This is a guest post by Jordan Mallon and is the fifth in our series on “Evangelicals and Evolution: A Student Perspective”. Jordan is a Ph.D. student at the University of Calgary where he is studying the evolutionary palaeoecology of the Late Cretaceous herbivorous dinosaurs from Alberta.
The transition from young earth creationism to a position that reconciles evolution and faith doesn’t occur abruptly. It’s a process that takes time and usually proceeds by the gradual piecing together of concepts and information. This was certainly the case for me. When I was growing up, I sympathized with young earth creationism as taught by the conservative Lutheran church I attended. Now I research and teach evolutionary science at the university level, but only after a prolonged period of soul-searching and careful study during my post-secondary education. My theology of nature is still incomplete, but the clarifying concepts introduced below helped to deconstruct the barriers that often polarize the evolution-creation ‘debate’ and allowed me to gradually formulate what I consider a more integrated view of science and faith. Hopefully, these concepts will help other students in their struggle to harmonize evolution and evangelical Christianity.
1) Agency and Mechanism in Creation
The word ‘creationism’ is understood by many evangelical Christians to refer to the miraculous and instantaneous creation of life by God. This view is prevalent and has pigeonholed many of us into confusing agency for mechanism. That is, the act of creating becomes needlessly associated with divine intervention. The corollary is that any explanation for life’s diversity that doesn’t appeal to miracles, such as evolution, is assumed to somehow exclude God’s creative agency. Evolution is often described by believers and non-believers alike as ‘godless’.
This conflation is unfortunate because the Bible teaches that even natural processes, such as weather, are under God’s control (e.g., Lev 26:4; Deut 11:14; 1 Sam 12:18; Job 5:10, 37:6; Ps 135:7, 147:8). More to the point, we are each called a creation of God (Ps 139:14) despite the fact that human conception and development proceeds by entirely natural processes. The Bible’s distinction between agency and mechanism therefore allows God to exercise His creativity using the laws of nature He instilled at the beginning of creation. In this sense, creationism doesn’t preclude evolution at all! I liken evolution to the Lutheran doctrine of the Real Presence, in which God is “in, with, and under” the natural processes that produce biodiversity on Earth.
2) Methodological and Ontological Naturalism
If evolution were truly godless because it does not invoke divine intervention, then the same argument would necessarily apply to all of science because the scientific method excludes all appeals to the supernatural. Miracles, by definition, can’t be measured or explained and therefore they do not further our knowledge about how the universe works. Sir Isaac Newton once believed that the stability of our solar system was due to the miraculous intervention of God, but the French astronomer Pierre-Simon Laplace later showed that the stability could be explained entirely through the natural laws of gravity.
It’s important to note, however, that the preclusion of miracles from science is only done in practice. Science cannot comment on whether or not miracles happen, or whether or not God exists; science is neutral on these matters. God may perform miracles every day, but for the reasons given above, the scientific method simply can’t detect them. The search for natural processes that operate in the universe is called methodological naturalism. The atheistic belief that there’s no God and that the natural world is all that exists is called ontological naturalism. The former is perfectly in line with Christian principles, but the latter, obviously, is not.
3) Accommodation and Concordism
If there’s nothing inherently atheistic about the scientific theory of evolution, why do so many evangelicals oppose it so strongly? The answer in large part has to do with the assumptions we bring to the scriptures. Evangelicalism, under the influence of fundamentalism, has promoted the idea that in order to take the Bible seriously, we must believe that it provides a literal and accurate description of the physical universe. That is, God revealed to the authors of Scripture scientific facts about the universe that could not otherwise have been known to them at the time. This assumption is known as scientific concordism. A concordist interpretation of the Genesis creation accounts obviously does not leave room for evolution.
In spite of the popularity of concordism as it pertains to Genesis, history shows that it’s a largely unwarranted assumption. At various points in the past, prominent Christian scholars used the Bible to support numerous outdated ideas about science, most notably geocentrism (e.g., Jos 10:12; 1 Sam 2:8; 1 Chr 16:30; Job 38:4; Ps 19:4–6, 24:2, 50:1, 93:1, 96:10, 104:5; Ecc 1:5; Hab 3:11). These ideas have since fallen by the wayside in light of scientific knowledge, and Christians now read these parts of the Bible in a different way. Rather than blindly insisting that our understanding of the physical world must accord with a literal interpretation of these passages, we now appreciate that God sometimes accommodates His message to the limitations of human understanding. The sun may not literally rotate about the earth as the Bible describes, but it certainly appeared that way to the earth-bound Hebrew people of the Old Testament. The principle of accommodation is the understanding that God spoke to the authors of Scripture using language and imagery with which they were familiar. Many Christians now feel that, given the previous shortcomings of concordism, the Genesis creation account might likewise be better understood as an accommodation of God’s timeless message to the culture of the ancient Hebrew people. If that’s indeed the case, then accepting evolution may be no more heretical than accepting that the earth goes around the sun!
Further Reading
The concepts introduced above are obviously interrelated and merit much lengthier discussions than given in this essay, but time and space prevent further elaboration. I’ll offer instead a few relevant resources that helped shape my thoughts here. Stephen Godfrey and Christopher Smith’s co-authored book Paradigms on Pilgrimage dedicate a couple helpful chapters to exploring more fully the concepts of agency and mechanism, and methodological and ontological naturalism. Denis Lamoureux’s books Evolutionary Creation and I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution similarly provide a thorough discussion of the principles of accommodation and concordism. All the various concepts considered here are connected in Keith Miller’s edited volume Perspectives on an Evolving Creation. Steve Martin tells a similar story to mine in a blog post here. Be sure to also see Steve’s selected bibliography for more resources about the relationship between science and faith.
Monday 16 November 2009
Clarifying Concepts in the Creation-Evolution Dialogue
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
57 comments:
Thanks Jordan. My experience is that #3 is the biggest stumbling block ie. until evangelicals can understand that a high view of scripture does not necessarily require a concordist approach, conversations on #1 and #2 are not that productive. But that might be just my limited experience. I think you've had more "front line" experience than I on this. What do you think?
Good job! We're not quite on the same page about concordism, but I think you have done a tremendous job in outlining the important difference between methodological and metaphysical (ontological) naturalism, as well as highlighting the fact that God's control of mechanism is entirely biblical. My slightly differing view (though I love and deeply respect Steve, of course) is that discussions about #1 and #2 are indeed fruitful, providing a bridge between unnecessarily opposing camps in the evangelical world. Thanks for a great contribution.
Thanks for the comments so far, guys.
Steve, I agree that #3 is probably the biggest stumbling block for most Christians. Indeed, it was the missing piece of the puzzle for me. Once I came to appreciate the difference between concordism and accommodationism, everything just sort of clicked. Finally, an honest way of accounting for the scientific shortcomings of the Bible that still maintains a high view of its purpose!
Dr. Embree, could you please kindly and briefly explain how your understanding of accommodationism differs from my own? I've read some of your posts elsewhere, but don't remember coming across that.
