Response to radio listener's questions

Very good article Jack. Too bad that ID is still using equivocation of naturalism and methodological naturalism, which started with Philip Johnson, to confuse and mislead their followers.
ID is scientifically vacuous, theologically risky and philosophically misleading.

Too bad that ID is still using equivocation of naturalism and methodological naturalism....

— PvM

So, Michael Finley, do infer correctly that you endorse the Discovery Institute's notion that we should abandon naturalism* as a foundation of science?

*(Note the lack of adjective, philosophical or methodological, as, I gather, you don't really distinguish)

The problem is that by conflating naturalism and methodological naturalism, the impression is given, no in fact this suggestion is created, that the scientific method contradicts religious beliefs. However, science is clear about its limitations and thus cannot address issues of religious faith. To suggest that naturalism simpliciter is adopted for methodological reasons, misses the point. Naturalism simpliciter is NOT adopted.

Methodological and Philosophical Naturalism

Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection (2000) by Barbara Forrest

Methodological Naturalism and the Supernatural (1997) with post-conference notes (updated 4-7-1997) by Mark I. Vuletic

Justifying Methodological Naturalism (2002) by Michael Martin

Confusing the scientific method with philosophical naturalism has been exploited by many creationists in their fervor to reject science. Lamoureux exposes much of these problems in Johnson's arguments in the book 'Darwinism defeated?".
Well worth reading.

Engineers, in their engineering work, rely strictly on naturalism. No supernatural forces, no appeal to unknown Intelligent Beings.

Yet, as far as I know, neither Michael Finley nor anyone else claims that engineering is atheist for sticking to naturalism.

MF is needlessly singling out science in his criticism. Does he rely strictly on naturalism when he drives his car? Does that betray the philosophical underpinnings of driving?

And Michael Finley's assertion that method determines philosophical underpinnings is given the lie by the fact that there are many, many religious engineers, and some of their works can serve religious purposes, such as the great cathedrals of Europe.

[do] you endorse the Discovery Institute's notion that we should abandon naturalism as a foundation of science?

— Russell

Note the lack of adjective, philosophical or methodological, as, I gather, you don't really distinguish.

The problem is that by conflating naturalism and methodological naturalism, the impression is given ... that the scientific method contradicts religious beliefs. However, science is clear about its limitations and thus cannot address issues of religious faith.

— PvM

To suggest that naturalism simpliciter is adopted for methodological reasons, misses the point. Naturalism simpliciter is NOT adopted.

Air Bear,

I have no problem with a science employing natural causes. It is the a priori exclusion of supernatural causes that I object to.

If it is adopted for methodological reasons, the results of that method will bear the stamp of the metaphysical position.

I have no problem with a science employing natural causes. It is the a priori exclusion of supernatural causes that I object to.

— Michael Finley

Jack, your answers are superb. They exactly answer the questions posed and fairly address the underlying concerns of the questioner.
Very well done!

Too bad the Discovery Institute can't do the same.

I endorse the notion that supernatural causes should not, in principle, be rejected as unscientific.

Mr. Flank,

How dreadful; you don't seem to recognize a philosophical discussion when you see it. Your rhetoric has gotten you quite ahead of the question. I suggest you slow down and return to the actual disucssion under way.

Scientific method is, of course, not a concern of science. It is not an empirical question. It is, rather, a metaphysical question. We are currently discussing whether or not scientific methodology must be naturalistic. Naturalism is also a metaphysical topic as well. So save your clever talk of chimps and humans for another day.

Of course, Rev. Otherwise, why would they insist that "it takes as much faith to believe in Evolution as it takes to believe in God"?

And they are completely oblivious to the irony of trying to "drag down" science by equating it with "faith" (something no sane theist would probably do).

I think something is being missed when it is claimed the ID bunch has no test of their hypothesis. They routinely argue that they are only providing evidence of design and not information about the designer (old hat),but I think it is an important distinction. They can rightly claim that it is the prevue of the empirical sciences and not the theorists to provide testable hypotheses.
For example, their overall argument for the validity of the "scientific" basis of their model would go as follows: OBSERVATION Looking as bacterial flagella, it is to complex to have arisen by mutation and selection (critiqued in depth). GENERALIZATION There must be some agent at work producing all these complex structures. HYPOTHESIS There is an intelligent designer. ID theorists support this with theoretical framework showing how chance can be eliminated in the production of structures (critiqued in depth). Their theoretical framework only needs to provide evidence of a designer, not who/what the designer is/was. That's up to other scientists once ID is accepted, so arguments about the "designer" are irrelevant. Then finally, Baramologists using their version of cladistics show how organisms can be grouped according to "kinds" which are discontinuous. This supplies PREDICTIONS AND TESTS. The anti-evolutionist can now argue with even more conviction that they have provided a model, even though segments of that model have been discredited. It will be the testing methodology that will tie all the previous work back to the creationist foundations. Even with all the pleadings that ID is not rooted in the creationist tradition this last step would reveal the true goal of ID movement. Baraminology is clearly a YEC construct as demonstrated by a review of the current literature. Articles such as It's a horse, of course! reexamining equine phylogeny can seem almost reasonable. But in light of phrases like "biblicial systamatics" found in the references a reasoned critique requires a level of sophistication not found in many casual readers. Am I missing the mark?

Scientific method is, of course, not a concern of science. It is not an empirical question. It is, rather, a metaphysical question.

We are currently discussing whether or not scientific methodology must be naturalistic.

Finley supposes that mainstream science, which rejects ID, presumes naturalism and thus is philosophically biased against the supernatural. But as Flank admirably points out, science is perfectly capable of evaluating supernatural hypotheses, were any forthcoming. Science is a method for achieving reliable knowledge that makes no ontological assumptions one way or the other, even though some of its advocates talk about methodological naturalism in describing the scientific method. (I wish they wouldn't, since it gives folks like Finley a rhetorical opening.)

The sorts of entities and processes that science discovers, on the basis of evidence and experiment, are what we call the natural world. It isn't that there is some apriori quality attached to an entity or process that marks it out as natural in advance of scientific confirmation. Rather it's that the scientific method establishes what we can reliably say exists *independent* of ideology, religion, or philosophy, and it's this we call the natural.

I've responded to John Calvert, who made the same ill-begotten claims about science presuming naturalism, at http://www.naturalism.org/science.htm#truescience.

Mr. Thompson:

there is no way of knowing what is designed and what is not, except when we know the designer.

So, we have two categories of entities: those where we know who or what designed them (and we call them, for brevity's sake, "designed"); and those where we do not know who or what designed them (everything else).

The only difference between elements of these two sets is our knowledge of one or more designers.

Therefore, there is exactly one kind of "evidence for design", i.e. the designer(s).

Despite all the smoke and mirrors of creationists of any variety, complexity is not, in and of itself, evidence for design; nor is "specification", nor is "CSI", nor is "fine tuning", nor any other convoluted attempt to shift the onus probandi off their feeble shoulders.

This is all a mere muddying of the water.

Either the scientific method adopts methodological naturalism or it doesn't. If it doesn't then I have no point of contention. If it does, then it depends on metaphysical naturalism.

Methodological naturalism is the decision to be a metaphysical naturalist relative to a particular activity. That is, the scientist qua methodological naturalist is a metaphysical naturalist relative to science. Therefore, any conclusions of methodologically naturalistic science depend on metaphysical naturalism.

Otherwise, what is the point in being a methodological naturalist? Take care that your answer doesn't beg the question.

If a divine creator is a religious belief (and it may also be a metaphysical belief), and the scientific method excludes divine creation as a possible conclusion, then belief and method are in conflict.

How dreadful; you don't seem to recognize a philosophical discussion when you see it.

They can rightly claim that it is the prevue of the empirical sciences and not the theorists to provide testable hypotheses.

I have no problem with a science employing natural causes. It is the a priori exclusion of supernatural causes that I object to.

Therefore, any conclusions of methodologically naturalistic science depend on metaphysical naturalism.

In an effort to be nice, lots of folks suggest that the sciences are missing something because they are unable to detect the supernatural. It's much more likely that what's missing is the supernatural itself. If the sciences had detected a God in the Universe, you can be sure that believers wouldn't be talking about the defects of scientific methodology.

Standard disclaimer: nothing in these comments should be taken to imply that only the natural sciences produce meaningful results.

This is all a mere muddying of the water.

But I notice you've not answered my question. Please show us how to use the scientific method to test a supernatural hypothesis.

