“There are reverent minds who ceaselessly scan the fields of Nature and the books of Science in search of gaps,” wrote Henry Drummond, “gaps which they will fill up with God. As if God lived in gaps?”
In his Lowell Lectures on the Ascent of Man , Drummond continues:
When things are known, that is to say, we conceive them as natural, on Man’s level; when they are unknown, we call them divine—as if our ignorance of a thing were the stamp of its divinity. If God is only to be left to the gaps in our knowledge, where shall we be when these gaps are filled up? And if they are never to be filled up, is God only to be found in the dis-orders of the world? Those who yield to the temptation to reserve a point here and there for special divine interposition are apt to forget that this virtually excludes God from the rest of the process. If God appears periodically, He disappears periodically. If He comes upon the scene at special crises, He is absent from the scene in the intervals. Whether is all-God or occasional-God the nobler theory?
Drummond, a 19th century evangelical writer and lecturer, originated the term “God of the gaps” while chastising his fellow Christians for their unscriptural view of natural history. Unfortunately, this confusion about “natural” and “supernatural” continues today even though it is, as philosopher Alvin Plantinga explains "at best a kind of anemic and watered-down semideism" that "is worlds apart from serious Christian theism."
For Christians, though, a “natural” process is just a normal-appearing process which remains the providential design and control of God. The difference between natural-appearing and miraculous-appearing processes is not whether God is acting—His action occurs in both processes—but the way in which He chooses to act.
So what then does “God of the gaps” mean? The phrase, according to chemist Craig Rusbult, actually encompasses four different views based on distinctions between a “science gap” (a gap in our current scientific knowledge) and a “nature gap” (a break in the continuous cause-effect chain of natural process) that may or may not be bridged by miraculous-appearing theistic action. The four views are:
An “always in the gaps” view – the claim that we should always assume that a science gap is a nature gap
An "only in the gaps" view -- which implies that God works only in nature gaps, that God is not active in natural process and defines "natural" in a way that means "without God."
A "gaps are possible" view -- a humble claim that "maybe God exists, and maybe nature gaps exist"
A "gaps are impossible" view -- a belief that: 1) God does not exist, so nature-gaps are physically impossible, or 2) God does exist, but a nature-gap is theologically impossible because God would never allow it.
Rusbult recommends discarding the confusing phrase. But, he suggests, when someone criticizes a theory by calling it a "God of the gaps" theory ask "What exactly do you mean by this?"
Does it refer to a "gaps are possible" view (this is theologically acceptable for a Christian theist) or a specific theory claiming "a gap did occur" (this should be evaluated using evidence and logic), or an "always in the gaps" habit (that is scientifically naive) or an "only in the gaps" view (that is theologically unacceptable and should be criticized)?
An “always in the gaps” view is scientifically naïve while an "only in the gaps" view is theological unsound. Claming that God does not exist, so nature-gaps are physically impossible, is also, as I’ve explained before, an unsophisticated and unsupportable claim. Saying that God does exist, but a nature-gap is theologically impossible because God would never allow it, is simply pretentious.
The most reasonable position is the view that “gaps are possible”, a broad spectrum that ranges from “gaps are exceedingly likely” to “gaps are statistically improbable.” Because this breadth allows for a significant amount of wiggle room, the view that gaps are possible isn’t very useless as a descriptive category. In fact, there is a large variance even among advocates of Intelligent Design (ID) theory.
Some ID theorists, for example, believe that simply finding evidence of intelligent agency is sufficient to explain “gaps” while others (including me) believe that such data is simply the starting point for postulating a more robust explanatory framework. After all, the whole of creation—including all processes, all “natural” laws—are the actions of an intelligent agent, the divine Creator and Sustainer of the universe. The distinction between natural-appearing and miraculous-appearing is, again, a matter of which way He chooses to act. "Natural" laws that require low-information content are as much a product of intelligent design as the most complex processes.
There is also no reason to be concerned that scientific discoveries will relegate God to a secondary role. Closing "science gaps" almost always has the opposite effect. Science is an hydra-headed creature; with every “science gap” that is closed, two more rise up to replace the one that is bridged. For example, when evolution was first proposed by Darwin, there was no explanation for the mechanism of transmission of traits from one generation to the next. With the discovery of DNA, Watson and Crick closed that particular “gap.”
Yet, as physicist David Snoke notes, no one today has an adequate explanation for how this highly complicated molecule arose out of nowhere. Also, we do not have an adequate explanation within chemical evolutionary theory for the appearance of the mechanism that gives us a readout of the information, or for the appearance of methods that replicate information with out error, or for the appearance of the delicate balance of repair and maintenance of the molecular systems that use the information stored in DNA.
God does not appear periodically in nature only to disappear again. He does not come upon the scene at special crises to fill in the “gaps” in our knowledge, nor is He absent from the scene in the intervals. The God of Christianity is not a mere “god of the gaps” but is the ever present, always working, Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer of all creation.
Rusbult recommends discarding the confusing phrase.
It's a good phrase; it refers to something that in general folks don't want to look at. Which is what Rusbult himself doesn't want to look at: a "god of the gaps" is a god who exists as a construct to substitute for something that folks don't want to observe, because doing so would cause them discomfort.
After all, the whole of creation—including all processes, all “natural” laws—are the actions of an intelligent agent, the divine Creator and Sustainer of the universe.
Including the blind spot, the narrow pelvis, etc.
>Including the blind spot, the narrow pelvis, etc.
Yes, of course.
I'm not sure why some atheists think that this is such a big slam dunk gotcha. Hello, *we age and die*! Compared to that, blind spots and narrow pelvises are rather trivial. You could at least go with the biggies.
You know, Christians *have* thought about such things over the last two thousand years. You haven't thought of some clever gotcha.
Joe,
Thank you for discussing God-of-the-gaps (GOTG) without condescending to those who disagree with you. This is a strong post, as far as it goes.
You are careful to list four different possiblities for GOTG: always in the gaps, only in the gaps, gaps are possible, gaps are impossible. But you leave out two possibilities that are perhaps the most important ones of all:
A "gaps have not been definitively observed" view -- a belief that all alleged gaps should not be pre-judged as either human ignorance about the natural chain of cause and effect, or divine intervention in natural processes. Instead, it should be pointed out that all prior alleged gaps have either been eliminated by the expansion of scientific knowledge, or reduced tremendously in scope. Therefore, any alleged gaps in our knowledge of the natural chain of cause and effect should be viewed as a challenge to scientists and naturalists to provide an explanation of the gap, and reasonable people can disagree as to whether the explanations are plausible or not.
A "gaps have not been observed" view -- a belief that gaps are theoretically or philosophically possible, but any alleged gaps that we currently know about have been successfully explained as not being gaps at all.
This last one is certainly a view that I could sign my name onto.
So both theists and secularists may worry: "If design is allowed as a (historically) scientific theory, couldn't it be invoked at every turn as a theoretical panacea, stultifying inquiry as it goes? Might not design become a refuge for the intellectually lazy who have refused to study what nature actually does?"
Well, of course it might. But so might the incantation "Evolution accomplished X." ~ Stephen Meyer
"God in the gaps" simply means a presumption that any gap in scientific knowledge is proof of God acting in a way outside of natural laws. For example, the chemistry of non-living matter is well known. The chemistry of living matter is also well known. The chemical reactions that happened in between, though, are just beginning to be sketched out with a lot of untested ideas still in play. The 'God of the gaps' argument would assert "HA, there is where God came out of the sky and made living cells...then he went back up and let evolution go".
Some breeds of Intelligent Designers take this absurd reading and run with it. Asserting that God rushes down every time a new species has to make that mystical leap from 'micro' to 'macro' evolution. A bit like the monolith in the movie 2001 that appears whenever humanity is about to make some type of significant evolutionary leap (and partially causes it to happen).
I think Joe is starting to get enlightened here, although on the subject of evolution he is increbily thick headed. ID, IMO, ends up reducing God to some sort of cosmic Microsoft. Constantly issuing patches to fix its buggy code...even the newest and best designs are handicapped by forcing compatibility with legacy systems and so on.