By the way, I just want to send out a quick thanks to my friends Frank V. and Denis L. for their editorial comments on my essay, which helped to strengthen my arguments. And to you, too, Steve!
Accommodate. You don't mean "This part of the bible doesn't make sense so let's ignore it" do you? So which parts do we trust to be accurate, Gen 6? Gen 12? Exodus? Kings? Matthew? Acts? This seems like a slippery slope to me.
Hi Marlowe:
Maybe I overstated it a bit (although I did add the qualifier that this was "my experience"). Personally I find the discussions on #1 and #2 much more interesting (and certainly productive and fruitful). I also find that discussions on #1 and #2 with those who conflate agency & mechanism as well as the different types of naturalism don't seem to go anywhere since their minds are made up that "evolution contradicts the bible". ie. Discussions on #1 and #2 become simply theoretical duals rather than real dialogue since #3 is the real showstopper. But maybe your point is that #1 and #2 are "showstoppers" as well and we need to build all three bridges - & not necessarily in sequential order. Is that what you mean?
Jim: Need to run right now, but suffice to say we ECs have good reasons why we believe a) the history of the Gospels is very accurate and b) at the same time that Gen 1-3 or even 1-11 does not accurately reflect history. (Note also that, many ECs disagree on my statement b).
"This seems like a slippery slope to me"
Hi Jim, This is a slippery slope only if you see it like that. I personally see it as being truer to the scripture. You see, you shouldn't see the bible as a whole but instead as a collection of books and each book should be studied/read as a unit. To read Genesis and Psalms for example as if they both are identical would be a major mistake which ignores the nature of either books. The clue for Genesis is in its name, Beresheet in hebrew whcih means beginnings, it's purpose is to show the beginings of the people of israel...
The gospel then are different as they introduce Jesus, and each gospel should be studied independent of each other. This is not a pick and mix approach to the bible but instead a respectful approach to what it is and what is not, (one single book).
Hi Jim: I certainly don't advocate ignoring any part of the Bible, nor do I think recognizing a particular passage as non-historical amounts to as much. A passage can still retain meaning without necessarily being historical. Christ's parables come to mind.
I should also point out that the principle of accommodation is not unique to evolutionary creationism, and so the accusation that it is a slippery slope isn't a problem unique to EC, either. Do you believe the sun really moves about the earth as the Bible says, or do you believe this is an accommodation to the earth-bound perspective of man? If the latter, does it necessarily follow that Christ's resurrection was non-historical, too? I don't think so. Daniel o is right: The meaning of every passage must be discerned from its grammatical and historical context so that no one hermeneutic applies to the Bible as a whole.
Jordan: Wasn't the outcome of your "search" sort of pre-ordained in the sense that had you come to any other conclusion about the nature of the Genesis record it would have been the death knell of your career. Mainstream science does not look kindly on scientists who do not hold to the accepted narrative (witness Michael Behe's experience).
Also, you mention books that helped formulate your position. I assume that you investigated the other side? Behe: "The Edge of Evolution" and "Darwin's Black Box." Philip Johnson: "Darwin on Trial," etc. etc.
Thanks for commenting on my essay, Merf. With regards to your first point, I disagree that "mainstream science does not look kindly on scientists who do not hold to the accepted narrative". As evidenced by previous scientific revolutions (heliocentrism, atomic theory, extinction, etc.), the status quo will change so long as there is evidence to the contrary. If I could show that the scientific evidence really does support a literal, historical Genesis, I have little doubt that scientists would come to accept that. But the fact of the matter is that the evidence supports evolution rather than miraculous creation in six days. There is certainly no conspiracy, if that's what you're implying.
Re: your second question, I have indeed read those works and I reject them on the basis of their poor scholarship. Behe's arguments for irreducible complexity were each refuted by Ken Miller in his book Finding Darwin's God, and Johnson's arguments were refuted by Denis Lamoureux in their co-authored book Darwinism Defeated? I should point out that even if I were to accept their arguments, Behe and (I think) Johnson do not accept the historicity of Genesis 1 and 2.
Jordan, thanks for the exposition. If I am not mistaken, Hugh Ross and the Reasons to Believe folks hold to a concordist thought. I think that is the primary reason that he does not accept evolution. My understanding of concordism has led me to reject it as being an inaccurate view of scripture, perhaps as inacccurate as that espoused by the young earth creation movement. Merf, I have to agree with Jordan about the ID books that you mentioned. Phillip Johnson's book, in particular, does a very poor job of addressing either the fossil record or evolutionary theory. As a matter of fact, that is a peculiar thing about many of the ID researchers: they persistently misunderstand evolution or mischaracterize its arguments.
The "baby with the bathwater" slipper slope argument is a strong one among evangelicals. My wife even adheres to it sometimes in our argu...er, conversations about the subject. Such an argument assumes that the entire Bible is to be read in exactly the same way, however. I do not think that this is either scripturally or scientifically defensible.
Jordan, do you know off top of your head where Philip Johnson denies the historicity of Genesis 1 and 2? I don't remember reading that.
Hi Jim: I don't recall reading Johnson's position on origins elsewhere. He seems more intent on slagging evolution than stating where he stands. I assume he rejects Genesis as historical given his affiliation with Behe and the Discovery Institute, and given the way he distances himself from YECs. I believe he also subscribes to the idea of the Cambrian Explosion, which precludes YECism. I could be wrong, though.
Philip Johnson's book did not set out to address the fossil record (or rather the lack thereof). He probably did not feel the need to do so since Stephen Gould has admitted that primary word to describe the fossil record is stasis.
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:
"Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks." - Stephen Gould
Evolution happened too fast to be seen in the fossil record, yet too slow to be seen in one person's life. Sounds like the emperor has no clothes to me.
Hi Murf,
Welcome. I suspect that Jordan will have further comment on this (it is his area of interest) but I'm wondering if you've had a chance to review some of the responses to the "no transitional forms" assertion? Two highly readable essays from Evangelical scientists are two sections in Kieth Miller's Perspectives on an Evolving Creation - chapter 7 and 8 directly address your concerns.
Also, you may want to check out the CC200 and CC300 sections of Index of Creationists Claims for some other counter arguments.
Murf, both of your quote-mines are almost 30 years old. Are you interesting in discussing the innumerable transitional fossils that have been discovered since then? Or how even when Gould make those comments he clarified (after being misqouted many times) that the fossil record still had a great many transitional fossils that provide solid evidence for macroevolution?
If you are going to claim that the fossil record yields no transitional fossils then you are either ignorant (and that is no problem as everyone is ignorant about lots of things, and it is something that can be remedied) or you are being deliberately deceitful.
As has been pointed out, Keith Miller's works are very good (even though they themselves are a little out of date too, due to the fact that the number of transitional fossils grows at such a rapid pace);
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1997/PSCF12-97Miller2.html
For anyone wanting a more complete and up-to-date assessment of the fossil record as modern paleontologists understand it read Donald Prothero's 'Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters'.