I have no problem with a science employing natural causes. It is the a priori exclusion of supernatural causes that I object to. Engineering excludes supernatural causes and effects a priori. Do you object to that? Why not?

Finley is confused by the meaning of methodological naturalism which does NOT assume that there is no supernatural designer, but merely accepts that science is unable to address these issues, one way or another.

— PvM

Finley writes
"Methodological naturalism is the decision to be a metaphysical naturalist relative to a particular activity."

It always helps one's argument if one can make up one's own definitions.

"That is, the scientist qua methodological naturalist is a metaphysical naturalist relative to science. Therefore, any conclusions of methodologically naturalistic science depend on metaphysical naturalism."

"Otherwise, what is the point in being a methodological naturalist?"

We don't need these big words. People are attracted to a way of finding things out that works. For a long time people just didn't realize that so many interesting, not otherwise apparent, indeed often very surprising things could be found out by studying nature systematically. Once people found out, the method became popular.

What occasions this weblog and our discussions is that some people, for no good reason, just don't like some things that have been found out.

Calling this 'metaphysical' is too much like a yam wearing a tie.

We went through this a few days ago here. The healing power of prayer is an excellent example of a supernatural effect that can be tested by the scientific method.

There is no principle difference in this regard between methodological solipsism and naturalism. Both suppose their metaphysical counterparts.

Please call me Bruce, my momma did name me Mr. My only goal was to point out that a whole area of poor science, Baraminology, will rise to the surface and try to fulfill the requirements of predictions and tests. I apologize for interrupting a philosophical discussion. Hi to the Anderson lab from the Doane lab.

Lenny Flank:

You couldn't have nailed down this issue any more than if you'd worked on it for decades. Let them squirm. You threw down the right gauntlet, let them pick it up and explain it.

(Althought I wouldn't have used the phrase, "shit or get off the toilet" because I have found that they perceive any turn of phrase like this as an "insult" and thus claim that this invalidates any need to respond to the actual debate. I know, for I just recently claimed one small part of one pointless debate was "sophmoric" and thus my entire line of reasoning was rejected.

When will these defenders of ID mediocrity learn? (that we get frustrated with there useless arguments)

Calling this 'metaphysical' is too much like a yam wearing a tie.

Kudos to Jack and Lenny Flank for throwing down the gauntlet in such a well thought and articulated way. I, too, am now waiting eagerly to discover by what possible slippery means, by what possible linguistic sleight-of-hand proponents of ID will employ to backtrack out of the mess they have made of their so-called argument.

In fact, attributing "argument" to the half-baked wisps of sympathetic magic that ID constantly invokes, is perhaps too flattering. The bottom line is that there are rules to science; both the practice of science and the discourse that surrounds such practice depend on those rules.

So... ID folk, listen up: In context of science, it is NOT that your proposition of a supernatural designer of nature (alas, the paradox!) is wrong; it is that it is not EVEN wrong. It simply invites no heuristic activity at all.

Personally, I'll applaud grubby, interesting, scientific failures any day of the week over ID's (yawn) insulated bubbles of ethereal musing.

Jack, in your answer #2 you listed a few items as being outside the purview of scientific method. As a student of neuroscience, I would only add that you might be casting some researchers' work in an overly modest light. You are undoubtedly correct, of course, about the hard sciences being limited in their ability to offer insight regarding value systems, the "ought" and "whys" of life. However, we are coming to understand a great deal about the neural substrates of human emotion. And I imagine there will come a day, indeed not too far off, when we may reach testable conclusions about how certain cognitive-emotional states, as realized by signature neural dynamics, may constrain what we unconsciously choose to accept as fact or fiction.

Maybe only then will we really begin to glimpse why, or at least how ID (and its myriad other ancient incarnations) persists in our species as such a powerfully attractive folk "theory."

To Michael Finley -

There's a good reason why modern science uses methodological naturalism -- because it's productive. As long as natural philosophers assumed the primacy of theology and the implications for Nature from it, they got nowhere. Only when Galileo, Copernicus, et al began to stick to naturalism did start multiplying their understanding of the natural world. Sure, Newton was tempted to do some handwaving about Divine Intervention, but over the last several hundred years, methodological naturalism in science has paid off.

One might postulate a sort of evolution by natural selection going on. The techniques, observations, theories and people who have stuck to methodological naturalism have thrived and multiplied, while the supernaturalists have been barren and have survived only in a small niche in popular culture that nutures them until they die, to be replaced by similarly-barren mutants from mainstream science or elsewhere.

The experience of Michael Behe is suggestive. Someone here said that he formerly published regular scientific work. But since getting the religion of ID, his only publications are his popular books and opinion articles in the general media. If his ideas had reproductive value, then he'd be turning out ID-trained PhDs at Lehigh.

Mr. Flank,

You really need to learn to parse issues.

Whether or not supernatural causes are excluded a priori by the method of science is a philosophical question.

Whether or not a scientific explanation incorporating supernatural causes is practically possible is a separate question that is subordinate to the first.

Please attempt to focus, and respond with something more substantive than "How dreadful."

Calling this 'metaphysical' is too much like a yam wearing a tie. A mildly clever turn of phrase is a poor substitute for abstract thought.

Whether or not supernatural causes are excluded a priori by the method of science is a philosophical question.

You really need to learn to parse issues.

I, too, am now waiting eagerly to discover by what possible slippery means, by what possible linguistic sleight-of-hand proponents of ID will employ to backtrack out of the mess they have made of their so-called argument.

I see ---- so IDers can't even reach the level of science achieved by faith healers, who are at least capable of proposing SOME testible hypothesis. ID, uh, "theory" can't even do THAT.

Either the scientific method adopts methodological naturalism or it doesn't. If it doesn't then I have no point of contention. If it does, then it depends on metaphysical naturalism.

— Finley

Whether or not supernatural causes are excluded a priori by the method of science is a philosophical question.

Whether or not a scientific explanation incorporating supernatural causes is practically possible is a separate question that is subordinate to the first.

Do you, or do you not, think that ID hypotheses should be tested using the scientific method, the same way that everyone ELSE's hypothesis should be tested using the scientific method. If you do NOT think ID hypotheses should be subject to the same testing as everyone else's, then please explain why ID hypotheses should be privileged in this manner. If you DO think that ID hypotheses should be subject to the same testing as everyone else's, then what the hell are you bitching about.

A science that chooses not to reject any explanations a priori leads to an incoherence much like solipsism. That said, there's no end to the combinations of a priori, minimalist assumptions from which you can begin with. If you'd like to propose an alternate set of assumptions from the one adopted by the majority of scientists, fine. But in a free marketplace of ideas, one does not merely demand and then expect to receive welfare and equal treatment without doing some hard work. Nor can one simply cheat by offering fake products using false advertisements of superiority. If you have other a prior assumptions, Michael Finley, then the most pertinent question to ask is if they demonstrate superior worth.

As is usual, I find the comments here quite interesting, and I am glad all you folks are hanging out at the Panda's Thumb this afternoon. :-)

To Mr. Finley: here are several comments/questions have been made about your position by several people, but I'm not sure I've seen you address them.

1. The first is that "supernatural causation" is not excluded a priori but rather has been found a posteriori to not be found. Supernatural causation was the default explanation for many things that science has found to be naturally caused.

2. The second is that "supernatural causation" is not excluded a priori, as witnessed by studies on prayer, ESP, etc. One is entirely free to make a hypothesis about supernatural causation and test it. However, as I pointed out in comment 1, this has proven unsuccessful for about 500 hundred years now, so not very many people are interested in pursuing such hypotheses.

3. How would one test supernatural causation?

One person mentioned that despite the prayers of millions, the Pope died. The obvious Christian explanation of this is that given by the Catholic church -- God had called him home.

I mean no sacrilege here at all: prayer is a request that is answered according to the Will of God, and we have no way of knowing why God answers some prayers and not others, as that falls beyond all human understanding.

So how can science study something that exhibits no regularity and occurs according to the inscrutable will of a divine being whose view of the world is utterly different than ours?

Kudos to Jack and Lenny Flank for throwing down the gauntlet in such a well thought and articulated way. I, too, am now waiting eagerly to discover by what possible slippery means, by what possible linguistic sleight-of-hand proponents of ID will employ to backtrack out of the mess they have made of their so-called argument.

Nope that is a methodological issue.

— PvM

We've already answered the first question; nothing anywhere in any of the five steps of the scientific method excludes supernatural causes a priori.

— Mr. Flank

Michael Finley wrote:

I have no problem with a science employing natural causes. It is the a priori exclusion of supernatural causes that I object to.