There is also no reason to be concerned that scientific discoveries will relegate God to a secondary role. Closing "science gaps" almost always has the opposite effect. Science is an hydra-headed creature; with every “science gap” that is closed, two more rise up to replace the one that is bridged. For example, when evolution was first proposed by Darwin, there was no explanation for the mechanism of transmission of traits from one generation to the next. With the discovery of DNA, Watson and Crick closed that particular “gap.”
This is false. 'New gaps' are not rising up. Before Darwin we were still ignorant of the mechanism for the transmission of traits as well as the dynamics of evolution. After Darwin we former 'gap' became more noticable but objectively there was a finite amount of gaps in play and each breakthrough reduces them. Imagine painting a room with a brush that's a bit too small. After you have 90% of the room painted it feels like there's a million little parts you missed. It might seem like every time you paint over a gap a new one appears. But the reality is that you are making the gaps smaller and eliminating them. The room isn't getting less painted as you paint more, the few unfinished pieces are just standing out at you more now that you got the bulk of the work done.
bevets:
Well, of course it might. But so might the incantation "Evolution accomplished X." ~ Stephen Meyer
Indeed but design is more prone to this intellectual laziness than evolution is. As for design being allowed as a scientific theory, it is and has been allowed. Don't rewrite history. ID failed as a scientific theory. There's a big difference between a team not winning the World Series because they lost early on in the season and a team not winning because they were not even allowed on the field.
Astrology is a good example. Numerous times the claims of astrology are tested in a rigerous manner. Numerous times astrology fails. Astrology is 'allowed' as a scientific theory. It's been allowed onto the field but it just couldn't hit the pitches thrown to it.
Boonton,
ID, IMO, ends up reducing God to some sort of cosmic Microsoft. Constantly issuing patches to fix its buggy code...even the newest and best designs are handicapped by forcing compatibility with legacy systems and so on.
Excellent point.
As for design being allowed as a scientific theory, it is and has been allowed. Don't rewrite history. ID failed as a scientific theory. There's a big difference between a team not winning the World Series because they lost early on in the season and a team not winning because they were not even allowed on the field.
Astrology is a good example. Numerous times the claims of astrology are tested in a rigerous manner. Numerous times astrology fails. Astrology is 'allowed' as a scientific theory. It's been allowed onto the field but it just couldn't hit the pitches thrown to it.
I was first introduced to Intelligent Design close to a year ago right here on the Evangelical Outpost.
At first I defended it as an interesting theory that could generate interesting experiments. I thought that Intelligent Design might pull evolutionary theory into some productive directions of inquiry. It seemed that the critics of I.D. at the Evangelical Outpost were being unfair to I.D. theory. Larry Lord in particular seemed extremely prejudiced against it.
So I investigated I.D. at some length in the hopes of finding some useful tidbits, and perhaps even some evidence in favor of it (although I wasn't really expecting that). I was disappointed, and even a little surprised, to find out that there really was no "there" there: I.D. was just an empty suit repeating the same discredited sound bites to people like myself who hadn't heard them before.
My investigations weren't a waste, of course. Not only did I learn a lot about I.D. theory, I learned a lot about evolution as well, and about Charles Darwin's life and career (he was quite an impressive fellow in many ways). So I am grateful to I.D. for prodding me to understand evolution better. But as you, Boonton, point out, it's a theory, like astrology, that has swung at the pitches and struck out.
Some ID theorists, for example, believe that simply finding evidence of intelligent agency is sufficient to explain “gaps” while others (including me) believe that such data is simply the starting point for postulating a more robust explanatory framework. After all, the whole of creation—including all processes, all “natural” laws—are the actions of an intelligent agent, the divine Creator and Sustainer of the universe. The distinction between natural-appearing and miraculous-appearing is, again, a matter of which way He chooses to act. "Natural" laws that require low-information content are as much a product of intelligent design as the most complex processes.
In other words, ID's central scientific claim is meaningless. Recall ID claims that it can detect whether a complex form is the result of 'non-intelligent' forces such as chemistry & physics or whether it was 'designed'. Joe let's the cat out of the bag here. There is no 'non-intelligent' force. He says as much when he writes:
The God of Christianity is not a mere “god of the gaps” but is the ever present, always working, Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer of all creation.
If everything is intelligently designed then ID tells us nothing as a scientific theory. There is no less design in the 'random' mud and rocks at the bottom of a lake as there is in the fish that swim in it. At best is might be a philosophy or a theology but it's a pretty crappy one. AS I pointed out previous it is basically a theology of "God as the crappy but persistent Microsoft programmer". Those seeking philosophy or theology would do a lot better.
My investigations weren't a waste, of course. Not only did I learn a lot about I.D. theory, I learned a lot about evolution as well, and about Charles Darwin's life and career (he was quite an impressive fellow in many ways). So I am grateful to I.D. for prodding me to understand evolution better. But as you, Boonton, point out, it's a theory, like astrology, that has swung at the pitches and struck out.
I think it goes for both religion and science, sometimes you learn a lot more by studying mistakes and errors than you do by studying 'the truth'. The "ID v. Evolution Wars" actually brought me here by following a link from some other blog. They were good times but I'd rather not go through them again ;)
Boonton "God in the gaps" simply means a presumption that any gap in scientific knowledge is proof of God acting in a way outside of natural laws.
Not exactly. As I went to the pains of pointing out, accepting that some sort of “gaps” are possible does not mean accepting miraculous intervention as the default state of affairs.
The 'God of the gaps' argument would assert "HA, there is where God came out of the sky and made living cells...then he went back up and let evolution go".
If this is what GOTG means, then it should only apply to the claims of deists.
ID, IMO, ends up reducing God to some sort of cosmic Microsoft. Constantly issuing patches to fix its buggy code...even the newest and best designs are handicapped by forcing compatibility with legacy systems and so on.
Since this is nothing like what ID proposes, I would recommend doing a bit more research into what the theory claims.
The room isn't getting less painted as you paint more, the few unfinished pieces are just standing out at you more now that you got the bulk of the work done.
Survey the landscape of science and you’ll see that there are more “gaps” now than ever before in the history of the field. That is because the more we know, the more we find that needs to be explained.
Indeed but design is more prone to this intellectual laziness than evolution is.
You can’t be serious? One of the biggest problems I have with the theory of evolution is not its truth content (it is true to a large extent) but the way in which it is lazily applied. Take any new discovery about biology or animal/human behavior and you’ll find a scientist claiming "Evolution accomplished X."
ID failed as a scientific theory.
I’m always amused by the depth of contradictory claims made about ID:
The problem with ID is that it (hasn’t been tested)/(has been tested and failed)/(isn’t testable).
If ID were a legitimate scientific theory, then its advocates would publish in peer reviewed journals. ID should not be published in peer reviewed journals because it is not a legitimate scientific journal.
ID is illegitimate because scientists reject the theory. Just because scientists accept ID theory does not make it legitimate.
I could go on and on but I think you get the idea. Anytime one side of the equation is disputed you’ll simply shift to the other side.
If the popular version of ID were as modest as what Joe proposes, there would be little controversy. Though I am atheistically inclined, I cannot be sure there is no God. Any explanation of the origin of the universe is highly speculative at this point – natural or supernatural. It is largely a matter of taste as to what seems less fantastical - that the universe has always existed, that there is an infinite chain of universes, or that it is the creation of an infinitely powerful being.
Alas, the popular version of ID is not content with that. Bizarrely, as Boonton points it, it prefers to postulate a God who is either lazy or inept – reusing much of the same design from species to species though it results in suboptimal organisms, or unable to achieve an optimal design despite constant tinkering. And we still await the finding of evidence of intelligent agency, other than flawed probability calculations.
Joe,
Anytime one side of the equation is disputed you’ll simply shift to the other side.
Perhaps, but whether ID is non-scientific or simply hasn’t been demonstrated well enough warrant the label “scientific theory” is a distinction without much difference. If I may dare to extend Boonton’s analogy, it is the distinction between whether ID has swung at the pitches and struck out or has demurred from stepping into the batter’s box.
p.s. My above post may give the misimpression that I think Joe has reserved the origin of the universe as the gap where God resides. Rather, I interpret Joe’s post as saying that God does not reside in the gaps in evolutionary or other scientific theories. Regardless of gaps, evolution is a natural process and God is the author of nature.