Murf, if you say that the trade secret of palaeontology is that there is rarity in transitional forms, you need to back that statement up because I can guaran-DANG-tee you that there are thousands of transitional fossils out there. I can think of dozens of fossils within the human fossil record ALONE that show transitional characters. Geologically, many of these species show up in the blink of an eye but in reality, they appear over the course of thousands of generations. In fact, it was my study of human palaeontology that convinced me BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that evolution has and is happening.
Even Gould and Eldredge never argued that evolution didn't happen. They argued that it proceeded in fits and spurts followed by periods of stasis. This is exactly what you would expect over the course of the life of a species as the environment changed around it.
Ironically, the punk-eek position was not new with them. The brilliant George Gaylord Simpson showed in the 1940s that evolution in many different forms was not always slow and steady but went through times of rapid change. And, speaking of Gould, if you read a bit more, he says this:
“In my field of evolutionary biology, the most prominent urban legend —another ‘truth’ known by ‘everyone’—holds that evolution may well be the way of the world, but one has to accept the idea with a dose of faith because the process occurs far too slowly to yield any observable result in a human life-time. Thus, we can document evolution from the fossil record and infer the process from the taxonomic relationships of living species, but we cannot see evolution on human timescales ‘in the wild.’ In fairness, we professionals must shoulder some of the blame for this utterly false impression about evolution's invisibility in the here and now of everyday human life. Darwin himself — thought he knew and emphasized many cases of substantial changes in human time (including the development of breeds in his beloved pigeons — tended to wax eloquent about the inexorable and stately slowness of natural evolution. In a famous passage from The Origin of Species, he even devised a striking metaphor about clocks to underscore the usual invisibility:
[Begin Darwin quote] It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, through out the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and invisibly working…We see nothing of theses slow changes in progress until the hand of time has marked the long lapse of ages.[End Darwin quote]
“Nonetheless, the claim that evolution must be too slow to see can only rank as an urban legend — though not a completely harmless tale in this case, for our creationists incubi can then use the fallacy as an argument against evolution at any scale, and many folks take them seriously because they just ‘know’ that evolution can never be seen in the immediate here and now. In fact, a completely opposite situation actually prevails: biologists have documented a veritable glut of cases for rapid and eminently measurable evolution on timescales of years and decades.”
— "The Paradox of the Visibly Irrelevant," The Lying Stones of Marrakech, New York: Harmony Books, 2000, pp. 334-335.
Sorry for the long quote but it is instructive. Gould gets misquoted a bunch!
Hi Murf (sorry for misspelling your name earlier): In trying to understand Eldredge and Gould's punctuated equilibrium model and what it predicts about the existence of transitional fossils, I think it's first important to understand Darwin's original evolutionary model and what he predicted about transitional fossils.
Picture evolution as the addition of blue paint droplets to a bucket of pure yellow paint. Darwin envisioned evolution as the addition of blue droplets one-by-one, slowly accumulating change and gradually (but constantly) transforming the bucket from yellow to green. If evolution truly occurred in such a fashion, then at no one point would there be either a stasis in colour (or body shape, by analogy) or a sudden shift in colour (or body shape, again). This model predicts a spectrum from yellow to green with all shades (or shapes) in between.
In the face Darwin's prediction, Eldredge and Gould noted that, in fact, stasis is the norm in the fossil record, where one recognizable body shape arises, persists for hundreds of thousands or even a few million years, and is replaced by another, slightly different body shape. Change appears to occur rapidly, indeed, much more rapidly than the fossil record can normally document (this is called the 'epistemological gap'). This isn't to say that there are no transitional fossils, only fewer than what was predicted by Darwin's gradualistic model. Getting back to the paint bucket analogy, the blue paint appears to be added ten drops at a time, rather than one-by-one. And we see this kind of rapid speciation happening in nature today (check out this article just released yesterday: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/speciation-in-action). The reason speciation occurs rapidly is due to what G. G. Simpson called a 'genetic revolution', where a sub-population becomes reproductively isolated (let's say, via geographic isolation) and quickly establishes a new shape of its own, given the reduced gene pool. The point is: the rarity of transitional fossils (relative to Darwin's prediction) is exactly what we should expect to see given what we know about how speciation occurs today. Speciation simply doesn't occur slowly and gradually, as Darwin predicted. It occurs in a geological blink of an eye, and we can see that happening today. Still, fossils with shapes that are transitional between genera, families, orders, and even phyla are recognizable if we broaden our scope.
I should also point out that evolution can be inferred even without the use of fossils. All living species exhibit an array of characteristics that form a nested hierarchy (e.g., all furry animals have four legs, but not all four-legged animals have fur; all four-legged animals have backbones, but not all backboned animals have four legs; all backboned animals have bilateral symmetry, but not all bilaterally symmetrical animals have backbones, etc.). This pattern is predicted only by descent with modification (evolution).
Anyhow, the details of evolution are documented in thousands of textbooks and I'm not here to discuss that. It'd be great if we could get back to the relationship between evolution and evangelical faith.
Jimpithecus,
What transitional fossils are there showing gradual changes from one phylum to another? Or from one class to another?
Why do we not see any ancestors to the Cambrian fossils, but instead find the soft-bodied Ediacara fossils?
Murf, there are more than two dozen different forms of Cretaceous theropods that have evolved feathers, one of which gave rise to modern birds. You have Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Iberomesornis, Patagopteryx, the Hesperornithiformes, the Ichthyornithiformes and others.
From reptiles to mammals, you have forms like Dimetrodon in the Late Permian, through the Anomodontia (five known genera), theriodontia (2 known genus), through the Cynodontia (9 known genus) then on to mammals. The changes include reorientation of the limbs as well as changes in the skull.
Recently, there was a discovery of a frogamander which, while not a class level transition, shows the split between salamanders and frogs.
The ape/human split is probably only a bit earlier than Ardipithecus ramidus, which shows tremendous transitional charateristics.
If you need more info, go to some of the sites I recommended earlier on this blog. Here is site that is somewhat dated (1997) but still has good information for the time. Since then hundreds of fossils have been discovered, including many of the feathered dinosaurs.
pds, if it's phylum-level evolution you're interested in, you should check out the following essays by Glenn Morton:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cambevol.htm
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF3-01Morton.html
... and the following book by invert palaeontologist James Valentine:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=DMBkmHm5fe4C&lpg=PP1&dq=On%20the%20Origin%20of%20Phyla&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Jordan, I recently read what I thought to be a very good paper on the early chapters of Genesis called Understanding the Biblical Creation Passages by Paul Marston. He argues, quite persuasively I think, that neither the YEC reading or the concordist reading of the scripture is warranted. it is a bit lengthy but worth the read.
Thanks, Jimpithecus. I'll be sure to give it a read shortly.
Jordan wrote: "There is certainly no conspiracy, if that's what you're implying."
No, I was not implying a conspiracy, although when it comes to so-called global warming, if these exchange of emails are true, there appears to have been.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked#63657
This is a must read. Thanks.
Hi Jordan,
If Benjamin B. Warfield, one of the greatest adherents of Biblical Infallibility, could accept Darwinian evolution, then I certainly won't raise any Biblical objections to it, either.