---The purity of the ignorance of the above statement, in both proving the writer a fool, and yet in mischaracterizing the opposition, is well-nigh 100%.
The vanity that imbues it also seems at nearly toxic levels.

"What an awful way to experience life!" might describe the feeling of pity that ran though my mind for this MF fellow mortal.

Mr. Finley,

It really is a quite simple question that has been asked of you. It has already been demonstrated via the 'healing-power-of-prayer" example that science admits "supernatural" (for lack of a better word) queries into its general scope of possible explanations. The problem is that, by all shared accounts, science regularly finds much more useful, satisfying, and more elegant explanations for how things happen.

I will forgo my need to understand how anything categorized as 'natural' could ever interact with anything 'supernatural', and in the interest provoking your response, I will join the chorus of pleas for you to answer what has been repeatedly asked of you.

Be a gentleman and at least try.

Be a gentleman and at least try.

— P. Mihalakos

... for I just recently claimed one small part of one pointless debate was "sophmoric" and thus my entire line of reasoning was rejected.

— jeff-perado in Comment #22965

A mildly clever turn of phrase is a poor substitute for abstract thought.

— Michael Finley in Comment #22966

Michael,

What do you mean by supernatural? Do you have a definition? Many things which we can do today probably would be considered supernatural if we transported them back in time - read a Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court for an amusing example. Equally, it seems certain that future advances will lead to remarkable discoveries and capabilities - perhaps the ability to artificially engineer life or intelligence. If that happens should it be considered supernatural? In these things theology follows science.

Too often "supernatural" is merely code for "we don't understand." Without a definition of supernatural it's hard to know how it could be detected.

If we look at the track record of religion versus science in explaining phenomena then it is abundantly clear that religion is usually wrong and science if usually right in the sense that it ultimately converges to the right answer answer without recourse to invoking God. Religion doesn't converge - it usually comes up with a new set of doctrines to replace those which have been discredited. Even in areas where religion claims to have authority - morals etc. - it has been a failure. Not only do diametrically opposed religious viewpoints exist but people of most religions are quite willing to kill other members of their faith in wars over essentially materialistic concerns. What does this say for supernatural intervention?

If supernatural causes exist then they are clearly "scientific" in the sense that they are part of the universe or some larger entity which contains the universe. However, until a single example can be cited in which a scientific explanation has been overthrown by a theological one it is unconvincing to posit that science needs to invoke supernatural causes.

One way to think about it is the following; if we followed religion we would be unaware, e.g., of the so-called fine-tuning problem. ID-ers merely are capitalizing on the fact that science cannot explain many phenomena while ignoring the progress that has been made. Scienctific knowledge will almost certainly always be incomplete and ID-ers will, therefore always be able to claim that supernatural causes are needed to fill in the gaps. It's always easier to criticize others than to produce something oneself which is about all ID is.

The telling point is that the things to which religionists pointed to as evidence for God as a designer are different today than they were a century or 5 centuries ago and will be different yet again in another 500 years. That is, of course, unless the fundies have managed to wipe human civilization off the planet thanks to their love affair with capitalism and consumption.

Jeff,

Actually what you are saying is a direct lie; I didn't reject what you were saying because you claimed my argument was sophomoric. I presented actual evidence that your point was incorrect - you didn't beyond an ill conceived metaphor that had little to do with the point at hand. That you were unable to defend your point is one thing. That you now lie about it shows how the fundie mindset is by no means restricted to fundamentalists. But, if it makes you feel better then go ahead and delude yourself.

Mr. Finley,

I was unable to locate your promised argument at the website you referenced:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi . . .

Would you be so kind as to expend the energy needed to cut and paste whatever portions of relevant text I may have overlooked into this forum?

P. Mihalakos,

The chorus you joined was an invitation for me to spell out predictions that would follow from supernatural causes (see most posts by Mr. Flank), i.e., to defend the practical possibility of non-naturalistic science. That is precisely what I am undertaking on the linked website. I am attempting to make predictions from a theoretical claim, viz., common design.

A mildly clever turn of phrase is a poor substitute for abstract thought.

— Michael Finley

If the scientific method does not, in principle, exclude supernatural causes, then it does not adopt methodological naturalism. ... [T]he majority of scientists and PT participants disagree ....

— M.Finley

A mildly clever turn of phrase is a poor substitute for abstract thought.

— Michael Finley

P. Mihalakos,

The chorus you joined was an invitation for me to spell out predictions that would follow from supernatural causes (see most posts by Mr. Flank), i.e., to defend the practical possibility of non-naturalistic science. That is precisely what I am undertaking on the linked website. I am attempting to make predictions from a theoretical claim, viz., common design.

Thank you all for the discussion. My family is demanding I unplug and go to dinner. Until later, then.

I see everyone has conveniently dodged my methodological solipsism comparison

Please show us how to use the scientific method to test a supernatural hypothesis. Please be as detailed as possible and use as many screens as you need.

Do you, or do you not, think that ID hypotheses should be tested using the scientific method, the same way that everyone ELSE's hypothesis should be tested using the scientific method. If you do NOT think ID hypotheses should be subject to the same testing as everyone else's, then please explain why ID hypotheses should be privileged in this manner. If you DO think that ID hypotheses should be subject to the same testing as everyone else's, then what the hell are you bitching about.

Therefore, any conclusions of methodologically naturalistic science depend on metaphysical naturalism. Reeaaalllyyyyyy. Um, why are so many scientists (who practice methodological naturlaism) Christians (who, I presume, are not metaphysical naturalistic, believing in God and all . . . . . ) Oh, and why are the vast majority of Christians (who, once again, I presume are not metaphysical naturalistic) accepting of evolution and all the rest of modern science (which, I point out, follow methodological naturalism). Explain, please.

Indeed, so does weather forecasting (I've never yet heard any meteorologist conclude that "this hurricane followed this track into that cuty because God wanted to punish sinners there"), or accident investigation (I've never yet heard an FAA investigator conclude "this airplane crashed because it was the will of God"). In law, supernatural causes and effects are also ruled out a priori --- no lawyer is allowed to argue "my client is innocent of the murder because the Devil made him do it". Heck, the rules of baseball don't mention any supernatural causes or effects either. Utterly materialistic and naturalistic. Medicine? Gee, when Mr Finley gets sick, do you suppose he asks his doctor to utilize supernatural methods or non-material cures? Or does he just ask his materialistic naturalistic doctor to cure his materialistic naturalistic diseases by using materialistic naturalistic antibiotics to kill his naturalistic materialistic germs? So why is it that IDers get their panties all in a bunch about "atheistic naturalistic materialistic evolution", but NOT about "atheistic naturalistic materialistic" weather forecasting or accident investigation or law or medicine or rules of baseball? Or . . . DOES "renewing our culture" indeed include forcing DI's particular brand of theism into all those areas as well . . . . . ?

If the scientific method does not, in principle, exclude supernatural causes, then it does not adopt methodological naturalism.

James Wynne,

My apologies. Apparently I should not disdain sarcastic rhetoric that is unsupported by argument, and should use smaller words. Nevertheless, thanks for the concession. In your case, I agree with your assessment of me.

Thank you for the discussion. My family is demanding that I unplug and come to dinner. Until later, then.

The chorus you joined was an invitation for me to spell out predictions that would follow from supernatural causes (see most posts by Mr. Flank), i.e., to defend the practical possibility of non-naturalistic science. That is precisely what I am undertaking on the linked website. I am attempting to make predictions from a theoretical claim, viz., common design.

My apologies. Apparently I should not disdain sarcastic rhetoric that is unsupported by argument, and should use smaller words.

PvM wrote: Nope that is a methodological issue.

Re "If the sciences had detected a God in the Universe, you can be sure that believers wouldn't be talking about the defects of scientific methodology. "
On the contrary, imo if science had detected evidence of god, it would more than likely produce details at odds with what the believer's believed. Then the believers would really be upset.

Henry

I may be out of line here, being an experimental scientist not formally schooled in the purely philosophical side of things. But it seems to me that what we have here is a question where supernatural causes are open to scientific investigation as a subject, but the methodology (the measurement of clinical improvement, the interviews with those "performing the prayers") are necessarily naturalistic. (It's difficult to imagine nonnaturalistic methodology!)

As far as I can see, Flank laid out the situation clearly and exhaustively, and Finley has simply run away it. As usual. I had been hoping (admittedly against hope) that we would find an IDist actually respond to a request honestly. Or even half-honestly, by recognizing the request itself. But I guess even that would be asking too much.