Good post, Joe. I have nothing to add. This, taken with your post on natural/supernatural, is the kind of stuff I like to hear you saying.
Sorry to just "me too" this time, but I nit-pick often enough. I think this is solid work, doubtless imperfect, but nowhere so much so that I feel any need to disagree.
Cheers,
PGE
Boonton,
In other words, ID's central scientific claim is meaningless. Recall ID claims that it can detect whether a complex form is the result of 'non-intelligent' forces such as chemistry & physics or whether it was 'designed'. Joe let's the cat out of the bag here. There is no 'non-intelligent' force.
Good catch. This contradiction slipped right by me.
I'm glad you're on my side -- you're pretty good at ruthlessly dissecting things! :) [I actually enjoy having my views ruthlessly dissected, though -- it's like having a good massage get all the kinks out of your body.]
Joe Carter,
"ID, [in my opinion], ends up reducing God to some sort of cosmic Microsoft. Constantly issuing patches to fix its buggy code...even the newest and best designs are handicapped by forcing compatibility with legacy systems and so on."
Since this is nothing like what ID proposes, I would recommend doing a bit more research into what the theory claims.
Hey, Joe, you're the one telling everyone exactly what everything means and doesn't mean. If you disagree with Boonton, then why don't you tell us how his description is off the mark?
From what I've researched myself, Boonton's right on the money here.
Care to share, my argumentative host?
By the way, you still haven't offered even one bit of evidence in favor of Intelligent Design (I asked you for some in yesterday's comment thread). What's up with that?
And is the creation story of Genesis a scientific theory (as defined by Professor George)?
Thanks!
Joe Carter:
The problem with ID is that it (hasn’t been tested)/(has been tested and failed)/(isn’t testable).
Can you show an example of someone who actually said "ID has been tested?"
Otherwise, the statements "'intelligent' 'design' hasn't been tested" isn't contradictory to "'intelligent' 'design' isn't testable," because the former follows from the latter.
And that's why its advocates haven't been able to publish in peer reviewed journals.
I know, it trashes your straw-man, but hey, the truth isn't always comfortable.
holmegm:
What does "we age and die" (another interesting side effect refuting "intelligent" "design") have to do with narrow birth canals and blind spots?
You say "Christians" have "thought" about these things, but I haven't seen anything related to that thought.
Re: the "age and die" part and "intelligent" "design": without being a literal creationist, how do you attribute "death" to an intelligence, unless that intelligence has the wisdom of the Great Helmsman, Chairman Mao: "Death has its benefits. Fertilizer is created."
Survey the landscape of science and you’ll see that there are more “gaps” now than ever before in the history of the field. That is because the more we know, the more we find that needs to be explained.
Hmmm, you simply mean more gaps listed which is itself closing a gap since before we didn't have a list of what we didn't know! Seriously, though, you missed the point. Darwin didn't 'open up a gap' that was filled by discovering DNA. We didn't know about DNA before Darwin, it was a gap back then too. Actually it was two gaps, we didn't know about DNA and we didn't even know we didn't know about DNA.
I challenge you to show me a 'gap' that was not a gap before but is now.
You can’t be serious? One of the biggest problems I have with the theory of evolution is not its truth content (it is true to a large extent) but the way in which it is lazily applied. Take any new discovery about biology or animal/human behavior and you’ll find a scientist claiming "Evolution accomplished X."
Also known as a hypothesis. Unfortunately for ID, though, such claims actually do require objective evidence or testing to back them up. One of the reasons why 'evolutionary psychology' has run into so much trouble by real scientists is that it's way too fast to make such claims and way too slow actually collecting data or evidence that supports them.
Why don't you show me where IDers have, say, proposed a hypothesis and then rejected it as they examined data? Perhaps developed a test for design and then tried to apply it to a control sample of randomly generated and design generated data?
I could go on and on but I think you get the idea. Anytime one side of the equation is disputed you’ll simply shift to the other side.
No I've been quite consistent. ID has not been able to make objective, verifiable claims. The topic often becomes confused because IDers tend to worry less about actual science and more about how to appease various political factions such as young earth creationists and such. Some have argued that supernatural theories cannot be scientifically tested in principle but I find that debate is easily avoided by simply taking IDers at their word. They claim that their theory only makes statements about whether or not a system was designed by an intelligence or the result of natural laws. They go to great pains to emphasize that their theory is not capable of telling us anything about that intelligence (supernatural or not). So it's quite easy to note that they have failed.
That's the fundamental point. Facts such as the failure to publish serious work in peer reviewed journals is just additional evidence. Sort of like the fact that the program for a World Series does not list a particular team is evidence that team was unable to make it to the World Series because they simply lost too many games. In most cases that should be sufficent to establish the point but if you're going to be a prick about it and demand to know if the people running the World Series had unfairly refused to let the winning team play we'd have to go to the actual win-loss records of the league.
Alas, the popular version of ID is not content with that. Bizarrely, as Boonton points it, it prefers to postulate a God who is either lazy or inept – reusing much of the same design from species to species though it results in suboptimal organisms, or unable to achieve an optimal design despite constant tinkering. And we still await the finding of evidence of intelligent agency, other than flawed probability calculations.
Indeed my assertion of this comes because IDers are constantly 'shifting' to one side of the equation or another. They will tell you on one hand their theory is demonstrated by the 'gaps' in abiogenesis (how did living things originate form non-living matter). Then they will tell you that their theory is from 'gaps' in the evolutionary record proper. This is where IDers will start tossing out terms such as 'macro' versus 'micro' evolution and assertions for why the former isn't possible but the latter is.
So what is it? Did this 'design' happen with the first living thing? Did it happen throughout history with constant revisions? Just a few 'major releases' such as at the Cambrian Explosion? Instead of actually trying to answer these questions ID seems to be aspiring to be a 'one size fits all' theory for anyone who has a beef with evolution. You can enjoy your ID in any flavor you want. Young-earth creationist, single intervention for the diest-type, periodic tinker, or even an athiest version where the designer gets to be aliens in a UFO. This crap works as a political agenda, maybe even as second rate philsophy but to honest minded people the flaws are painfully obvious.
The "God of the Gaps" criticism does not apply to the cosmology/astrophysical ID arguments. There it is really "God in the details." For example, it is not that we know nothing or little about stellar evolution and nuclear synthesis and therefore say "God did it", but rather we know a great deal about it--and are utterly amazed that it works at all.
Boonton I challenge you to show me a 'gap' that was not a gap before but is now.
I think you misunderstand what I’m saying. I’m merely claiming that when science provides an explanation (DNA is responsible for inherited traits) it opens new gaps that we were no previously aware of and that need explanation (Where did DNA come from?).
One of the reasons why 'evolutionary psychology' has run into so much trouble by real scientists is that it's way too fast to make such claims and way too slow actually collecting data or evidence that supports them.
I think they are resorting to special pleading. The evolutionary psychologists often use the same tactics used in evolutionary biology. Once you embrace evolutionary theory as the only legitimate explanation, then anything that needs to be explained must fit within that narrow framework.
Why don't you show me where IDers have, say, proposed a hypothesis and then rejected it as they examined data?
I can’t think of any such instance, probably because IDers have been extremely careful about the hypotheses they propose. ID, unlike neo-Darwinism, is extremely falsifiable. For instance, when ID is proposed as an explanation it claims that “No unintelligent process could produce this system.” Neo-Darwinism, though, says only that “Somecould possibly produce this system.” Neo-Darwinism sets such a low bar that it is almost impossible to falsify its claims.
Perhaps developed a test for design and then tried to apply it to a control sample of randomly generated and design generated data?
ID advocates have long proposed an experiment that would shut them up: the bacterial flagellum. As Michael Behe says, to falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, he admits his claims would be neatly disproven.
Now why haven’t scientists tested this to prove Behe wrong? Because, when all is said and done, neo-Darwinism can’t stand up under experimental scrutiny.
No I've been quite consistent. ID has not been able to make objective, verifiable claims.
I just proposed an experiment that makes an objective, verifiable claim. Are you telling me that this is the first time you’ve heard of this proposal?
So it's quite easy to note that they have failed.
Oh? How has ID been falsified?
That's the fundamental point. Facts such as the failure to publish serious work in peer reviewed journals is just additional evidence.