However, I will raise objections to your view that science cannot detect the supernatural, or at least design.
I think the best explanation for the origin of life is that it was intelligently designed. This is not just because there is no good non-intelligent theory (and there certainly isn't). It's because we now know enough to say that the workings of even the simplest cell resemble highly advanced nanotechnology. Insisting that it must have come about through some non-intelligent means is mere philosophical obscurantism. The evidence is insufficient to determine whether the designer was God or some natural agent. But the evidence is sufficient to say that the first cells were designed.
In addition, not only Lynn Margulis, but now also Carl Woese, reject the Modern Synthesis as being able to explain the bulk of evolution. They offer naturalistic explanations -- symbiogenesis and horizontal gene transfer. But I think both would accept Behe's criticisms of neo-Darwinism in his books, Darwin's Black Box and The Edge of Evolution, even though they would reject his solution of intelligent design.
If non-believing scientists of such stature can reject neo-Darwinism, why must you insist that believers accept it?
Hi Murf,
Not sure I agree that those emails show anything close to a conspiracy. But I’m not sure I understand how GW (or lack thereof) has anything to do with the OP or the discussion that follows. Can you explain the connection?
Bilbo: I don’t think any EC would insist that life “must have come about through some non-intelligent means”. In fact, we absolutely insist that life came about through a very specific intelligent being – the God revealed through the written Scriptures and the Word made flesh.
So you, I, and all other Christians (creationists of all stripes) agree that God did it. We also agree that there is currently no good scientific explanation for the first appearance of life. Where you and I probably disagree, is whether science can ever provide an adequate description of HOW God created the initial life forms on earth. I think you are pretty confident that this explanation will never be provided, and in fact that it has been demonstrated that science can NEVER provide this explanation. For me, I’ll simply say “I don’t know” ie. I am pretty skeptical of both the "Life began by mechanism X" and the "No mechanism will ever be found" claims. And theologically I'm not sure I have a whole lot of investment in either camp.
But the salient point here (I think) , aren't you conflating agency with mechanism - ie. Jordan’s point #1?
Steve wrote: "Where you and I probably disagree, is whether science can ever provide an adequate description of HOW God created the initial life forms on earth."
I don't think science can show that God had anythng to do with the creation of the universe or of the initial life forms. But I think science can show that the best explanation is that both were intelligently designed.
"But the salient point here (I think) , aren't you conflating agency with mechanism - ie. Jordan’s point #1?"
No. Jordan's point was that it is not theologically important whether God created life directly or indirectly. I agree. My objections are that Jordan thinks that it is illegitimate for science to conclude that the first life forms were intelligently designed, and that believers should accept neo-Darwinism. -- Bilbo (my password isn't working).
Hi Bilbo,
Ok. Now I think I understand what you mean. Although, I must point out that Jordan never mentioned “intelligent design” or “neo-Darwinism” at all in his OP. And both of these require careful definition. Depending on the definition I have accepted “intelligent design” and rejected “neo-Darwinism”, but have been accused of the exact opposite conclusions when I explain myself more carefully.
But rather than go through these definitions (somewhat off topic), lets get back to Jordan’s point on which I think we at least partially agree. Consider the following two statements:
1. It is theologically acceptable for orthodox Christians to believe that God created initial life indirectly (roughly chemical evolution)
2. It is theologically acceptable for orthodox Christians to believe that God created the diversity of life from this initial life indirectly (roughly biological evolution)
I believe Jordan’s main point was #2 but #1 was probably also implied. I suspect that most evangelicals would answer “No” to both of these statements, at least as an initial reaction. My understanding is that you would answer “Yes” to both. Is that correct? Now consider two further statements.
3. It is theologically unacceptable for orthodox Christians to believe that God created initial life directly (ie. The science of chemical evolution is theologically mandatory)
4. It is theologically unacceptable for orthodox Christians to believe that God created the diversity of life from this initial life directly (ie. The science of biological evolution is theologically mandatory)
This is what I’ve heard many ID proponents accuse TE proponents of promoting.
And guess what, they may be right in many circumstances.
But this is not my view, nor Jordan’s (see his mention of miracles), nor the vast majority of evangelical ECs. Of course God could have created “directly” in some circumstances, and indeed he may have (ie. no “non-supernatural mechanism” can ever be found). But this is not theologically necessary nor theologically prohibited.
Now, I suspect that you and I (and most ECs) agree on the answers to 1-4 (ie. yes, yes, no, no) even though many Evangelicals will answer “no” to all four. However, I think in your comment re: neo-darwinism you are implying that Jordan is saying yes to #4. Is this correct? Maybe I misunderstood.
So let’s consider two final statements:
5. It is theologically preferable for orthodox Christians to believe that God created initial life indirectly
6. It is theologically preferable for orthodox Christians to believe that God created the diversity of life from this initial life indirectly
My current personal answer to both is: “Well maybe, leaning towards yes, but this is a very interesting discussion and I’m interested in hearing all sides of the dialogue & open to changing my mind”.
Hi Steve,
We agree: Yes to 1 and 2. No to 3 and 4.
You write: "However, I think in your comment re: neo-darwinism you are implying that Jordan is saying yes to #4. Is this correct? Maybe I misunderstood."
I understand Jordan to be conflating science's inability to detect miracles (God intervening in nature) with science's inability to detect intelligent design. I would agree with Jordan that science cannot determine whether God has intervened (though it may be able to determine that something outside of our universe has intervened). But I think science may, and in the case of the origin of life, and probably in its evolution has detected intelligent design.
You write: "So let’s consider two final statements:
5. It is theologically preferable for orthodox Christians to believe that God created initial life indirectly
6. It is theologically preferable for orthodox Christians to believe that God created the diversity of life from this initial life indirectly "
See, this is exactly what we should not be asking. If we do, then we are placing theological considerations above science.
This is what Francis Collins did in his book, where he essentially offers a deistic argument against ID: God wouldn't need to intervene in His perfect creation. But we have no idea what God's intentions were! Did God mean for nature to be able to eventually come up with life? Or did God mean for nature to come up with the ingredients for life, awaiting further direct creative acts by God, much like a master chef would first make sure the kitchen has all the ingredients needed before creating the grand feast. Or much like a farmer making sure the soil is properly prepared, before planting the seed.
So by asking whether it is preferable that God created indirectly, we are tempted to bypass science. And that is what I accuse ECs and TEs of doing. I also accuse YECs and OECs of doing the same thing. Benjamin B. Warfield, proponent and defender of Biblical Infallibility, made room for science and theology to co-exist. I ask that ECs, TEs, YECs, and OECs to do the same.
Bilbo, You write:
I understand Jordan to be conflating science's inability to detect miracles (God intervening in nature) with science's inability to detect intelligent design. I would agree with Jordan that science cannot determine whether God has intervened (though it may be able to determine that something outside of our universe has intervened). But I think science may, and in the case of the origin of life, and probably in its evolution has detected intelligent design.