Still, if anyone is genuinely trying to make sense of the issue, the behavior we've seen demonstrated is at least clear and unambiguous. Where is the evidence? Silence. Where are your tests? Silence. How would a test be constructed at all? Change of subject. Demands that Finley at least address these critical questions. Finley leaves without even trying. There is a lesson hidden in here somewhere, I think.

As I've repeatedly pointed out to Mr. Flank, my concern here is methodological naturalism. To my sudden surprise, everyone seems to be denying that science adopts methodological naturalism. If that is indeed the case, then I have no complaint.

— Michael Finley

As far as I can see, Flank laid out the situation clearly and exhaustively, and Finley has simply run away it. As usual.

So . . . ID folk, listen up: In context of science, it is NOT that your proposition of a supernatural designer of nature (alas, the paradox!) is wrong; it is that it is not EVEN wrong. It simply invites no heuristic activity at all.

Lenny,

I agree. I originally gave the ID movement more benefit of the doubt than I should have, at least in terms of their motives. I assumed that they were just being a little lazy, and in need of a little patient education. But, I am beginning to realize that the real rabble-rousers behind ID know exactly what they are doing and what they are saying. It smacks of a coordinated effort, not to change science, but to change culture at large.

I endorse the notion that supernatural causes should not, in principle, be rejected as unscientific.

I have no problem with a science employing natural causes. It is the a priori exclusion of supernatural causes that I object to.

But, I am beginning to realize that the real rabble-rousers behind ID know exactly what they are doing and what they are saying. It smacks of a coordinated effort, not to change science, but to change culture at large.

I endorse the notion that supernatural causes should not, in principle, be rejected as unscientific.

Oh, and Mr. Finley: Please offer any evidence you may have that science does reject the idea of divine intervention, a priori. For example, tell us how the search for a cure for breast cancer would differ were you to reject methodological naturalism.

And if that method works better, why in the Name of God hasn't the DI set up a non-naturalism lab to do it?

Michael Finley. Would you explain to us what a priori assumptions should a science not make reject?

I apologize my previous post was entered prematurely.

I am interestd in hearing Finley explain to us what kinds of explanations a science should a priori reject, if any.

I originally gave the ID movement more benefit of the doubt than I should have, at least in terms of their motives. I assumed that they were just being a little lazy, and in need of a little patient education. But, I am beginning to realize that the real rabble-rousers behind ID know exactly what they are doing and what they are saying. It smacks of a coordinated effort, not to change science, but to change culture at large.

Lenny Flank, RE:

http://www.geocities.com/lflank/wedge.html . . .

Thanks! That was a telling document. It explains why when I am having an exchange with a proponent of ID, I sometimes have the vague feeling that I'm talking to an attorney, rather than a scientist--or even a fellow student or an interested layperson. It also explains the minor scientific credentials backing most professional "ID notionists." There appears to be no shortage of Ph.Ds in philosophy that have signed on to the ID movement, which again makes perfect sense. The language of philosophy is more easily imported into the courtroom, and there are fewer technical details that might task the attention span of a typical jury.

I live and work in Dallas, which is a hotbed of this kind of multi-tiered political activity, so I have no excuse for being surprised. And by "kind" I mean the strange alliance that has formed between the wealthy harvesters of grassroots fundamentalism and the larger neocon movement as a whole. (Sweet talking preachers, indeed.)

I'm just glad that someone (Jack Krebs) was available to provide a credible and articulate response to the radio listener's questions. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. There aren't enough real scientists with enough time on their hands to go around. It's hard enough just keeping an eye on the "fair and balanced" media and the organized "intellectual exchanges" that take place regularly in venues as respectable( ?) as the University of Texas at Dallas.

What is needed is a nationally coordinated pro-science grassroots movement to compliment the professional response of real scientists and engineers. Think: Educated laypeople, K-12 educators, moderate theists, who would be prepared to spot any sneaky linguistic reframing of basic scientific knowledge toward hidden political goals, and feel confident enough to respond with the FACTS.

And not just the facts, actually, but also a framework for understanding them. George Lakoff has stated correctly that without a correct framing of the issues, facts will bounce off certain arguments (no matter how absurd) like bullets bouncing off of superman's cape.

Or, maybe this already exists? If so, does anyone know where I can sign up?

There is a difference between not responding and being ignored. I have responded to Mr. Flank's query (and everyone else who joined the chorus) by directing him to a related site (see comment Nos. 22986 and 22981). The discussion I initiated there is an attempt to make scientific predictions from the assumption of common design. It may be successful, it may not. It is, nevertheless, an honest attempt. So spare me the tired rhetoric about sinister motives, etc.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi . . .

I would also point out that a person cannot be ready to respond on this board 24 hours a day.

Make that comment Nos. 22986 and 22991.

I have responded to Mr. Flank's query (and everyone else who joined the chorus)

— Michael Finley

What is needed is a nationally coordinated pro-science grassroots movement to compliment the professional response of real scientists and engineers. Think: Educated laypeople, K-12 educators, moderate theists, who would be prepared to spot any sneaky linguistic reframing of basic scientific knowledge toward hidden political goals, and feel confident enough to respond with the FACTS.

I would also point out that a person cannot be ready to respond on this board 24 hours a day.

The discussion I initiated there is an attempt to make scientific predictions from the assumption of common design. It may be successful, it may not. It is, nevertheless, an honest attempt.

— Finley

Ed Darrell,

What has "...since 1992" to do with me.

There are three lines of argument, it seems to me, for ID.

(1) Argue that the predictions of common descent and common design are coextensive.

(2) Argue that the "predictions" of common descent are not predictions, but are merely consistent with common descent.

(3) Use an inductive elimination (i.e., a destructive dilemma with an inductive disjunction) to argue against the viability of the mechanism(s) of common descent.

Dembski and Behe are involved in the third. On the website I linked to I am exploring the first. If these ultimately fail, then so much the better for Darwinian evolution. Personally, I think the discussion needs to be evaluated over a longer period of time.

What is the "assumption of common design"?

— PvM

Are you aware of Richard B Hoppe's work on multiple designer theory?

given your argument that common design is contrary to common descent, do you propose continued interventions? In what sense is it contrary to common descent?
Also, is this common design approach different from methodological naturalism which has quite succesfully detected 'design' in nature in areas such as criminology, archaeology etc.

In evolutionary theory, chance does not preclude a causal theory since 'randomness' does not refer to mechanism but to its (immediate) effect given a particular environment. In other words, variation does not exclusively lead to beneficial changes.

Re "There are three lines of argument, it seems to me, for ID.
(1) Argue that the predictions of common descent and common design are coextensive.
(2) Argue that the "predictions" of common descent are not predictions, but are merely consistent with common descent.
(3) Use an inductive elimination (i.e., a destructive dilemma with an inductive disjunction) to argue against the viability of the mechanism(s) of common descent."

Huh? None of those argue "for" ID. 2 and 3 just argue that there are factors not presently accounted for (which is pretty much inevitable in a complex subject), and 1 implies that design can't be distinguished from descent, which is in itself an argument against design as science.

Henry

None of those argue "for" ID. 2 and 3 just argue that there are factors not presently accounted for (which is pretty much inevitable in a complex subject), and 1 implies that design can't be distinguished from descent, which is in itself an argument against design as science.

— Henry J

Ellipses.

"Just to prove my point: anyone who thinks that supernatural causes are, in principle, scientific, please voice your support here."

Define a supernatural cause in a positive sense (i.e., not just a negation of natural), and maybe we'll have something to talk about. Otherwise, we will simply make do with the testable vs the untestable, which seems to line up with what people mean by "natural vs. supernatural" anyway. How else to exaplin how "supernatural" things become "natural" as we gain the ability to examine them scientifically?

There is a difference between not responding and being ignored. I have responded to Mr. Flank's query (and everyone else who joined the chorus) by directing him to a related site (see comment Nos. 22986 and 22981). The discussion I initiated there is an attempt to make scientific predictions from the assumption of common design. It may be successful, it may not. It is, nevertheless, an honest attempt. So spare me the tired rhetoric about sinister motives, etc.

There are three lines of argument, it seems to me, for ID. (1) Argue that the predictions of common descent and common design are coextensive. (2) Argue that the "predictions" of common descent are not predictions, but are merely consistent with common descent. (3) Use an inductive elimination (i.e., a destructive dilemma with an inductive disjunction) to argue against the viability of the mechanism(s) of common descent.

Here is ID non-naturalistic methodology's chance to shine. What predictions can we make from ID's hypothesis?