So are you saying that if (assuming they haven’t) been published in peer reviewed journals that it would count as evidence in favor of ID?
This is where IDers will start tossing out terms such as 'macro' versus 'micro' evolution and assertions for why the former isn't possible but the latter is.
You have some peculiar ideas about what ID is and what it claims. The reason we assert a difference between “micro” and “macro” evolution is because the process for microevolution can be experimentally verified while macroevolution is based on a subjective extrapolation.
So what is it? Did this 'design' happen with the first living thing? Did it happen throughout history with constant revisions? Just a few 'major releases' such as at the Cambrian Explosion?
Um, do you even know what intelligent design theory is? I don’t think that any IDers propose that God had an end product in mind and has to tinker with it along the way in order to get to the final product. It would be easier to take your objections seriously if they were based on what ID advocates actually claim rather than some weird strawman version of creationism.
Also, as David Heddle points out, your criticisms do not even touch on the cosmology/astrophysical side of ID. Do you have anything to add on that end or is your grievance simply with the biotic side of ID?
I used to think there was some point in reading these posts.
Yet, as physicist David Snoke notes, no one today has an adequate explanation for how this highly complicated molecule arose out of nowhere. Also, we do not have an adequate explanation within chemical evolutionary theory for the appearance of the mechanism that gives us a readout of the information, or for the appearance of methods that replicate information with out error,
Uh, the fact that DNA replication is imperfect is part of the reason why living organisms evolve.
So was Snokes talking out of his butt or was this just sloppiness on Joe Carter's part?
Joe Carter,
So what is it? Did this 'design' happen with the first living thing? Did it happen throughout history with constant revisions? Just a few 'major releases' such as at the Cambrian Explosion?
It would be easier to take your objections seriously if they were based on what ID advocates actually claim rather than some weird strawman version of creationism.
Joe, don't you remember what you write from one day to the next?
Yesterday you cited Prof. George as an authority for your claim that I.D. is a bona-fide scientific theory.
But under Prof. George's definition of "scientific theory", the story of creation in Genesis is a scientific account as well. You cannot claim in one breath that Genesis is a scientific theory, and in the next breath chastise Boonton for making reference to "Cambrian explosion" strawmen without losing any bit of coherence you might have laid claim to.
I'm concerned here, Joe. You're waving your hands so franticallly that you're about to fracture your wrists. Why don't you take a step back and decide for yourself what exactly you are defending before you make any more snide comments about strawmen?
I know I’m not a heavyweight here or anything but I can’t help noting a couple of items.
Mumon> Can you show an example of someone who actually said "ID has been tested?"
How about scroll up one page where Boonton says, “ID failed as a scientific theory.” For something to have failed, one must assume it was tested.
And speaking of Boonton.
Boonton> Actually it was two gaps, we didn't know about DNA and we didn't even know we didn't know about DNA.
I think you might be misunderstanding what is meant by a “gap”. For a “gap” to exist you require two things, and a distance between them. In this context the gap is between phenomena we observe and an explanation of that phenomena. Pre-Darwin there was no “DNA gap” because we had not yet made the observation that demanded it. Darwin’s pioneering was to make observations in such a way that demanded the existence of a mechanism for descent with modification. The way I see it is that Darwin essentially created the DNA gap.
And there are always going to be more gaps. We are nowhere near painting in the room, ask any scientist. (Close the patent office! We've already invented everything! Yeah, right.)
The real problem with gaps is not that we're going to run out of them. It's the temptation to use them to limit (or eliminate) the scope of God’s creative and sustaining work. The two statements of “God created finches” and “Finches evolved from X” are not necessarily in opposition, it’s just that the latter statement is more materially precise, empirically testable, etc., and helps to further our technical knowledge of creation. The former statement is also true, and helps to further our appreciation for our Creator and sharpen our sense of responsibility as stewards of His handiwork.
I think we need both kinds of statements. It’s a poverty to think that a Good Scientist must rigorously expel any and all non-material considerations of our experience of creation.
I think you misunderstand what I’m saying. I’m merely claiming that when science provides an explanation (DNA is responsible for inherited traits) it opens new gaps that we were no previously aware of and that need explanation (Where did DNA come from?).
No you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Before we discovered DNA did we know where DNA came from? No we didn't. Therefore discovering DNA did not 'open a new gap'. Not knowing where DNA came from was a gap in our knowledge before DNA was discovered. In fact there were really two gaps. Not knowing where DNA came from and not knowing we were ignorant of DNA's origin. (Remember the first step to wisdom is knowing how ignorant you are).
I think they are resorting to special pleading. The evolutionary psychologists often use the same tactics used in evolutionary biology. Once you embrace evolutionary theory as the only legitimate explanation, then anything that needs to be explained must fit within that narrow framework.
Actually the explanation must fit the narrow framework. That is a good thing because what you want from a good theory is that it explains as much of the real world data as possible. If you have to reinvent the theory every time you look under the microscope how good can it be? Now if you don't look under the microscope because you're afraid that you'll see something that will refute the theory, then that's a problem. But even evolutionary psychology does seek to find evidence to confirm and reinforce their hypothesises such as seeking out evidence that behavioral traits are universal without regard to culture or are shared by closer ancestor species etc.
I can’t think of any such instance, probably because IDers have been extremely careful about the hypotheses they propose. ID, unlike neo-Darwinism, is extremely falsifiable. For instance, when ID is proposed as an explanation it claims that “No unintelligent process could produce this system.” Neo-Darwinism, though, says only that “Somecould possibly produce this system.” Neo-Darwinism sets such a low bar that it is almost impossible to falsify its claims.
The problem with this is that you've set an incredibly high standard of proof and forgot that you actually have to meet it. I'll spare you reciting the entire OJ analogy again but see what the problem is here:
Prosecutor: Someone from LA killed Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson that night, we will show that we have examined where every person in LA on that night was and what they were doing that night. Yes of all X million people we can prove none of them killed those two except for OJ who we cannot prove is innocent.
Defense: OK if that's your standard then I just have to show that you missed just a single person in your quest to prove everyone but OJ innocent.
Prosecutor: OK well as you can see we've set the bar very high. A gold standard in the history of judicial proof. So find him guilty!
Defense: Wait, you didn't even present any evidence!!!!
Gee, I cited an experiment very similar to this. The genes responsible for sugar digestion were removed from a particular type of bacteria. That bacteria was then grown in a sugar rich environment. The bacteria 're-evolved' the tools necessary to digest sugar. Now that's not exactly the experiment you desire but it certainly shows a willingness to engage in experimental scrutiny. Perhaps it would be difficult to design such an experiment (can one create a controlled environment with intense 'mobility pressure'?) as you described...but then again an obvious question is why doesn't Behe conduct this experiment himself? Are petri dishes and bacteria so expensive that only rich evolutionists with multi-billion dollar labs can afford them?
I just proposed an experiment that makes an objective, verifiable claim. Are you telling me that this is the first time you’ve heard of this proposal?
Yes, out of the thousands of posts about evolution this is the first I've heard this proposal. We've been through dozens of variations of experiments to test evolution...both proposed hypothetical ones and examples of ones actually performed.
But isn't it interesting that all you're doing is coming up with ideas for experiments that confirm evolution? Imagine evolution was never discovered. What experiments would ID propose to show that they could tell us what systems are designed and which are non-designed?
You have some peculiar ideas about what ID is and what it claims. The reason we assert a difference between “micro” and “macro” evolution is because the process for microevolution can be experimentally verified while macroevolution is based on a subjective extrapolation.
Blah blah blah. Joe once again shows us how ID is more a toy for amateur philosophers rather than a scientific theory. Once again the simple question is dodged. Does ID assert that design happened once and then evolution took over or does it assert that periodic 'fixing' was performed? Joe huffs and puffs and declares that my asking this question shows I don't know what ID theory is but does he? Just answer it!
IDers, though, don't want to answer it. Tie yourself to a single design incident 4B years ago and you lose the votes of the YEC. Tie yourself to periodic tweaking and you open yourself to be proven wrong if what you claim is 'macro evolution' is experimentally verified. So instead of actual science you reach into your scrabble bag filled with philsophical terms ('subjective extrapolation') and start tossing them around.