Given the nature of science and the limits that are imposed on it (it can only construct testable hypotheses on the known universe) how would it be possible to detect intelligent design? I remember when I read Hugh Ross' The Fingerprint of God I was struck by the power of his post hoc argument. But that doesn't change the fact that its a post hoc argument. Science simply cannot tell us these things and if we continue to conflate the scientific enterprise with theology or demand that our science match our theology, we are destine for failure and we are in danger of developing (as Michael Dowd puts it) "flat earth religion." I think we just enjoy God's creation and use science to try to understand it.
Hi Bilbo,
This is a good discussion. As I commented in the past, I think a dialogue between Evangelical ECs and Evangelical ID proponents who accept common descent could be really helpful (noting up front that it is doubtful we'll find agreement on everything .. but the discussion would be helpful).
So first: I agree that my statements 5 and 6 are not articulated very well at all (that’s why I like blogs – getting critical comments is helpful), and agree with your point that we shouldn’t conduct science to suit our theology.
Maybe what I should have said is that I personally find the theologies of a (mostly) non-interventionalist God (eg. Polkinghorne, George Murphy) more preferable and helpful & more coherent given what we know from science and from the bible. On the other hand, I do not (as some TEs / ECs may do) say that Design detectability is impossible – I’m just not sure how that would be done. And I really don’t think that it has been demonstrated yet (although, to be fair, I’ve only read a smattering of ID literature – eg. Darwin’s Black Box).
Re: Collins book, I don’t agree that his argument is Deistic. It is interesting that ECs & ID proponents both lob the “Deism” bomb at eachother – I commented on this briefly in my post The Dangers of a Designer God. Also, I posted some of my own thoughts on ID a couple of years ago in a post entitled An Evangelical Approach to Intelligent Design (even mentioning an article on telicthoughts by Mike Gene).
Steve: "Maybe what I should have said is that I personally find the theologies of a (mostly) non-interventionalist God (eg. Polkinghorne, George Murphy) more preferable and helpful & more coherent given what we know from science and from the bible."
Yes, this is a better way of stating it. Since legitimate Biblical interpretations allow for interventionist or non-interventionist views, we should allow science to help us pick the best interpretation. Right now I think science would favor at least some intervention by God.
"On the other hand, I do not (as some TEs / ECs may do) say that Design detectability is impossible – I’m just not sure how that would be done. And I really don’t think that it has been demonstrated yet (although, to be fair, I’ve only read a smattering of ID literature – eg. Darwin’s Black Box)."
I think design detection in biology is done the way design detection is done in any other field. Do we know of a non-design explanation? Does a non-design explanation even seem remotely plausible? Does the phenomenon resemble something that is designed? How closely does it resemble something that is designed? Do we have knowledge of a plaubible designer? In the case of biology, this last question is one that science doesn't have an answer to. But as believers, we know of at least one plausible designer.
"Re: Collins book, I don’t agree that his argument is Deistic."
Then I would be interested in your response to this:
http://telicthoughts.com/collins-deistic-hangover/
I'll look at your references when I get the chance.
I read your other articles. The debate on the validity and value of natural theology has a long tradition. My only point is that if the evidence indicates design, then could we at least acknowledge it? Do we have to ignore it or deny it, just because we're afraid of natural theology? I don't understand the problem. Meanwhile, the great atheist cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle had no problem acknowledging intelligent design in biology. Why should we? Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, was willing to hypothesize that the first cells on Earth had been sent here by rocket ship from some other planet, because he thought the time to originate life on Earth was too short. But we shouldn't entertain the view that God actually directly created it? Am I the only one who sees a problem here?
Hi Steve,
I'm just wondering if your silence means that you agree that Collins' argument is Deistic.
Hi Bilbo,
I think it would be dangerous to assume silence means assent in most circumstances (here in Canada there has been quite the uproar about “negative option marketing”); and this is particularly true with this blog. My responses are sometimes delayed because a) I often get very busy and don’t get back to my blog for a day or two (or even longer on rare occasions) and b) sometimes I need to think about my answer because I have to read something else first or c) I need to think about my answer because I’m learning something new from other bloggers. In this case, although a) was the primary factor, it might be a combination of all three. So, apologies for the delay and apologies in advance for future delays because there will be more than a few of them …. (See, I’m really Canadian … we say sorry for everything :-) )
Re: is Collins argument Deistic? Um, I read your article and I think you might be conflating two different things here. I agree that Collins objection to ID is possibly similar to objections to ID of some Deists. And I think I agree this isn’t necessarily a great objection – I like your analogy of a chef – hadn’t seen that before – something to chew on. BUT, just because his objection is similar to deism, doesn’t mean at all that he himself subscribes to deism. (I can probably think of many specific ideas in which I’m in agreement with YEC proponents, others where I’m in agreement with atheists, and others where I’m in agreement with process theologians but that does not in any way mean I agree with any of these positions as a whole). Again, per my Polkinghorne quote article above, please see why the (common) ID criticism of EC/TE as deistic is absolutely unwarranted.
Re: natural theology. You are right. Really long tradition and we really can’t go too deep here. In the earlier post I said that “I believe that the ID movement is potentially dangerous to Christian theology because of its focus on natural theology”. Two crucial words: “potentially” and “focus”.
Potentially: if we understand the danger, than it can be avoided. But, it is not clear to me that many Evangelicals in the ID movement understand the danger.
Focus: This is the problem – when we start with natural theology, we can end up with all sorts of very non-orthodox views of God (eg. Enlightenment thinkers). As Christians, the foundation of our theology should be the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Christ. That’s where theology should start. We need to have a good understanding of God’s self-revelation first, and then examine the natural world to see where and how that God is at work.
McGraths An Open Secret: A New Vision for Natural Theology is very, very interesting. Still working my way through that.
Actually, I'm not even sure that Natural Theology (or ID) is a particularly desirable apologetic tool. In the ID community, much has been made of well-known atheist Anthony Flew’s “conversion” to the ID cause. Although he does not rule out a theistic God like that espoused by Christianity, his position is that of a classic Deist.
I’m not convinced this is necessarily a step in the right direction. Being part of the new creation involves trusting God, not simply assenting to his existence. Believing in a God who is not involved with, nor cares about, his creation is as far from trust as not believing in any God at all.
As to the design detectability in science, I'm not going to a priora rule it out. But I don't have a strong preference either way since I don't think "design detection" is necessarily good for Christian apologetics nor is the absence of "design detection" harmful to it.
Purpose? Ah, now there is a very important concept. Design? IMHO, not so much.
Steve: "BUT, just because his objection is similar to deism, doesn’t mean at all that he himself subscribes to deism."
I agree. Collins made it very clear that he is a Christian (I really like most of his book). However, he offers a deistic argument as a theological objection to ID. He deserves a hard rap on the knuckles. :)
"Potentially: if we understand the danger, than it can be avoided. But, it is not clear to me that many Evangelicals in the ID movement understand the danger....As Christians, the foundation of our theology should be the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Christ. That’s where theology should start. We need to have a good understanding of God’s self-revelation first, and then examine the natural world to see where and how that God is at work."
I keep being surprised at how much we agree on most issues.