As I am presently using it, it excludes "natural designers."

I am not in principle opposed to natural designers, though I am wary of the notion of chance. I would need a causal (as oppossed to probabilistic) definition of chance.

No. 1 argues that common descent and common design make the same predictions, and therefore, confirmation of one is confirmation of the other

TRANSLATION: You don't have any testible theory of ID, you don't EXPECT to ever have one, so you want to just argue for a God of the Gaps by plugging your designer into anything you think is wrong with evolution.

— Mr. Flank

No. 1 argues that common descent and common design make the same predictions, and therefore, confirmation of one is confirmation of the other. It attempts to set common descent and common design on equal evidentiary footing, so to speak. No. 2 argues that there are no confirmed predictions of common descent because there are no predictions at all. If, for example, basic structural similarities were not shared by all life, it would not falsify the theory. Accordingly, common descent is merely consistent with the unity of life. And as common design is equally consistent with the unity of life, the two are again set on equal footing. No. 3 sets up a destructive dilemma with the following inductive disjunction: Either neo-Darwinian mechanisms (are responsible for the diversity of life) or design or . . . . The elipses represent unknown but logically possible theories. If it can be established that "not neo-Dawinian mechanisms," then it can be concluded "Either design or . . . ". And as these other theories are unknown, design occupies the strongest position.

Until you improve your translation skills, use some measure of charity in treating the arguments of others, and stop the rhetorical grand-standing, I think our conversation has come to an end.

As far as I can tell, the only question you've asked is the following (No. 22932): Here is ID non-naturalistic methodology's chance to shine. What predictions can we make from ID's hypothesis?

Do you, or do you not, think that ID hypotheses should be tested using the scientific method, the same way that everyone ELSE's hypothesis should be tested using the scientific method. If you do NOT think ID hypotheses should be subject to the same testing as everyone else's, then please explain why ID hypotheses should be privileged in this manner. If you DO think that ID hypotheses should be subject to the same testing as everyone else's, then what the hell are you bitching about.

Therefore, any conclusions of methodologically naturalistic science depend on metaphysical naturalism. Reeaaalllyyyyyy. Um, why are so many scientists (who practice methodological naturlaism) Christians (who, I presume, are not metaphysical naturalistic, believing in God and all . . . . . ) Oh, and why are the vast majority of Christians (who, once again, I presume are not metaphysical naturalistic) accepting of evolution and all the rest of modern science (which, I point out, follow methodological naturalism). Explain, please.

Indeed, so does weather forecasting (I've never yet heard any meteorologist conclude that "this hurricane followed this track into that cuty because God wanted to punish sinners there"), or accident investigation (I've never yet heard an FAA investigator conclude "this airplane crashed because it was the will of God"). In law, supernatural causes and effects are also ruled out a priori --- no lawyer is allowed to argue "my client is innocent of the murder because the Devil made him do it". Heck, the rules of baseball don't mention any supernatural causes or effects either. Utterly materialistic and naturalistic. Medicine? Gee, when Mr Finley gets sick, do you suppose he asks his doctor to utilize supernatural methods or non-material cures? Or does he just ask his materialistic naturalistic doctor to cure his materialistic naturalistic diseases by using materialistic naturalistic antibiotics to kill his naturalistic materialistic germs? So why is it that IDers get their panties all in a bunch about "atheistic naturalistic materialistic evolution", but NOT about "atheistic naturalistic materialistic" weather forecasting or accident investigation or law or medicine or rules of baseball? Or . . . DOES "renewing our culture" indeed include forcing DI's particular brand of theism into all those areas as well . . . . .

If it can be established that "not neo-Dawinian mechanisms,"

Either neo-Darwinian mechanisms (are responsible for the diversity of life) or design or . . . . The elipses represent unknown but logically possible theories. If it can be established that "not neo-Dawinian mechanisms," then it can be concluded "Either design or . . . ". And as these other theories are unknown, design occupies the strongest position.

Dear Rev Dr Lenny Flank, would you mind toning down your ad hominems. Finley raises some good questions and if he believes he can propose a scientific theory of common design then let's explore this.

Dear Rev Dr Lenny Flank, would you mind toning down your ad hominems.[/quote}

I have not MADE any ad hominems. I pointed out, correctly and accurately, that Finley is a liar. That is not an ad hominem -- it is a simple obervable statement of fact.

Finley raises some good questions and if he believes he can propose a scientific theory of common design then let's explore this.

Frank, your comments are needlessly hostile. You may believe that Finley is a liar but such personal beliefs serve little to further communication. Focus on your arguments, point out the flaws but please try to refrain from such ad hominems as 'liar/lying' which require a level of evidence, seldomly met.

OK, let's. I've already cited the example of the genetic similaritires between humans and chimps. Finley, here's your big chance. Use your, uh, scientific theory of ID to tell us ------ are those genetic similarities the product of common design, or are they the product of common descent. And how can we tell.

— Frank

Define a supernatural cause in a positive sense (i.e., not just a negation of natural), and maybe we'll have something to talk about.

— plung

There are three lines of argument, it seems to me, for ID. (1) Argue that the predictions of common descent and common design are coextensive. (2) Argue that the "predictions" of common descent are not predictions, but are merely consistent with common descent. (3) Use an inductive elimination (i.e., a destructive dilemma with an inductive disjunction) to argue against the viability of the mechanism(s) of common descent. Dembski and Behe are involved in the third. On the website I linked to I am exploring the first. If these ultimately fail, then so much the better for Darwinian evolution. Personally, I think the discussion needs to be evaluated over a longer period of time.

First, What is a natural event? An event that can be perceived by the senses? What about quarks, etc.? An event subject to natural laws? That, of course, uses the defined in the definition. An event that excludes the supernatural? That is a negative definition on the other side. Perhaps if you got me started with a definition of natural, I could try to get somewhere from there.

What I want to know is what event(s) on earth the designer cause. For instance, did the designer cause a bacterium to grow a flagellum? Did the designer contribute to the extinction of the dinosaurs (and thereby helping bring about the age of the mammals) by causing a large meterorite to hit earth?

Yes, I did say that "science does not include the supernatural." But does that make me opposed to the supernatural? Would a blind man be opposed to color because he does not see a rainbow? Rather, would it not be that a blind man simply lacks any sensory means for detecting it? That is my claim for why science does not include the supernatural. It is not for Dr. Geisler's supposed reason of opposition, but simply that with the methods of sensory experience we do not apprehend the supernatural. Because of the limitations on the methods of science we were left with no alternative but to leave the identity of the intelligent cause affirmed by experience unspecified as to philosophical category.

Now that is a perfectly good question. Present a competing hypothesis of ID and compare it with the evolutionary theory. The problem is that any competing hypothesis of ID needs to constrain the designer otherwise it can be used to explain anything and thus nothing.

— PvM

I agree that Lenny Flank's comments are hostile. I strongly disagree that they are needlessly hostile. He has made the context of what we consider scientific investigation (i.e. using evidence, constructing tests intended to disprove hypotheses) perfectly clear, and asked (repeatedly) how ID might show that it uses the scientific method to investigate anything.

Finley has doubletalked, has evaded, has changed the subject, has (repeatedly) pointed to Flank's alleged shortcomings, and has above all refused to even address these dead-on-point questions. Now, we all know why: Finley has no honest answer. Even admitting he has no honest answer would at least be honest, and he can't even do that.

The failure to communicate has nothing whatsoever to do with Flank's hostility, and everything to do with the cause of that hostility: soup-to-nuts dishonesty. So long as we continue to bend over and agree to provide lubrication in the interests of being polite, our invitation will continue to be taken advantage of. At this point, I think we are justified in setting aside Finley's "good questions" until he shows some sign of producing some good answers.

It is a universally accepted metaphysical prinicple that sameness of cause produces sameness of effect. Therefore, it can be expected that the products of a single designer will share a basic structural similarity to each other.

It is a universally accepted metaphysical prinicple that sameness of cause produces sameness of effect. Therefore, it can be expected that the products of a single designer will share a basic structural similarity to each other.

"Universally accepted metaphysical principle that sameness of cause produces sameness of effect." That expression evokes nostalgia in those of us familiar with the scientific debates of the early 18th Century.

ID is so retro. I guess that explains its charm.

It is a universally accepted metaphysical prinicple that sameness of cause produces sameness of effect.

I've been away at a meeting today and I come back and there are 45 posts! I have not read them all, but I would like to comment on this "common design vs. common descent."