Also, as David Heddle points out, your criticisms do not even touch on the cosmology/astrophysical side of ID. Do you have anything to add on that end or is your grievance simply with the biotic side of ID?
Ahhh yes, let's leap to the 'cosmology/astrophysical' ID theory. Whose 'shifting the equation' now? There's a reason that, in science departments, astronomy is usually taught in different classes by different professors than biology. Because they are very different subjects with different theories....or at least different applications of the same fundamental theories. Since you seem to be quite skeptical that I really understand ID in its biotic application why would you want to leap over to a totally different topic? Shouldn't you be explaining to me what I'm not understanding about biotic ID?
If you insist, though, tell us what the astrophysical ID theory is and we'll work from there.
Joe Carter,
ID advocates have long proposed an experiment that would shut them up: the bacterial flagellum. As Michael Behe says, to falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, he admits his claims would be neatly disproven.
So if a flagellum could produced through laboratory bacteria's evolution, then Behe's claims would be disproved. O.K.
How about your claims? Would you be willing to discard I.D. theory if scientists were to observe bacteria evolving a flagellum in the laboratory? Would you disown I.D. theory and admit you were mistaken?
Heddle
For example, it is not that we know nothing or little about stellar evolution and nuclear synthesis and therefore say "God did it", but rather we know a great deal about it--and are utterly amazed that it works at all.
Ah yes, the argument from incredulity. How persuasive! How compelling.
But experience tells us that Heddle will quickly list a bunch of physicists who, like himself, tend to forget that it's impossible to calculate how "unlikely" our "universe" is.
Fyi, Heddle's habit of obfuscation and lying and failing to admit when he's been busted doing so is well-documented over at the Panda's Thumb blog.
You know that blog? That's the blog where sincere scientists document the behavior of charlatans, theocrats and billionaire bigots who fund or milk funds at the Discovery Institute, as well as the behavior of small-time disingenuous creationism peddlers like David Heddle, Richard Sternberg, et al.
Carter
It would be easier to take your objections seriously if they were based on what ID advocates actually claim rather than some weird strawman version of creationism.
ID advocates -- otherwise known as anti-science bigots and/or religious apologists -- are very careful not to make any claims of utitlity to scientists.
All ID advocates do is disparage the work of evolutionary biologists or anyone who refuses to propose "alternate" "theories" for the evolution of life on earth, such as the "theory" that hitherto unobserved all-powerful deity-like beings are acting through mysterious undetectable "forces" to accomplish "amazing" feats like, uh, creatures with a mouth, a nose, two eyeballs AND -- perhaps most inspiring of all -- a wonderful and exquisitely sensitive sphincter.
Boonton,
The astrophysical ID theory is one explanation for the anthropic observation that the physical constants are fine tuned for life. Specifically, the constants are fine tuned because either (a) they were selected by an intelligent designer (God) or (b) the heretofore undiscovered laws that explain the values of the constants were designed (by God). A competing, naturalistic explanation is that our universe is but one of many—each with different constants rendering the vast majority of these (undectable, parallel universes) sterile.
JdL,
If it is "well-documented", as you say, then you should have little difficulty providing a link to where on Panda's Thumb it has been demonstrated that I lied.
Joe Carter:
Where did DNA come from?
Anybody who talks on this without having gone to talk origins.org first, well...
ID advocates have long proposed an experiment that would shut them up: the bacterial flagellum. As Michael Behe says, to falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, he admits his claims would be neatly disproven.
It's already been shown how how the bacterial flagellum evolved (and was a great embarassment to Behe in Kitzmiller).
Moreover:
Kaffinator:
No, it could have been shown merely not to be testable. Which it has.
Joe
As Michael Behe says, to falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced.
Define "equally complex."
And how does such an experiment prove that some mysterious sky daddy didn't point at the petri dish and "make those mutations happen"?
After all, Joe, you yourself have alleged that your deity is "the ever present, always working, Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer of all creation."
You see: I just destroyed Joe Carter's credibility. He simply does not know what he is talking about. And either does Michael Behe.
But making sense isn't what is important to Joe Carter or Michael Behe. What is important is evangelizing and confusing frightened and ignorant Christian folks into believing that those bad old scientists are lying in their effort to spread their homosexual and atheist agenda.
Of course, anyone who paid attention during the recent trial in Dover where the credibility of scientists and creationst peddlers was tested in exhausting detail knows very well who is holding the short end of the stick.
I>Pre-Darwin there was no “DNA gap” because we had not yet made the observation that demanded it. Darwin’s pioneering was to make observations in such a way that demanded the existence of a mechanism for descent with modification. The way I see it is that Darwin essentially created the DNA gap.
Isn't it also possible to not know how many gaps there are? Isn't that a gap in itself?
And there are always going to be more gaps. We are nowhere near painting in the room, ask any scientist. (Close the patent office! We've already invented everything! Yeah, right.)
True but I'm speaking more in principle. As our knowledge expands our ignorance retreats. The 'eternal gaps' statement seems to imply that increasing knowledge is a long run folly because every bit of additional knowledge somehow generates an equal bit of additional ignorance leaving us no better off than we started.
So if a flagellum could produced through laboratory bacteria's evolution, then Behe's claims would be disproved. O.K.
Well I could tell you what happened in the example of evolving the ability to digest sugar directly. The resident ID advcoate(s) spun all sorts of explanations. Maybe, for example, the bacteria had some type of 'backup blueprint' for sugar digestion machinery in case it was victimized by some genetic researcher. Needless to say this was all armchair science. No IDer that I'm aware of actually tried to prove their criticisms of the experiment, say by actually examining the bacteria's genetic code for evidence of a 'backup system'.
No doubt if this experiment was actually done & it worked IDers would find a thousand nit picks wrong with it & continue on without even a single modification to their theory. But this is missing the point:
If ID is a scientific theory then why is the only proposed experiment presented on this thread really a test of the theory of evolution?
Dude, at least astrology can make scientific predictions. People born under this or that sign will be sicker or healthier than these other people. That can be tested. It's as if the only proposed test of astrology was to challenge theories of galaxy formation!
Heddle
Specifically, the constants are fine tuned
No, David, they're not. The term "fine-tuned" is misleading (as you know) because it implies a designer. The universe is not "fine-tuned." Rather, it simply "is." Compared to another universe that we can imagine, our universe could be very unstable.
This is the end of the discussion for reasonable people, as David knows.
But David is just getting started. Let me assure everyone that it doesn't get any more precise or clear. Eventually the contradictions will become apparent but David will deny they exist.
What do you call a person who, when confronted with plain evidence that his own statements are contradictory or incorrect, refuses to admit to these facts?
For the record, like all kind-hearted people, I believe that everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want about deities, fairies, UFOs, and poltergeists. But holding such beliefs -- and even sharing them with like-minded folks -- is different than peddling the idea to the public that scientists who dismiss your beliefs do so irrationally.
That's lying.
David:
The astrophysical ID theory is one explanation for the anthropic observation that the physical constants are fine tuned for life. Specifically, the constants are fine tuned because either (a) they were selected by an intelligent designer (God) or (b) the heretofore undiscovered laws that explain the values of the constants were designed (by God). A competing, naturalistic explanation is that our universe is but one of many—each with different constants rendering the vast majority of these (undectable, parallel universes) sterile.
Fair enough. However what are the physical constants that are supposedly 'fine tuned' as opposed to those constants that are not fine tuned? What evidence is there that 'undiscovered laws' simply didn't dictate those constants with no room for fine tuning at all?
Why should the competing naturalistic explanation be considered in competition? If some method of exploring alternate universes was discovered & it is confirmed that there are indeed many of them nearly all sterile would that disprove the 'astrophysical ID theory'?
To me this seems much less like a theory than a 'metaphysical speculation'. That doesn't mean it is worthless, doesn't mean it is untrue but its not a scientific theory.
It's already been shown how how the bacterial flagellum evolved (and was a great embarassment to Behe in Kitzmiller).
Indeed, I count no fewer than ten very recent scientific journals cited in the Talk Origins article you cited. I thought Joe told us evolutionists were scared to work on the bacterial flagellum....just like the Church officials were scared to look through the telescope when Gallio assured them they could see Jupiter's moons orbiting Jupiter instead of Earth. It would seem like Behe hasn't shown science the follow of using evolution to tackle the flagellum. It would seem evolution minded scientists have been happy to geek out on the flagellum in the lab.