"I’m not convinced this [Flew's conversion to Deism] is necessarily a step in the right direction. Being part of the new creation involves trusting God, not simply assenting to his existence. Believing in a God who is not involved with, nor cares about, his creation is as far from trust as not believing in any God at all."
For Flew, who has opposed belief in any kind of a God for his whole life, to do 180 degree turn is a monumental step in the right direction. My guess is that the problem of evil is still a problem for him. But if you read his book (There is No(slashed out) a God, with a picture of Flew upside down) you'll see that he is open to changing his views. And if you read Collins' book, you would see that he became a deist first because of natural theology (the argument from morality, and the fine-tuning of the universe).
I think God can use all sorts of things to help bring people to faith in Him. Right now, the beginning and fine-tuning of the universe, the apparent design of the first living cells, and perhaps the design of evolution, are ways that God has helped Flew and perhaps others to take a step in the right direction.
"But I don't have a strong preference either way since I don't think "design detection" is necessarily good for Christian apologetics nor is the absence of "design detection" harmful to it."
Regardless of its theological value, the scientific question is, have we detected design in biology? And I think the answer is, YES!
I'll read McGrath's piece when I get the chance.
Hi Bilbo,
On whether or not design has been detected in biology, we'll probably have to just agree to disagree (and that is probably OK - I even disagree with myself sometimes :-) ).
Re: some of my off-and-on points over the last few months on some rapprochement between the common-descent affirming portion of the Evangelical ID community, and the Evangelical EC community, you may want to read Loren Haarsma’s Four Myths about ID and Four Myths about TE and also listen to his ASA talk with Bruce Gordon from the Discovery Institute. Haarsma is not an ID supporter but as a true friend asks some of the toughest questions to ID while dispelling the common myths about ID within his own TE community. I recommend just about everything he’s ever written. If you can pick up Miller’s Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, Haarsma’s chapter 5 “Does Science Exclude God? Natural Law, Chance, Miracles and Scientific practice” is probably worth the price of the book by itself.
Unfortunately one of the reasons a guy like Haarsma is going around dispelling myths about ID is that ID theorists won't do it on their own for political and financial reasons. So much of their funding comes from YECers that they are typically afraid to even mention the age of the earth. Stephen Meyer wrote a 600 page book on the nature and origin or life and never once mentioned how long life has been around!
I think ID would gain a lot by giving up on the culture war, being honest about who they are, and living or dying by their science alone.
Steve: "On whether or not design has been detected in biology, we'll probably have to just agree to disagree...."
OK, though I don't understand why you disagree. BTW, you've thrown so much material at me, that I doubt I'll ever get to it all. If the Haarsmas are the couple that teach at Calvin College, then I've heard them in person.
Brent: "I think ID would gain a lot by giving up on the culture war, being honest about who they are, and living or dying by their science alone."
I agree completely, which is why I like Mike Gene the best.
Hi Bilbo,
Re: the material thrown at you, I know how you feel … I have about 8 books and 5 papers on my bedside table (and none of them are what one could describe as “easy reading”). Of the stuff I “threw at you”, I think the one that makes the most sense for you is the “Four myths” paper by Haarsma, particularly if you are going to be engaging non-ID ECs in conversation. (I’d also say that this paper is probably required reading for ECs; sometimes the critique’s we give to ID are grossly unfair).
Re: my position design detection, the “very-short” explanation is that:
a) I’m not an expert in biology so I must admit I haven’t done any indepth study on this (and would probably lose any debate from an expert no matter what their position was) but
b) I have looked at different exchanges between recognized experts on both sides, and to me the “no unambiguous design detection” is the best explanation of the current state of affairs (and maybe most importantly)
c) Theologically, I’m comfortable with “no design detection” so I guess I have no particular motivation to go further. In fact, there are theological reasons that I’m probably biased against “unambiguous design detection” but as I said previously, I’m open to scientific evidence if that can be provided.
Bottom line, there are a lot of things that I find more interesting to think about / investigate right now. (BTW: The Design Matrix is one of those 8 books; it has just never made it to the top of the pile).
Sorry that I’ve been out of touch the last little while. My sister passed away suddenly two weeks ago, and my family and I have been dealing with that. This is only my first chance to return to pseudo-normality.
Bilbo: I agree with you that life is intelligently designed (by God), but I disagree that this can be validated scientifically. Science can show us that some things in nature are indeed complex (e.g., the inner workings of the cell you like to allude to), but it cannot tell us whether those complexities were ever planned purposefully (i.e., designed). Questions pertaining to purpose are simply beyond the realm of science to answer. Imagine if we pretended that we could use to science to detect purpose: does the apparent non-complexity of, say, a gas imply that it serves no purpose or that gases do not have designers? I don’t think that squares with evangelical theology. I believe God is the designer of all of nature, not just the parts that look complex. Design, then, is non-falsifiable and not a part of science. That said, I think we can still look to nature in awe and infer the existence of a designer (as per Rom 1:20), understanding that such a leap is outside the realm of science (as is inferring that there is no designer).
I also wonder, like Steve, whether or not you might be conflating agency and mechanism (my point #1). Your statement, “The evidence is insufficient to determine whether the designer was God or some natural agent” makes me think so. It implies that God cannot exert His design plans via natural processes. To me it is possible for something to be both designed AND evolved, the design being the initial blueprint or concept and the means by which the concept is executed being evolution (this hearkens back to Aristotle’s four causes). There’s a great chapter in Keith Miller’s edited book Perspectives on an Evolving Creation that deals with this further.
Great discussion, by the way. It’s rare to see such fulfilling discussions on the internet that relate to this topic. Thanks to Steve for providing such a great forum!
Jordan: Once again, my sincere condolences. Thank you for your thoughtful post and active participation in the series prior your loss. I have difficulty imagining your grief. You are in my prayers.
Jordan: "Science can show us that some things in nature are indeed complex (e.g., the inner workings of the cell you like to allude to), but it cannot tell us whether those complexities were ever planned purposefully (i.e., designed)."
Let's use a hypothetical example: the radio signal that is received in the movie Contact (if you haven't seen the movie, I recommend it highly): A narrow bandwidth signal, that reproduces the prime numbers from 1 (or was it 2? I forget if 1 is considered prime) to 101. No scientist in the movie, and I bet no scientist in real life would doubt that such a signal was intelligently designed. Why?
First, we don't know of a non-intelligent way to produce such a signal. We don't even know of a remotely plausible way to produce such a signal.
Second, we do know a way of producing such a signal by intelligent design: a radio transmitter, and someone who knows the prime numbers (better than I do).
So scientists would offer us the best explanation for the radio signal: it was sent via radio transmitter by someone who knew the prime numbers.
Let's compare that to the simplest cell, the workings of which resemble an automated factory run by complex coded information, employing highly advanced nanotechnology.
Do we currently know of a way that this cell could have originated without intelligent design? No. Do we even know of a remotely plausible path? The RNA-world is the most likely scenario. But the RNA-world can't even get started. The agnostic Robert Shapiro has explained why in great detail. Either read his book, Origins; a Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth; or Stephen Meyers' The Signature in the Cell.