There is one small difference between common design and common descent, which is that common descent has a mechanism - babies, and common design has no mechanism. That is, the only way we see new organisms come into the world is through some type of sexual or asexual reproduction.

Therefore the question I have for Michael Finley is this: if biological parent-child descent isn't the way every organism has come into existence, what is? Creation de novo? - instantaneous and miraculous materialization? What alternative hypothesis for the material specifics of the origin of new organisms do you offer, and what positive evidence do you have for that hypothesis?

I endorse the notion that supernatural causes should not, in principle, be rejected as unscientific.

First, what changes do you think that would make in science? Second, how could that possibly be done, short of throwing up our hands at some point saying "it's Zeus' will?" Third, if we do that, how could we possibly know that we had found evidence of a god's existence when it surfaced?

An ID proponent can argue against the "fact" or mechanisms of evolution.

Accordingly, the relevant evolutionary hypothesis is common descent. A contrary and competing hpyothesis is common design, i.e., a single designer created the present diversity of life (as the theory of common descent is independent of mechanisms, so too is common design; therefore, I ignore the mechanism for the purposes of this discussion).

Finley has doubletalked, has evaded, has changed the subject, has (repeatedly) pointed to Flank's alleged shortcomings, and has above all refused to even address these dead-on-point questions. Now, we all know why: Finley has no honest answer. Even admitting he has no honest answer would at least be honest, and he can't even do that.

— Flint

More doubletalk. The question was: Here we have genetic similarities. We have two hypotheses: common descent, and common design. HOW DO WE DECIDE WHICH IS CORRECT?

Finley writes:

"Mr. Flank,

You really need to learn to parse issues.

Whether or not supernatural causes are excluded a priori by the method of science is a philosophical question.

Whether or not a scientific explanation incorporating supernatural causes is practically possible is a separate question that is subordinate to the first.

Please attempt to focus, and respond with something more substantive than "How dreadful."

They are not excluded. However, until one come up with a way to measure the supernatural, the supernatural is simply outside of science. One potential way, was to examine the ability of prayer to heal the sick. In the case of JPII, it was inadequate to say the least.

Then again, Finley might believe Benny Hinn.

Now be a good pretend philosopher and answer Lenny's question.

What has ID achieved scientifically, technologically or philosophically?

There is a shared intuition that underlies that prediction, that products by a single hand, so to speak, share something distinctive of their common source (i.e., an instance of the basic metaphysical principle already mentioned). Our discussion, then, should focus on whether it a basic similarity of structure is a reasonable prediction of the hypothesis of common design. If it is, then the hypothesis is confirmed on that count because there is indeed a shared basic structure.

They are not excluded. However, until one come up with a way to measure the supernatural, the supernatural is simply outside of science.

Michael, are you not going to respond to me? I've posted a number of messages to you. What do you mean by "common design?" What did the designer do? Did the designer turn inert matter into the first cell on earth and then sit back let evolution unfold? Did the designer turn dust directly into two humans?

— Longhorm

It is only doubletalk if you mistake the actual question. Common descent makes a number of predictions; I am beginning with the first prediction Ostwald mentions in his FAQ, viz., the unity of life (I can't be expected to treat them all at once). Let's be clear what is involved in that prediction. It is the bare claim that a basic structural similarity will be found in all life. It does not follow logically from common descent what that similarity will consist in, i.e., what basic functions are common to all life or what mechanisms carry out those functions. Thus, common descent predicts all organisms will have a basic structural similarity, whatever that happens to be. I want to argue that the same prediction follows from common design.

Our discussion, then, should focus on whether it a basic similarity of structure is a reasonable prediction of the hypothesis of common design. If it is, then the hypothesis is confirmed on that count because there is indeed a shared basic structure.

I believe your question is not relevant here. It is maintained by evolutionists (e.g., Ostwald) that the "fact" of evolution, that evolution occurred (common descent), is independent of questions concerning how evolution occurred (mechanisms). By the same token, the veracity of common design can be discussed without addressing a mechanism. It seems to me that your question concerns a mechanism of common design. Am I mistaken?

It is only doubletalk if you mistake the actual question.

I believe your question is not relevant here. It is maintained by evolutionists (e.g., Ostwald) that the "fact" of evolution, that evolution occurred (common descent), is independent of questions concerning how evolution occurred (mechanisms). By the same token, the veracity of common design can be discussed without addressing a mechanism. It seems to me that your question concerns a mechanism of common design. Am I mistaken?

Michael Finley, when you talk about "mechanism" I start getting lost. My parents had sex one night awhile ago. My father's sperm-cells, after meiosis, were put into my mother. My mother's egg-cell, after meiosis, was in her uterus. One of my father's sperm-cells fertilized my mother's egg-cell. The cell started dividing. I was born!

Various factors contributed to my having the genome that I have. But one of the proximate causes of my genotype and phenotype is that my parents had sex.

What do you think happened?

Michael, all I want to know is what you think happened? ... I'll tell you what I think happened. Evolution --- molecules to humans. What do you think happened?

— Longhorm

The failure to communicate has nothing whatsoever to do with Flank's hostility, and everything to do with the cause of that hostility: soup-to-nuts dishonesty. So long as we continue to bend over and agree to provide lubrication in the interests of being polite, our invitation will continue to be taken advantage of.

So Michael, do you believe that the earth is only 6000-10,000 years old, and all this was done recently, or do you accept an old earth and believe this has been done 100's of 1000's of times over 3 or so billion years?

Various factors contributed to my having the genome that I have. But one of the proximate causes of my genotype and phenotype is that my parents had sex.

— Longhorm

This seems straightforward, for a rare change. Finley thinks life, and all of the changes life has undergone, can be attributed to sheer inexplicable magic. No mechanism required, none need be investigated, the claim that any science is involved in any way is, uh, a smokescreen hiding the sheer faith-based suspension of rational thought.

Still, it's sad that Finley can't achieve the epiphany that John Davison reached: there's no need for all the evasion and doubletalk. All that's necessary is sheer bald-faced denial of evidence in the service of superstition. Now let us pray...

So Michael, do you believe that the earth is only 6000-10,000 years old, and all this was done recently, or do you accept an old earth and believe this has been 100's of 1000's of times over 3 or so billion years?

— Jack Krebs

the how is not relevant here. We are discussing the that of evolution, i.e., that it has occurred.

There is a shared intuition that underlies that prediction, that products by a single hand, so to speak, share something distinctive of their common source (i.e., an instance of the basic metaphysical principle already mentioned). Our discussion, then, should focus on whether it a basic similarity of structure is a reasonable prediction of the hypothesis of common design.

— Finley

No mechanism required, none need be investigated, the claim that any science is involved in any way is, uh, a smokescreen hiding the sheer faith-based suspension of rational thought.

— Flint

We have no information on the Designer. But He is the default explanation for anything, and so His powers are unlimited so far as we know. And His imagination is unlimited. His tastes are unknown. He may abhor repetition and prefer to make an entirely original creation each time. Or not. Hence "The Designer did it" does not imply similar designs or anything else.

— Pete Dunkelberg

Yes, Michael, but that takes me back to my original question. Given a choice between creatures being born of each other and creatures being miraculously created, why would anyone even consider the second option? The first has all sorts of evidence that it happens (every birth) and the second absolutely none. It's not a matter of natural vs. supernatural, it's a matter of preferring an explanation with evidence vs. one that is totally evidence-free.

Yes, Michael, but that takes me back to my original question. Given a choice between creatures being born of each other and creatures being miraculously created, why would anyone even consider the second option? The first has all sorts of evidence that it happens (every birth) and the second absolutely none. It's not a matter of natural vs. supernatural, it's a matter of preferring an explanation with evidence vs. one that is totally evidence-free.

— Jack Krebs

Isn't it obvious? I think a single divine being specially created the present diversity (i.e., species as oppossed to every individual animal) of life. Whether such creation was ex nihilo, whatever that might mean, or out of already existing matter ("dust," as you say) is beside the point.

But the hypothesis of common descent is supported by the reasonable assumption (one that is made throughout science) that what we see happening today also happened in the past, and your hypothesis of special creation is not.

Why would/should a scientist entertain the notion of special creation happening innumerable times in the past when common descent is consistent with what we see happening now and special creation necessitates the hypothesis of multiple miraculous creations.

Re "No. 1 argues that common descent and common design make the same predictions, and therefore, confirmation of one is confirmation of the other. "

But they don't make the same predictions.

Descent implies that a new species will be a slightly modified version of a slightly earlier nearby species. Design is consistent with having lots of species with drastic differences from any "predecessor" (or even not having a predecessor).

