used to synthesize proteins in ribosomes.
What would demonstrate that IDers were really going down the road of science would be the statement of a definite reasonable test that would disprove ID if ID is in fact wrong. I have yet to see such a test proposed.
Demonstrating that natural unguided forces are sufficient to generate life falsifies ID at an OOL level.
The whole link did not come through. At most I can get to the search page. Do you have specific author/paper titles of the
papers you are referring to?
Try this corrected version:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=647
Information transcribed from DNA is translated through tRNA and tRNA aminoacyl synthetases and the resulting transmitted information is used to synthesize proteins in ribosomes.
The term "information" is tossed around awefully loosely by IDers. In the sense of there being a "message" transmitted from generation to generation, it seems that with all of the transpositions, translocations, activations, deactivations, etc.. that the story changes with the telling.
Genetic information is a commonly used phrase by both IDers and evolutionists.
So, basically mainstream science must completely solve the problem of the origin of life before ID is falsified? That doesn't seem very scientific to me, since there don't seem to be any rules specifying what "intelligent" means in the context of biology.
Abiogenesis advocates need to come up with a viable process that results in a replicating cell to confer credibility to their own hypothesis. Intelligence has been defined and tested. It is a natural part of the universe.
Michael Behe proposed several structures he believes are irreduceably complex. If were really talking about real science here, we could falsify ID by successfully modeling those in terms of more standard mechanisms of variation and selection.
You don't falsify with a model. You use a model for testing purposes and falsify by test results.
It was inconceivable to most people that scientists might be able to manufacture an orgainism (create life!) in the past, but it is conceivable, even likely, that someone will manufacture a bacterium from scratch within the next decade or so. So, the science would be to manufacture a few dozen different types of organisms, and then look at streamlining the process. Then we would have the beginnings of a database to understand how intelligently designed organisms might look.
We are not going to manufacture a bacterium from scratch within a decade or so. Biotechnology companies utilize living organisms as a source of biomaterial before modyfying it as needed. The original source of biomaterial utilized in labs can be traced to a living organism.
Abiogenesis advocates need to come up with a viable process that results in a replicating cell to confer credibility to their own hypothesis. Intelligence has been defined and tested. It is a natural part of the universe.
First of all, let's not shift context. The ID community is claiming that standard evolutionary mechanisms are insufficent for explaining structures in organisms. This is not abiogenesis related. Indeed, you seem to want to shift context away from the issue of ID versus evolution.
You're oversimplyfying ID claims. Some claim the insufficiency of standard theories and then cite the specifics as I have with abiogenesis. Some like Mike Gene believe evolution was possible because of front loading; a concept he will flesh out in a soon to be published book. Others like Steve Jones and Behe are what could be referred to as theistic evolutionists. All are united in their belief that intelligence was a causal factor at some point(s) in natural history.
John Stockwell:
Michael Behe proposed several structures he believes are irreduceably complex. If were really talking about real science here, we could falsify ID by successfully modeling those in terms of more standard mechanisms of variation and selection.
William Bradford:
You don't falsify with a model. You use a model for testing purposes and falsify by test results.
This statement is a nonsequiter. What model? Behe's entire argument is that his claim of irreduceable complexity fits Darwin's own criterion that was to the effect that if any structure could not be shown to be the result of sufficiently small steplike changes, then Darwin's evolution theory would be falsified.
The experimental model that would resolve this has already been suggested. Utilize a rapidly reproducing species like E.coli for example, and genetically engineer the genome so that the encoding genes for the mechanism in question are disabled. Place the organism under selective pressure for a time period (perhaps up to two years) and observe what occurs. An evolved mechanism would be evidence against Behe's IC.
Post a Comment