Do we know of an intelligent way to design the cell? Admittedly we are far from being to design it ourselves. But we know the means: highly advanced nanotechnology. It may require more than this (such as the inbreathing of God's Spirit). But it at least requires this level of technology. Sloppy natural processes just won't get it done. Not anymore than sloppy natural processes could make a toaster oven or a pocket watch.
So yes, science can detect design. It would do so in the case of a pocket watch found on another planet. It would do in the case of the radio signal. It should do so in the case of the first cells.
Hi Bilbo:
I appreciate the analogy you're trying to draw with radio signal transmission, but you're neglecting one significant difference: we know that such a prime number signal is artificial because we can produce it ourselves. It's like the classic ID argument that a watch must have a watch-maker... we know this is true because of everyday experience. We know a priori that watch-makers produce watches because we've seen it happen. This is not the case for biological systems (like cell organelles), so the analogy to artificial designs fails at this level. I should also add that you still appear to be conflating agency with mechanism. Again, it is possible for something to be both designed and evolved, but you continue to subscribe the idea that the two are somehow mutually exclusive of one another. What does design mean to you? Does it necessarily imply miraculous creation?
Jordan: " We know a priori that watch-makers produce watches because we've seen it happen. This is not the case for biological systems (like cell organelles), so the analogy to artificial designs fails at this level."
But we are already able to design important parts of cells, such as proteins and RNA. We understand the technology needed. We just haven't perfected it, yet.
To use another analogy, suppose a society that exists prior to the invention of the watch. They have invented large complex machines and they have invented metallurgy. Let's imagine that they find a watch in the heather. They don't have the advanced technology to make a watch themselves, but they would still know enough about the technology needed in order to conclude that the watch was intelligently designed.
"I should also add that you still appear to be conflating agency with mechanism."
No. I'm saying that highly advanced nanotechnology was needed to design the cell. Now whether the design took place directly or indirectly doesn't matter. If someone living in 1500BC could manipulate all the events needed to make a watch appear in the year 1500CE, it would still be the product of design. Likewise, if someone living 10 billion years ago manipulated all the events needed to make a cell appear 3.5 billion years ago, it was still the product of design.
Hi Bilbo,
I'm glad that you agree that there is a difference between agency and mechanism. That said, I'm still confused about why you contrasted intelligent design with the RNA world hypothesis earlier. Both seem perfectly compatible to me. God may very well have accomplished His design via the evolution of an RNA world. Perhaps you could elaborate further about why you see the two ideas as being mutually exclusive.
Unfortunately, I still don't think your design analogies hold any water. Being able to replicate what is found in nature a posteriori doesn't strike me as a good test for design. The predictions need to be made a priori. We can replicate snowflakes, rocks, and many other natural objects as well, but I don't suppose you would argue those are designed, too. Or maybe you would. I'd be curious to know your answer to this question: Is there anything you can point to in this universe that was not designed by God? If so, what does that mean for our theology of nature? If not, what does that say about our ability to detect design vs. non-design?
Hi Bilbo: Re: agency and mechanism, I think that you’d agree to the following.
1) Having a fairly complete scientific understanding of the mechanisms in a natural process, in no way implies that we can draw conclusions about supernatural or intelligent agency (ie. scientific describability <> evidence for absence of God in the natural process).
2) Having an incomplete scientific understanding of the mechanism in a natural process, in no way implies that we can draw conclusions about supernatural or intelligent agency (ie. scientific non-describability <> evidence for presence of God in the natural process)
Atheists often disagree with #1 and use the inverse of it to state that evolution implies no-God. (And unfortunately some Christians fall into the trap of agreeing with them on this while attacking the science. See #1 assumption of Mark Noll’s Evangelicals, Creation, and Scripture).
I have seen ID proponents state the inverse of #2 BUT, as Haarsma points out in his Four Myths about ID and Four Myths about TE, this is not inherent in an ID position. And I suspect you agree with #2 as well. Is this correct?
So, I have two questions:
A) I suspect your answer to Jordan’s last question is that “everything is designed” – but some designed things are unambiguously detectable as designed and others are NOT unambiguously detectable as designed. Is this correct? (OK, I know I’m making a lot of assumptions about what you think :-) ).
B) If you agree with #2, how do we determine when incomplete scientific understanding indicates design & when it does not?
Jordan: "...I'm still confused about why you contrasted intelligent design with the RNA world hypothesis earlier. Both seem perfectly compatible to me.... Perhaps you could elaborate further about why you see the two ideas as being mutually exclusive."
I don't see them as mutually exclusive. It's possible that a designer designed the RNA world first (directly or indirectly). There are still seemingly insurmountable hurdles from the RNA world to our current world (see Meyers' book), which might require additional design (either directly or indirectly).
"Being able to replicate what is found in nature a posteriori doesn't strike me as a good test for design."
But it's not merely being able to replicate them via intelligent design. It's being unable to find or even imagine a non-intelligent process.
"The predictions need to be made a priori."
So if we find what appears to be advanced alien technology (but no aliens), such as a ray gun, or teletransporter, we can't infer design, because we didn't make the prediction ahead of time?
"We can replicate snowflakes, rocks, and many other natural objects as well, but I don't suppose you would argue those are designed, too."
No, because we understand how non-intelligent processes could produce them.
" Is there anything you can point to in this universe that was not designed by God?"
I guess that depends upon what you mean by "designed by God." Did God design the gas-chambers in Nazi Germany? I would say not directly. But He designed us, he designed matter, He keeps us and matter in existence, and gives us the ability to design gas-chambers. Did God design gas-chambers indirectly? Well, not in the same way that He may have designed the first cells or the RNA world. But perhaps there is some sense in which it might be legitimate to say that God designed the gas-chambers. Perhaps not.
"If so, what does that mean for our theology of nature?"
God designs good things. Evil beings such as Satan and humans design (by God's permission and sustaining power) evil things.
"If not, what does that say about our ability to detect design vs. non-design?"
We believers detect design by faith. Science detects design by the criteria I set out. If we believers are correct, there are many, many things that are designed, even though science cannot detect it.
Steve, I'm not sure I understood your first two questions, so let me go to your last two: Yes to (A).
B) If you agree with #2, how do we determine when incomplete scientific understanding indicates design & when it does not?
Science will probably never be complete. Someday, we may find a natural, non-intelligent process that makes toaster ovens. All science can do is give us the current best explanation. And I think the current best scientific explanation of the origin of life is that it was intelligently designed.
Hi Bilbo,
Let's not talk about gas chambers. Let's talk about naturally-occurring objects since that's what we're really interested in. Is there anything in the natural world that you would consider not designed by God? Judging by your statement, "he designed matter", I assume your answer would be no (correct me if I'm wrong, here). In that case, if everything in the natural world is designed by God, how could science ever be able to distinguish between designed and non-designed materials? In science, we cannot rule something to be designed if we don't know what 'non-design' looks like (i.e., we can never reject the null hypothesis). Also, what do you mean by the term "non-intelligent process"? Again, that seems like a conflation of agency and mechanism to me. Sorry to be asking you all these questions, but I'm having a difficult time grasping your position from your replies so far.