Descent implies a heirarchical classification scheme should work. Design is consistent with having types that can't be arranged that way.

Descent implies that a species won't acquire an exact copy of something from a species in a different class. Design is consistent with mixing of dna and features across classes. (Just look at the way human technology mixes ideas from lots of different areas.)

Re "If, for example, basic structural similarities were not shared by all life, it would not falsify the theory."

If two species were found that shared no basic structures, that would imply separate origins for those two. It wouldn't falsify common origin of one of them with some other species.

Re "And as these other theories are unknown, design occupies the strongest position.

I disagree. Even if somebody were to demonstrate that known genetic processes were by themselves insufficient, that wouldn't be evidence for a process for which nobody has yet managed to describe any evidence. (And lists of unanswered questions do not constitute evidence, since the existance of unanswered questions doesn't surprise anybody.)

Of course, that presupposes said demonstration, which afaik nobody is even close to doing anyway.

---

Re "A contrary and competing hpyothesis is common design,"
Actually, design isn't contrary to descent, since the presumed designer could have used descent as a tool. (Calling them contrary is saying that a contradiction can be deduced if both are assumed.)

Oh, and btw, "designed" doesn't in itself require "common" design (assuming "common design" means a single or at least unified designing entity).

Re "It is a universally accepted metaphysical prinicple that sameness of cause produces sameness of effect. Therefore, it can be expected that the products of a single designer will share a basic structural similarity to each other."
I disagree. Anything that could design a new life form would most likely be able to produce a variety of distinct causes, so "sameness of cause" doesn't apply here.

Re "Thus, common descent predicts all organisms will have a basic structural similarity, whatever that happens to be.
I want to argue that the same prediction follows from common design."
I'm sure you want to do that. But that's assuming limitations about a "designer" about which we know nothing.

Re "Details concerning species or genes are irrelevant to both predictions (of common descent and design), because neither is that detailed."
I disagree, simply because at least some of the predictions of common descent are about species and genes.
And also because "design" as a concept doesn't make any predictions. It implies that there might be evidence inconsistent with undesigned evolution. But, without something more specific than that, there'd be no reason to take an inconsistency as a sign of design over merely a sign that there's some process we haven't found out about yet.

Henry

The predictions of common descent vs. common designer are not the same. If there's a common designer, you might (depending on assumptions about Its imagination, resources, constraints, etc.) expect certain commonalities across the whole range of living things. Like maybe the same genetic code being used throughout. But what, in the "common designer argument", predicts that the nestedness of the hierarchies of homologies? I.e. if chimps and humans were separately and independently poofed into existence, why would all their genes be more closely related to one another than to, say, the corresponding goat genes?

The nested hierarchies make perfect sense in light of common descent, and are not at all predicted by the common designer argument.

How come that doesn't end this discussion?

[I see that Henry J posed pretty much the same point while I was composing this. All the more reason it demands a response]

1.1 The Fundamental Unity of Life. According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past. In spite of the extensive variation of form and function among organisms, several fundamental criteria characterize all life. Some of the macroscopic properties that characterize all of life are (1) replication, (2) heritability (characteristics of descendents are correlated with those of ancestors), (3) catalysis, and (4) energy utilization (metabolism). At a very minimum, these four functions are required to generate a physical historical process that can be described by a phylogenetic tree. If every living species descended from an original species that had these four obligate functions, then all living species today should necessarily have these functions (a somewhat trivial conclusion). Most importantly, however, all modern species should have inherited the structures that perform these functions. Thus, a basic prediction of the genealogical relatedness of all life, combined with the constraint of gradualism, is that organisms should be very similar in the particular mechanisms and structures that execute these four basic life processes.

— 29+ Evidences for Evolution

But what, in the "common designer argument", predicts that the nestedness of the hierarchies of homologies?

— Russell

The problem you mention was raised by Dr. Elsberry in the discussion on antievolution.org. Perhaps it is devestating, but let me offer a possible answer. It is a universally accepted metaphysical prinicple that sameness of cause produces sameness of effect. Therefore, it can be expected that the products of a single designer will share a basic structural similarity to each other.

— Finley

What reason is there to believe that what you think happened actually happened?

Michael Finley: It is a universally accepted metaphysical prinicple that sameness of cause produces sameness of effect. Therefore, it can be expected that the products of a single designer will share a basic structural similarity to each other.

So then one of the things that your "designer" (winky! winky!) cannot do is break your supposed
"sameness of cause. sameness of effect" rule. Let me guess: the designer can do whatever it wants, but you have determined that it didn't break the Finley's Law because, well, it just wasn't done that way.

If it could be established that a basic similarity of structure among all life was a logical consequence of a common designer, then common design would be confirmed on that count.

— Michael Finley

Forget about the truth or falsity of my argument for a moment and focus on its structure.

This, according to Ostwald, is the relevant prediction of common descent. It reduces to the simple claim that all life will share basic structural features ("basic" here defined in terms of the "fundamental criteria [that happen to] characterize all life"). It should be clear that the structures that happen to perform these functions do not follow logically from common descent (e.g., DNA as the mechanism of heritability cannot be deduced from common descent alone).

Forget about the truth or falsity of my argument for a moment and focus on its structure. If it could be established that a basic similarity of structure among all life was a logical consequence of a common designer, then common design would be confirmed on that count. Such an argument, if correct would be as scientific as the similar argument for common descent.

Nested hierarchies are a different prediction (the second of 29 predictions in Ostwald's FAQ; the unity of all life is the first prediction). As nested hierarchies are often counted as the strongest evidence for common descent, I would love to discuss them. Perhaps we can treat them next, or later, or whatever.

The Ostwald FAQ is the basis for my topic at the antievolution.org board.

— Michael Finley

Isn't it obvious? I think a single divine being specially created the present diversity (i.e., species as oppossed to every individual animal) of life.

Perhaps you'll reply that non-natural mechanisms are unscientific. In which case, we're back to methodological naturalism. Right?

If it could be established that a basic similarity of structure among all life was a logical consequence of a common designer

I am currently testing the position that "a single divine being specially created the present diversity of life."

in fact, I pointed to incontrovertible evidence (the beliefs of millions of people) that this equivalence is not true.

Is it a probable prediction of designers on the whole, that products of a single hand share features that products by different hands do not? If so, given that we do not have particular knowledge of the designer, isn't it reasonable to attribute to him features characteristic of designers per se?

— Mike Finley, in Comment #23156

If it could be established that a basic similarity of structure among all life was a logical consequence of a common designer, then common design would be confirmed on that count.

— ... and later, in Comment #23164

... which is still much, much better than going in deep denial of science in order to salvage the "Truth" that's been spoon-fed in some other people's minds.

I'll take a sane, rationalizing theist over an insane, denial-addicted one any day till the Sun freezes over.

I believe as a matter of faith and a philosophical position that my existence owes to a divine designer. I am attempting to work out that belief rationally, which includes empirical enquiries - fides quaerens intellectum as the Scholastics say ("faith seeking understanding").

— Michael Finley

If it could be established that a basic similarity of structure among all life was a logical consequence of a common designer

If it could be established that a basic similarity of structure among all life was a logical consequence of a common designer, then common design would be confirmed on that count.

— Michael Finley

Such an argument, if correct would be as scientific as the similar argument for common descent.

What is the significance of the fact that while the DNA between humans and chimps is very similar, human/chimp proteins are very different? What is the explanation from evolution?

What is the significance of the fact that while the DNA between humans and chimps is very similar, human/chimp proteins are very different?

Yes they are, I have read that the proteins are 80% different

David, I read somewhere that you are a moron. But I'm skeptical.

A big part of the strength of the common descent explanation is how it all works together.

— Russell

Finley, please rest assured: we understand your "argument." Your problem is that your argument is not compelling to the vast majority of people who understand the evidence and who are interested in learning more about life on earth and its rich history. The reasons why your argument are not compelling have been laid out so plainly that a high school student at a decent public school could understand those reasons perfectly.

— Great White Wonder

I don't know what you mean by "follow logically."

— Longhorm

Mike, it looks like evolution is just what you need to put it all together. Why not?

I'll take a sane, rationalizing theist over an insane, denial-addicted one any day till the Sun freezes over.

— Emanuele Oriano

Finally, some honesty. You know what really happened, and now you're looking to shove some round facts into that square hypothesis of yours.

— neo-anti-luddite

Logically this is not correct. It confuses if/then/else (which it uses) with if-and-only-if/then/else (which it wants to use).