Now what do you suppose the latest ID article on the flagellum will look like? Will it address the findings that it's not even irreducible? That parts can and have been removed from it with no loss in function? Huh? I bet 'cutting edge' ID work on the flagellum will look much the same as the original work.
This is because ID is more of a philsophy than science. In philosphy tools such as Plato's famous cave analogy can work unmodified for centuries. IDers use the flagellum not as a means for learning insights about the nature of design but as an analogy.
Boonton
but then again an obvious question is why doesn't Behe conduct this experiment himself?
Good question.
I recall Behe being asked this at trial. I think he said such experiments are a waste of time or something like that. After all, Behe already "knows" the answer just like he knows the identity of the mysterious alien being who designed all the living things that ever lived on earth (he admitted to that at trial as well).
Good question. The answer is no.
Also, the Discovery Institute spends millions of dollars on propaganda and next to zilcho on "research." Meanwhile, professional liars like Casey Luskin (a self-identifying "Christian") claim that an "intelligent design research" program exists.
All this, of course, just shows what virtually every sincere biologist who has looked into the issue already knows: "intelligent design" is an anti-science pro-religion propaganda campaign and has nothing to do with understanding a damn thing about how life on earth evolves.
In short, it's creationism with a bunch of philosophical hoo-haw stapled to it.
I see I’m too late to add anything new to what was posted over the lunch-hour, but here is an apropos quote from Judge Jones’ final opinion:
And when Joe says “I don’t think that any IDers propose that God had an end product in mind”, I’m left to wonder whether he knows what the intelligent design movement is about. Even a cursory review of the movement makes it clear that support for ID is rooted in the view that deeming humans to be the result of a random process is, at best, a grievous insult and, at worst, a rejection of God and His plan for us.
JdL,
Yes, they (the constants) are fine-tuned. The Cosmological Constant in particular. Change that, and its not that we have a different type of universe in which some other “type” of life might have arisen—we have no universe at all—no galaxies, no stars, no planets. And its value is 120 orders of magnitude smaller than expected from calculations. That is extreme fine tuning in anybody’s book, so much so that its fine-tuning (which you allege does not exist) is considered one of the outstanding problems in cosmology.
Again, you said it is well-documented that I am a liar. Unless you can provide the proof—and anything well-documented should be easy to prove—then the only conclusion is: pot-kettle-black.
Boonton,
It is a misconception that a fundamental theory explaining the constants would be bad for ID—it would actually be good for it. ID relies on the sensitivity of life to the values. For example, one extremely sensitive constant is the ratio of the electromagnetic force to the gravitational force. That sensitivity is not erased by a explanation for the ratio—the design just shifts from “picking the constants” to “picking the laws.” On the other hand, a naturalistic explanation (the string landscape) argues that there is no fundamental theory—that there are many “island” universes with essentially random draws for the constants—but since we are here we are obviously in a rare, lucky one. That explanation would be devastated by a fundamental theory that predicts the constants.
You are correct—if other universes were discovered with different constants, it would absolutely falsify ID as I’ve described it. However—those universes are, even in principle, undectable, because of General relativity.
I also agree that it (ID as I described) is not a scientific theory—in the same way the alternatives (such as the string landscape) are also not scientific theories—lacking Popperian falsifiability.
Once again Jesus get's it dead on!
But the more important point is not that Behe conduct the experiment himself or that the Discovery Institute should set aside a portion of its budget for lab work. The more important question is Why is the only example of an experiment intended to test ID provided really an experiment to test evolution?
Gallio conducted experiments that disproved Aristotle's theories of motion but he was testing his own theories. For example, the experiments that tested how fast objects of different weight fall (answer:the same speed) did not require a thousands of years old Greek theory to test against.
It's funny, if evolution didn't exist ID would have to invent it to come up even with hypothetical experiments!
This is the tip of a phenomenon by now well known to folks following fundamentalists on the internet, well, since the Usenet newsgroups. That phenomenon is of course the cavalier disregard for truth. Here's another example. This guy got a gig publishing with the "Bible Answer Man," who, as I recall, was involved in purloining others' text or something like that.
Speaking of the latter, there's this guy.
Then there's Hovind, and folks like that.
This is just the latest in a long line.
For example, one extremely sensitive constant is the ratio of the electromagnetic force to the gravitational force.
Nah, it just means that were the electromagnetic force to weaken w.r.t. the gravitational, we'd break through our chairs more often. Or at least some of them.
Yes, they (the constants) are fine-tuned. The Cosmological Constant in particular. Change that, and its not that we have a different type of universe in which some other “type” of life might have arisen—we have no universe at all—no galaxies...
Errr, ok so the evidence that the cosmological constant can even be changed?
BTW, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_Constant, seems to imply that the cosmological constant is set by other more fundamental rules such as quantum theory.
You are correct—if other universes were discovered with different constants, it would absolutely falsify ID as I’ve described it. However—those universes are, even in principle, undectable, because of General relativity.
Why would that falsify it? If a designer is powerful enough to create a customized universe why isn't he powerful enough to create an huge array of universes with all different properties? Such universes may be in principle undectable if they exist in the same 3-D space as ours...as in if you fly a few hundred billion light years north you'll jump into universe 93342.234 where C is 2% weaker. I don't believe, however, that this is how many multiverse theories view the subject. Also I do believe there has been some proposals that could at least, in principle, do some experimental testing of a multi-verse hypothesis.
I also agree that it (ID as I described) is not a scientific theory—in the same way the alternatives (such as the string landscape) are also not scientific theories—lacking Popperian falsifiability.
String theory at least appears to have the potential for finding some experiments that could directly test it. Even if not it could be developed by making predictions with it (such as predicting the properties of some type of particle) and seeing if it works. I agree that many cosmological 'theories of everything' start to skirt on the border between scientific theories and philsophy but that doesn't show ID is in their league.
Mumon asked for an example of someone who claimed that ID had been tested. I provided an example from this very thread in which Boonton claimed that “ID failed as a scientific theory” and compared ID to the claims of astrology which are “tested in a [rigorous] manner” but fails. There is your example Mumon, whether or not Boonton’s analysis is correct, I have give you an example. You are free to choose pretend it doesn’t exist but that is not my problem.
Boonton asked “Isn't it also possible to not know how many gaps there are? Isn't that a gap in itself? […] As our knowledge expands our ignorance retreats.”
Remember Socrates, who was the wisest of the Greeks simply because he knew he was a fool. I would counter your statement about the supposed retreat of ignorance by saying that as our knowledge expands, so does our knowledge of our ignorance. It’s not that more knowledge increases our ignorance and we are actually getting stupider, it’s that we are more aware of what we don’t really know. And that makes us wise.
There’s a strong parallel, I think, between the acquisition of godly virtue and the acquisition of scientific knowledge. I have noticed that the most godly people I know are paradoxically also the most humble, simply because they are more keenly aware of the dizzying gap between God’s virtue and their own. Similarly, good scientists don’t go around blowing their horn about the perfection and completeness of our collective knowledge of material phenomena (*cough* dawkins *cough*). Rather, they humbly admit their lack of knowledge, and seek answers.
Boonton,
I didn’t say it (detecting other universes) would falsify God (it wouldn’t). It would falsify ID as I described it. That is, the fine tuning is claimed as evidence for design, not as evidence for God. In other words, if other universes were detected it would falsify the narrow claim that the fine tuning of our universe is evidence for design. If other universes with other constants were discovered, then Ockham’s razor selects that the simplest explanation: that we of course are in one of the fertile ones.
You are correct, an all powerful God could create all those sterile universes—but if he did, then the habitability of this one can no longer be construed as evidence of his work.
Put another way (and this is just my view I don’t deem to speak for others): ID is not attempting to prove God, it is attempting to prove that God left behind evidence of his handiwork.
I don’t know what wikipedia says, but nobody knows why the cosmological constant is so small and yet not zero. An explanation would be of Nobel Prize significance.