Jordan: "Judging by your statement, "he designed matter", I assume your answer would be no (correct me if I'm wrong, here)."
I would put things like the malarial parasite in the same category as gas-chambers. Either they are the result of a fallen nature allowed to produce evil, or they are designed by demons.
"In that case, if everything in the natural world is designed by God, how could science ever be able to distinguish between designed and non-designed materials?"
For at least the last 150 years, science begins with the assumption that everything in nature can be explained without intelligent design. The beginning and fine-tuning of the universe are a problem for this assumption, so multiverses are favored by many. I contend that the origin of life is also a problem for this assumption. It meets the criteria that science would apply to things like the Contact radio signal and conclude design. Since scientists are willing to believe in aliens that transmit radio signals, they are willing to believe the signal was designed. Since they are unwilling to believe in God, and since God would be the most likely designer of life (though there are other options: aliens with different biochemistry; time-travellers; an intelligent universe -- I think Hoyle favored this), they are unwilling to accept that life was designed. And so they scream about things like the need for methodological naturalism, and ruling out supernatural explanations. But ID doesn't insist on supernatural explanations. We do insist that if the evidence says "it was designed," then we follow the evidence. Meanwhile, TEs or ECs are afraid of committing another God-of-the-Gaps mistake, so they resist the evidence, also. But ID doesn't insist that God is the explanation. It does insist that if the evidence says, "It was designed," then it was designed.
"In science, we cannot rule something to be designed if we don't know what 'non-design' looks like (i.e., we can never reject the null hypothesis)."
There can be ambiguity: did the car hit the pedestrian on accident or on purpose? Did I drop the bowling ball on your foot on purpose or on accident?
But there can be also be non-ambiguity: The car hit the pedestrian once, then backed up and hit him again, then backed up and hit him again. Then the driver got out, and shot the pedestrian three times with his 45 revolver. I constructed a very intricate series of pulleys and inclines, so that when you sat down, you set off a chain reaction that dislodged a bowling ball that rolled down and landed on your foot.
In the case of the cell, I would say we are way past the state of ambiguity.
"Also, what do you mean by the term "non-intelligent process"? Again, that seems like a conflation of agency and mechanism to me. Sorry to be asking you all these questions, but I'm having a difficult time grasping your position from your replies so far."
Yeah, we might be talking past each other. Take the example of someone in 1500BC indirectly designing a watch that appears in 1500CE. I would say this could happen, assuming that there is a deterministic chain of events that leads from his actions in 1500BC to the watch appearing in 1500CE. And we could examine the watch and conclude that it was designed, even though we don't know when or by whom.
Likewise, I would say that by a deterministic chain of events, someone living 10 billion years ago could indirectly design life that appears 3.5 billion years ago. And again we could examine the cell and conclude that it was designed, even though we wouldn't know when or by whom.
But look, I'm a no-nonsense kinda' guy on this. Maybe you would prefer Mike Gene's approach. He doesn't insist that the case for ID has been made. He only thinks the evidence is strong enough to reasonably suspect ID. A weaker and whimpier claim, but what do you expect from a guy who likes bunny rabbits? He then uses this suspicion to make two hypotheses: That the first cells were designed, and that they were front-loaded to make the evolution of things like us more probable. Mike even thinks neo-Darwinism is true. I think he's mistaken, but I also think he's doing the best ID science around -- even though he won't call what he does science
Hi Bilbo,
I think I agree with Mike Gene's position as you describe it, rather than your own. The reason being that I think Gene and I are on the level about what constitutes science. Science is, by definition, limited to positing mechanisms, not agency, and Gene appears to recognize that (therefore, we would both disagree with your statement that "science begins with the assumption that everything in nature can be explained without intelligent design." Science makes no assumptions either way concerning agency.) So far, your attempts to infer design have been based on what I see as false analogies and a gut feeling. That just doesn't cut it in science. Your gut feeling isn't unwarranted, though, and Gene and I would agree with you on that (Rom 1:20).
Admittedly, I'm not familiar with Mike Gene's writings, so I'm curious to know why he draws the line at the first cell as far as front-loading is concerned. Why not the first RNA strand or the Big Bang? Do you know?
Hi Bilbo:
#1 above is the classic agency / mechanism conflation that Jordan discussed in the OP. As Noll puts it in his paper I noted, the assumption is that “once something is explained clearly and completely as a natural occurrence, there is no other realm of being that can allow it to be described in any other way”. This is simply false; natural processes do not exclude God.
I think you do not conflate agency & mechanism in this way.
#2 is a different type of agency / mechanism conflation. In this conflation, if known natural mechanisms seem insufficient to describe something, that something must have been caused by a non-natural (or intelligent) agent. I also strongly believe this is false. We are finite creatures and have limited knowledge. How can we ever know every “natural” process that God has ordained?
It is unclear to me if you would agree with this.
Re: MN and “science’s assumptions” I strongly recommend you read the Haarsma paper (you can ignore everything else I’ve said :-) ).
Jordan: " (therefore, we would both disagree with your statement that "science begins with the assumption that everything in nature can be explained without intelligent design." Science makes no assumptions either way concerning agency.)"
I could be wrong, but I think Mike would agree with me. I think Mike thinks ID isn't science, because he thinks science = experimental science. But there is also historical science, which looks for the best explanation of why something happened.
"Admittedly, I'm not familiar with Mike Gene's writings, so I'm curious to know why he draws the line at the first cell as far as front-loading is concerned. Why not the first RNA strand or the Big Bang? Do you know?"
If you have time, his book The Design Matrix is an excellent read. Or you can just visit his blog from time to time. I think Mike sees the cell as being the most likely candidate as the site of design.
Steve: "#2 is a different type of agency / mechanism conflation. In this conflation, if known natural mechanisms seem insufficient to describe something, that something must have been caused by a non-natural (or intelligent) agent. I also strongly believe this is false. We are finite creatures and have limited knowledge. How can we ever know every “natural” process that God has ordained?
It is unclear to me if you would agree with this."
"Non-natural" has two meanings: (1)supernatural; (2)intelligent
My typing this sentence is non-natural, in the sense that it cannot be explained simply in terms of non-intelligent causation. But it need not be supernatural. Jesus' resurrection, and his new body, cannot be explained by simply non-supernatural causation. Or so we believe. I think the origin of the cell cannot be explained completely without non-intelligent causation. It may or may not be supernatural causation. I believe it is. Hoyle believed it wasn't. Dawkins believes that if it was intelligently designed, then it was most likely by a natural agent, not a supernatural one.
Re: MN and “science’s assumptions” I strongly recommend you read the Haarsma paper (you can ignore everything else I’ve said :-) ).
After I research the T-urf13 gene. And the nylonase gene, and anything else Dennis demands. :)
Oops. This:
"I think the origin of the cell cannot be explained completely without non-intelligent causation."
Should be this:
"I think the origin of the cell cannot be explained completely without intelligent causation."
Post a Comment