— PaulP

How do you propose to establish that? What scientific methods will you propose to address that question?

— GCT

Read here re. 80% difference.

Did not quasi-scientific method exist long before there were philosophers? Would not the hunter-gatherer's recollection of the soft spot under the chin of its prey deploy the basic method?

What would say about: what the job of the philosopher of science is, in light of the utility of method that exists prior to the critical inquiry and reflection into this method made a different order of inquiry?

Are there striking examples of scientific method(s) that first require philosophical concludions?

No David, 80% of the proteins are different (so it is claimed) in some way or other. Which does suggest that humans and chimps have made the most of the differences that arose during the course of evolution. But the similarities are still very striking.

The problems that creationists and IDists have with the science of evolution was pointed out by David Hume a couple centuries ago. This is the fact that correlation does not prove causation, thus the extremely high level of correlation of genes between organisms really does not prove that causation underlies the similarities between chimp and human genomes.

Hume was correct, of course, but he didn't abandon science or scientific causation because of this. The problem for creationists and IDists is that all of science has this flaw in it, that we have never been able to show that billiard balls interact as we observe due to causal forces, and not simply due to some cosmic coincidence. But most IDists (and even many scientists) don't really know all that much about the philosophy of science, so they use the impossibility of determining causation (for certain) as if it applied only in the biological realm, and as if we don't have enough statistical correlation in biology to be as confident as to causation as we are in complex physics scenarios.

The fact is that the correlations between humans and apes, and even between humans and fruit flies, are far too close to suppose that they arose by chance. And you can't even begin to show causation with regard to putative "design" if you're not going to correlate this "design" with specific activities and causes. So that's not even close to becoming science. Thus, if we're going to actually propose causation, we must stick with science and the realm of contingent cause. The obvious relationships between organisms calls out for good causal explanations as much as do relationships between languages and those between manuscripts.

This is how science and court cases are settled. If religion wants to use non-contingent causation, that's okay too, but keep it where it belongs, in metaphysics.

Glen, my question had nothing to do with ID. Stop preaching.

Mr. Finley:

the sane, rationalizing theist is one who recognizes the evidence for evolution and rationalizes his/her faith in God as compatible with that.

The insane, denial-addicted one is one who denies the evidence for evolution in favour of a "revealed Truth" backed by no evidence whatsoever.

In other words, "truth cannot contradict Truth": the sane theist gently bends dogmatically revealed "Truth" to make it compatible with evidence-based reality; the insane one discards evidence to salvage dogma.

If you still feel you want to thank me, you're welcome.

David. Use your Heddle. 80% of the proteins differ. I.e. in the hundreds of amino acids that typically make up each one, there will be at least one difference between the chimp and human version. That means for a full 20% of proteins, there's not a single difference between the human and chimp version. It may shock you to learn the 100% of chromosomes differ between my brother and me!

I'm curious though. Where did you get this talking point? I'd be wary of that source. They may be trying to make you look stupid.

You totally ignored the fact that you screwed up what the article actually states, didn't you David? You attack when someone corrects your many mistakes, irrelevantly, irresponsibly, and without dealing with your inability to correctly portray science.

Your posts always have something to do with ID, both because of context and because of your constant claims for ID of some sort or another. To claim otherwise is disingenuous. But I wouldn't care if your posts had nothing to do with ID at all, I could still point out the mistakes of ID in relation to science, for they overlap with your inability to understand science properly.

All you can do is snipe, David. Why don't you learn something about the subject that you have waded into, instead of diverting all questions to fit your lack of ability to discuss biology?

Russell,

In what is probably par for the non-scientists that frequent and write for PT, you attitude went from "skeptic" to "of course, I knew that, but it doesn't mean anything."

Glen, the article's title is "Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees" and I asked , what does it mean that 80% of the proteins are different, so how the hell did I screw up what the article states? Maybe Hume or Popper can explain that.

David, excuse me? Are you suggesting that I'm not a scientist? Are you suggesting that I did not know that most proteins differed between chimp and human by at least one amino acid? Are you suggesting I didn't just tell you something you didn't know?

As I told your fellow phallocephalic, DaveScot, try to use better table manners when eating crow. You'll repulse fewer potential sympathizers.

The only relevant "method" is that of deductive logic. A prediction is an observation sentence (a la Quine) that is logically deduced from a hypothetical sentence such as "all living organisms are descended from a single common ancestor." Accordingly, I must attempt to logically deduce observation senteces from the theoretical sentence "all kinds of organism were specially created by a single designer." Perhaps no deductions can be made from that sentence, but as of yet, I havn't really had the chance (see my next post).

— Michael Finley

Yes they are, I have read that the proteins are 80% different.

How the hedll you screw up? Did you ponder, at all, the significance of the fact that my brother and I differ in 100% of our chromosomes? Do you see the relevance of that at all? Here I am trying to save you from yourself, and all I get is contempt and condescension. Really - where did you get this talking point? I tell you, they're trying to make you look stupid.

Yes Ruseel, that is what I am saying based on the evidence. To wit,
1) I asked about the 80% difference
2) You were skeptical
3) I posted the article
4) Then you said (paraphrasing) of course, but what is the big deal?

So why did these guys publish such a trivial result?

Emanuele Oriano,

Some argue for special creation because they are committed to special creation as revealed truth (with a capital "T"), say, as set forth in Genesis. The only revealed truth I am committed to in that regard is that a divine being is somehow responsible for my existence. Thus, my theism is completely compatible with Darwinian evolution.

Now, on to my argument.

Can constraints be placed on an unknown designer? If we know nothing of the designer other than that he is a "designer" (ex hypothesi there is a designer), then we can only characterize him qua designer. Can we make probable characterizations of designers per se?

It seems to me that, ceteris paribus, it is more reasonable to expect the products of a single designer to share a basic structural similarity, than to be radically dissimilar. If we can agree on the "reasonableness" of that expectation, then perhaps we can objectively ground that "reasonableness."

This is a first step. If we cannot agree here, subsequent steps cannot be taken.

and I asked , what does it mean that 80% of the proteins are different

— Heddle

What is the significance of the fact that while the DNA between humans and chimps is very similar, human/chimp proteins are very different? What is the explanation from evolution?

My "talking point" was based on the abstract that I posted. I cannot read the whole article. I made the bad assumption that someone on here would have something to say about it without resorting to dogma. That was my mistake. I should take my question to an actual science blog.

It seems to me that, ceteris paribus, it is more reasonable to expect the products of a single designer to share a basic structural similarity, than to be radically dissimilar.

This is a first step. If we cannot agree here, subsequent steps cannot be taken.

My "talking point" was based on the abstract that I posted. I cannot read the whole article. I made the bad assumption that someone on here would have something to say about it without resorting to dogma. That was my mistake.

I should take my question to an actual science blog.

Michael Finley, no scientist can agree with regard to your designer qua designer. Such language is nothing other than metaphysics, coupled to the unconvincing belief that words like "designer" mean something apart from what can be observed.

We really have no reason at all to suppose that God the designer (if one reduces God to a designer) would be limited to producing similar results in different creations. In fact it seems faintly blasphemous to my inherited religious sensibilities to suggest such human limitations in God.

Yet we can study design so long as we are studying limited phenomena, such as human designs, animal "designs", and probably even alien designs. This is because human and animal designs are not god-like, thus must rest upon limitations and repetitions built into the animal mind. God, to be God (at least in the majority of Christian thought), must be beyond our limitations, and thus is no subject for scientific study. He may be ultimately responsible for everything, of course, but only in an inscrutable manner.

IDists try to have it both ways, a God whose activities are not known, and the glorified engineer who can be discovered to have made certain "machines" called plants and animals. Even as metaphysics goes, it is unbelievably bad thinking. The Greeks who gave us the God beyond the "natural world" (itself a metaphysical mistake) would not make the mistakes either of supposing animals to be machines, or of God as being a "designer".

Which is why Antony Flew is interesting, for his God is the Aristotelian God, and yet Flew was persuaded to this viewpoint by questions regarding abiogenesis and the like. Aristotle's god is not one who would "design life", for "his" thoughts consist in thinking himself. Flew's first mistake is in taking up metaphysical philosophy, and the second is not recognizing that metaphysics does not allow for god as creaturely craftsman and designer.

While, of course, all the Latin makes your argument look much more plausible than it otherwise would, what can "ceteris paribus" possibly mean when we're comparing divine miraculous creation with human design? Ceteris certainly are not paribus!

— Russell