I mentioned the string landscape, not string theory in general. The leading proponent of the landscape, Susskind, (an anti-IDer) admits that the theory is not falsifiable in the usual sense (of Popper) but that it might nevertheless be right. The same thing can be said about ID. If it can’t be falsified, how is it “scientifically better” than ID? Just because it comes from a Stanford professor and uses lots of equations? What makes one unfalsifiable theory in a different league from another?
I provided an example from this very thread in which Boonton claimed that “ID failed as a scientific theory” and compared ID to the claims of astrology which are “tested in a [rigorous] manner” but fails. There is your example Mumon, whether or not Boonton’s analysis is correct, I have give you an example. You are free to choose pretend it doesn’t exist but that is not my problem.
To be honest with you I don't know if ID has ever been tested. To use the baseball analogy I don't know if the reason team ID never even made it to the World Series is because they played baseball and lost or if they never even played baseball. To date I cannot recall hearing any piece of ID theory that can even be tested, such as a mechanism that determines whether or not something was 'designed' by natural forces or an intelligent agent that doesn't require you to know the answer (or think you know) ahead of time.
Since the central part of ID theory, that it can determine 'intelligently designed systems' from 'naturally designed ones' has never even been articulated in a coherent fashion I doubt it's ever been tested. I do believe some aspects of their less essential assertions against evolution have been tested. For example, the sugar experiment I described does demonstrate that the mechanisms of natural selection can 'create new information'. Something which some IDers have claimed is not possible.
I would counter your statement about the supposed retreat of ignorance by saying that as our knowledge expands, so does our knowledge of our ignorance.
This in itself seems to be a retreat of ignorance. Lack of knowledge of our ignorance is, after all, a lack of knowledge.
Going back to Darwin and DNA, by failing to specify the method of trait transmission (a gap that already existed IMO), he pointed at a gap we had previously overlooked. (Keep thinking of the painting analogy here). By pointing at it, though, he not only increased our knowledge of our ignorance but also pointed out a way we could eliminate a bit of that ignorance. So even before DNA was discovered some of our ignorance was overcome, and then more when the actual mechanism was found.
Kaffinator :
Boonton's words were:
He then went on to say something to the effect that at least astrology's claims can be tested.
He actually didn't say that "intelligent" "design" had been tested.
I used to think there was some point in reading these posts.
TennesseeSlim: I hear you. I don't bother reading most of the posts from the usual suspects. But when they say something interesting, Joe often replies, so I always read his posts. That way I get the best of both worlds. This might work for you, too.
You are correct, an all powerful God could create all those sterile universes—but if he did, then the habitability of this one can no longer be construed as evidence of his work.
OK, let's say we discover there is one other universe that happens to be sterile. Is that evidence that God created a sterile universe? What would be evidence that God did not create a sterile universe? If one didn't exist? If one does exist what would be evidence that it was created not by God (or at least not in the ID sense)?
Also you seem to put a lot of stock in the fact that this universe is habitable for creatures who fit within the parameters of this universe. This seems a lot less amazing to me. What else would one expect? Yes there are many other imaginable universes that would be horrible for us. Then again there are many, many planets and stars in this universe that are equally unsuitable for us. Seems rather unhumble to say the whole universe was made with us in mind because we are able to eck out a living on 0.000000000001% of it. Also how do you really know all those alternate universes are sterile? How do you know that life forms cannot exist in them that are based upon something other than the typical carbon based lifeforms we are familiar with? Now certainly you must have seen at least one or two Star Trek episodes where they encounter beings of 'pure energy'? :)
Also the 'small variation' argument strikes me as problematic as well.
And its value is 120 orders of magnitude smaller than expected from calculations. That is extreme fine tuning in anybody’s book, so much so that its fine-tuning (which you allege does not exist) is considered one of the outstanding problems in cosmology.
Consider when you're making a cake you can be pretty inexact. A 'dash' of a spice can differ from another cook's 'dash' by a few grams without impacting the taste of the cake. But what about when a pharamceutical company makes a drug? A fraction of a gram could easily make a drug that cures a disease into a deadly poisen.
Why is it amazing that the universe's tolerance for fiddling with its fundamental values is so tiny? It's only tiny on our human scales. 0.000000001, is a tiny number to us because we are big and clumsy. To an atom or string (if they exist) it might be more than large. It would be pretty amazing, IMO, if the universes fundamental numbers turned out to be nice and simple so that they fit easily into our numbering system.
Sorry to interrupt this pseudo-scientific/philosophical debate, but I find it interesting that opposing viewpoints cannot seem to just comment and drop it. What is the subconscious theme here? Are the implications of ID are so threatening (i.e., if God is ... the corresponding reality, heaven & hell, will be imposed upon you)?
Many comments are usually made (great comments, really, to Joe Carter's politics on abortion, judges and war), but this one really bugs some of the regular post-ers
I hear bomber pilots know when they're getting close to the target by all the flak
Boonton,
You are correct, it is not very humble, in one respect, to assume that the universe was made for us. I happen to think it was. In another respect, believing that God created the universe for humanity is actually quite humbling. Depends on how you look at it.
I don’t get your point about the sterile universe, so let me respond by making a simplified strawman. You may disagree, but this is how I see it:
Given: The existence of galaxies, stars, and rocky planets depends on the physical constants having values in narrow ranges (fine-tuning).
This “given” is not actually disputed by many physicists, these days.
Two explanations
P1) God fine tuned our universe (ID)
P2) Our universe arose from purely natural processes. The fine-tuning is an illusion: there are many universes and we are in one of the lucky ones
(There is a P3, that there is only one universe and we are just amazingly lucky, but not many people believe that anymore.) Absent any other data, in my opinion, P1 wins via Ockham’s razor. As I said, that is my opinion. However, if another universe is detected, the P2 wins out, and P1 is, in some sense, falsified.
It has nothing to do with believing or not believing that God created the other universes, it is merely a statement that, in that event, P2 is far more reasonable conclusion from the empirical data than P1.
It is amazing that this universe is habitable. First of all, it is amazing that it exists—just a tweak on the cosmological constant and everything expands too fast (no stars, planets, heavy elements) or recollapses far too soon for life to appear. Most people do agree that a universe of low density hydrogen and helium would be lifeless. You should understand that if Susskind is right, and the cosmological constant, and the strengths of the forces, and the masses of the elementary particles, are the result of a sort of random draw, then most universes will have no potential whatsoever for life.
As for life based on something other than Carbon—that is most unlikely. Most biologists would agree that life requires complex molecules—to store information. Carbon is the absolute best as a basis for complex chemistry (especially if liquid water is available). Nothing else can form as many amino acids as Carbon—and only Boron and Silicon are even close. Regardless, you are talking about something different—something like “maybe somewhere else in our universe silicon-based life exists.” Not very likely, but even so it’s only because our universe is highly privileged, and it (on a razor’s edge) produces silicon in exploding stars.
Of course, if you want to argue on the basis of what you have seen on Star Trek, then I’ll cry uncle.
I don’t know how to address your comment about “small numbers.” It demonstrates a profound misunderstanding. You should ask yourself that if the smallness of the cosmological constant were “no big deal” then why are all those famous (non ID) scientists—Weinberg, Susskind, Krauss, etc, making such a fuss about it? Wouldn’t they just dismiss it as “no big deal” given that it is exploited by the IDers?
Boonton says "I don't know if ID has ever been tested."
Well earlier you chastised Joe for rewriting history, claiming that ID failed as a scientific theory. That suggests you believe ID had been measured using some sort of test and “failed” that test. But now you are not sure which test, if any, it has ever been tried against. So how could you know whether it has failed? It sounds more to me that you just don’t like ID.
Boonton> Lack of knowledge of our ignorance is, after all, a lack of knowledge.
Yes, but we don’t “know” our ignorance the same sense that we “know” the gravitational constant or the speed of light. So you can’t sort them into the same bucket and pretend that we are actually less ignorant simply because of the knowledge that we are more ignorant than we previously suspected. It is as if every stroke of the paintbrush somehow makes the room bigger by a larger factor.
Yes we grew in knowledge when DNA was uncovered. But this merely uncovered an even greater area of our ignorance: we haven't the foggiest idea of how DNA could have come to exist. Perhaps one day we'll figure it out but I predict the explanation will leave yet another unsolved mystery in its wake.
"Well earlier you chastised Joe for rewriting history, claiming that ID failed as a scientific theory. That suggests you believe ID had been measured using some sort of test and “failed” that test."
If I may...your argument is purely semantical. Not every failure implies a test in the empirical sense. Some things are deemed failures without being verified or disproved by observation or experimentation. Diplomatic initiatives that never get off the ground provide one example.
I'm not sure what you mean by a diplomatic initiative but if it "fails to get off the ground" then it failed the "getting off the ground" test.
Boonton is saying ID lacks the overall test of coherency. But is this a failure of the theory or a failure of Boonton's to understand it?
JHadji: Are the implications of ID so threatening (i.e., if God is ... the corresponding reality, heaven & hell, will be imposed upon you)?
When speaking on the record, ID proponents are very careful to say they make no assumption about the nature of the designer. Off the record many have conceded they think the designer is God and nearly all of them are evangelical Christians.
I don't find a designer threatening but rather than such a an idea is advocated as good science to be taught in secondary schools. The USA is struggling to keep up with the rest of the world in graduating scientists and engineers — we need good science, not a political program to push bad science (i.e. Dover) on our students.
Why does ID advocate a designer rather than a group of designers? Since they are using an analogy to human activities (e.g. the watchmaker), it would seem the vast variety of things in the Universe would demand a design team with specialists: You'd have a design team for subatomic particles, another team for stars and planets, one for single-cell orgramism, one for plants, another for animals.... Heck you'd have to have project managers to coordinate it all (it's a rather large project), somebody to run extraHuman Resources, an accounting department with a budget process.... Given the bureaucracy it's looking much more like a Catholic organization than a Protestant one.
Oh, and let's not forget someone to blog about it.
"But is this a failure of the theory or a failure of Boonton's to understand it?"
My point was that "test" can mean many things, depending on context. Test usually means formal, empirical test in the context of scientific theories. When Boonton cited the failure of ID, I don't think that was what he was referring to. I think someone mentioned earlier that ID didn't pass the "laugh test". While that may be overstating the case, it is not off by much. ID lurks on the barest fringe of the scientific establishment. It is the child of creationists, not scientists.
A failure of ID much more significant than Boonton's (hypothesized) failure to understand it is its failure to pass muster in the courts. It was soundly beaten down. Besides, Boonton is a very bright fellow who, I'm sure, knows far more about ID than most of us. As far as I can tell, ID needs evolution to exist at all, since its sole targets seem to be pockets of incomplete knowledge with regard to evolutionary history, so-called "irreducible complexity".
"I hear bomber pilots know when they're getting close to the target by all the flak"
Clever analogy, but I am reminded of an episode of "All in the Family" in which Archie rationalizes his hair loss with "Grass don't grow on a busy street" to which Edith innocently replies, "Yeah, and it don't grow in concrete neitha." I bet horse traders trying to sell painted zebras at a horse show get lots of attention, too.
Looks like Joe has gone AWOL mid-discussion again.
I don't really blame him though. I wouldn't want to defend a theory I can't even articulate in the first place.
But it is ample compensation that Rob Ryan is back in fine form:
I bet horse traders trying to sell painted zebras at a horse show get lots of attention, too.
Joe has been catching a lot of flak today. But I don't think it has been undeserved.
I, for one, am kind of annoyed with his bait-and-switch: I.D. theory is scientific, and creationism isn't, but don't ask me why, and don't expect me to give you any evidence either.
His double-talk and evasions make it easy for the defenders of science to claim victory and go home. But that's not why I come here, and I suspect it's not why the other critics come here either.
We come here to engage the other side's ideas and try to reach some kind of better mutual understanding. So it's frustrating when that doesn't seem to be happening to any great degree.
Better luck next time, Mr. Carter. In any case, it is better to have tried and failed, then never to have attempted a dialogue in the first place. Thanks for trying.
I hate to burst the bubble but this is nonsense. There is no way to assign probabilities to these statements. When you say P3 is that we are amazingly lucky you are implying a probability. Wow, I won the lottery two days in a row. That's lucky because the probability of winning even once is so slim. But seriously how are you assigning probabilities to P1, P2 and P3 in any objective fashion? It's nothing more than what you happen to feel. What's the chance of P3? 5%? 1%? 0.00000001%?
Given: The existence of galaxies, stars, and rocky planets depends on the physical constants having values in narrow ranges (fine-tuning).
Or galaxies, stars and rocky planets are the consquences of certain physical constants having certain values. If you have other values you get other types of things which may or may not seem 'sterile' to you when compared to the universe you know and love.
It is amazing that this universe is habitable. First of all, it is amazing that it exists—just a tweak on the cosmological constant and everything expands too fast (no stars, planets, heavy elements) or recollapses far too soon for life to appear. Most people do agree that a universe of low density hydrogen and helium would be lifeless. You should understand that if Susskind is right, and the cosmological constant, and the strengths of the forces, and the masses of the elementary particles, are the result of a sort of random draw, then most universes will have no potential whatsoever for life.
I already addressed the 'tweak'. What's a tweak to you might be the difference between night and day. Now where do you get that the cosmological constant, the various force strengths, and masses of the elementary particles are the result of a random draw? What possible experiment or observation leads to that conclusion.
As for life based on something other than Carbon—that is most unlikely. Most biologists would agree that life requires complex molecules—to store information. Carbon is the absolute best as a basis for complex chemistry (especially if liquid water is available). Nothing else can form as many amino acids as Carbon—and only Boron and Silicon are even close. Regardless, you are talking about something different—something like “maybe somewhere else in our universe silicon-based life exists.” Not very likely, but even so it’s only because our universe is highly privileged, and it (on a razor’s edge) produces silicon in exploding stars.
Really? Most unlikely? How much is that? You've deeply missed the point. First of all I was speaking to your vision of 'sterile universes'. You make that judgement by noting that different parameters would not result in the galaxies, stars, planets, and atoms that we have in our universe. But how do you know that whatever would exist in a universe with different parameters couldn't spawn alternate types of life? How do you know a universe that looks like nothing but a cloud of elementary praticles isn't holding some type of life based on rules totally different than our type of life? Certainly you have not calculated the probability of that or calculated all type of reactions that could take place under alternate rules of physics.
Well earlier you chastised Joe for rewriting history, claiming that ID failed as a scientific theory. That suggests you believe ID had been measured using some sort of test and “failed” that test. But now you are not sure which test, if any, it has ever been tried against. So how could you know whether it has failed? It sounds more to me that you just don’t like ID.
"Joe Carter never played on a baseball team that won the World Series". Now I know that statement is true. I do not know if Joe Carter ever played baseball. He might have but he did not play good enough to go professional & if he did he was not good enough to make it to the top. If he never picked up the bat or put on a glove then obviously that statement remains true as well.
So if the name of the game is to play in the World Series isn't that statement the more important? Or do you agree that ID is a failed theory and now you want to conduct an academic debate as to why it failed?
More seriously the refusal of ID advocates to tell us what they are really advocating makes it difficult to answer how much of ID's failure is due to it never getting off the ground asa a viable theory and how much of it is due to its claims simply failing to stand up. AS Joe demonstrated, when pressed ID advocates seem like they would rather speak more about evolution science than their own. So in that case I'll leave it to you to tell me if the sugar experiment I described was a test of ID where ID failed, a test of evolution which passed, or both.
Yes we grew in knowledge when DNA was uncovered. But this merely uncovered an even greater area of our ignorance: we haven't the foggiest idea of how DNA could have come to exist. Perhaps one day we'll figure it out but I predict the explanation will leave yet another unsolved mystery in its wake.
Perhaps. I do think that fields can become exhausted. At some point you learn so much about something that all that's left are relatively unimportant things. Given enough time will we really always have that much more to keep learning about the physical world or will we start to exhaust it? I guess your guess is as good as mine.
Boonton is saying ID lacks the overall test of coherency. But is this a failure of the theory or a failure of Boonton's to understand it?
Well if I'm correct in that it lacks overall coherency then I'm never going to really understand it and neither will you nor anyone else. Right? :)
Seriously if anyone wants to try explaining what I'm not understanding about ID please do it. Joe seems to like doing that a lot...I just don't understand. OK so explain it.