Philip Kitcher has just published a book defending naturalistic evolution while attacking creationism and intelligent design theory.1Since Kitcher is a seasoned philosopher of science and veteran critic of creationism, this represents the state-of-the-art in Darwinian apologetics. If you wish to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the case for naturalistic evolution, as over against its theistic rivals, this is a logical point of departure. So let’s review his major arguments:
Like several other texts from the ancient Near East, the Bible recalls a great flood, in which virtually all of the living creatures of the earth were destroyed (25).This is incorrect. The focus of the Genesis flood is on the destruction of land animals. The account is silent on the fate of aquatic life or flora.
When the summit of Mount Ararat was uncovered, the ark finally came to rest upon it (25).This is overly-precise. The account doesn’t single out Mt. Ararat. Rather, it simply indicates that the ark came to rest somewhere in that general mountain range.
Where did all the water go? How exactly was “the pond drained”? (26).i) The answer depends, in part, on the scope of the flood. Kitcher compares the Genesis flood with cognate ANE literature. But if that’s his frame of reference, then that would argue for a local flood since the ancients had a different sense of scale than their modern counterparts. So if that’s his frame of reference, then we would gauge the geographical descriptions by ANE cartography, not satellite cartography.2
In that event, one doesn’t need to posit an extraordinary drainage mechanism to account for the recession of local floodwaters.
ii) If we assume a global flood, then the drainage mechanism might be related to the flood mechanism. And it’s possible to postulate different flood mechanism. So the answer would vary according to the respective model of flood geology.
Scripture does not explicitly declare an age for our planet. Two claims that flow more directly from the early chapters of Genesis are more difficult to evade. First, Genesis states that all major kinds of plants and animals, as well as human beings, were created at the beginning, and that all have lived on the earth continuously throughout its entire history (28).This is a half-truth. While Genesis does indeed state that all major kinds of plants and animals, as well as human beings, were created at the beginning, it does not state that all of them have survived.
i) At the very least, Genesis is silent on the question of how many natural kinds have survived since the time of their origin.
ii) At most, if one construes the flood account in global terms, then the flood might well have led to mass extinctions of various species or subspecies, either as a direct result of the deluge or else its aftermath.
Second, the Bible says that there was once a great flood in which almost all living things were destroyed, and that all the organisms that have lived since are descendants of the small company that survived the flood (28).Once again, he keeps reiterating the same overstatements. Can’t he read?
Sedimentation rates suggest that the age of the earth is much greater than hitherto supposed, for those rates would require vast stretches of time (at least hundreds of thousands of years) to lay down rocks to the depth observed (29).But creationists point to catastrophic events which precipitate rapid sedimentation (e.g. Mt. St. Helens). Kitcher needs to interact with these counterexamples.
These strata were deposited sequentially, and the oldest almost always lie at the bottom. Most of the organisms they contain belong to species that have now vanished from the earth. The deepest rocks (more exactly, the deepest fossil-bearing rocks then known) contain residues of marine invertebrates, some of which, like mollusks, are very familiar, others of which, like the trilobites, are very different. Above them lie layers in which there are both marine invertebrates and some fish, with an increasing diversity of fish as you climb the rock column. Higher still are strata with marine invertebrates, fish, and amphibians. Ascending further, these kinds of organisms are joined by reptiles, including huge reptiles of kinds that no longer exist—some of the dinosaurs—and later, after the vanishing of the dinosaurs, by birds and mammals, both of which become increasingly diverse as you approach the top. Near the surface, in the shallows of the rocks, there are finally traces of apes, and eventually, of human beings (29-30).Several issues:
The problem is obvious. How do you explain this consistent ordering of fossil remains if not as what it seems to be, namely a sequence of episodes in the history of life showing very different organisms at different stages? How do you account for the fact that the remains of the kinds of organisms that now exist, the birds and trees and flowers and mammals we know—not to mention human beings—are found only in the most recent deposits? (31).
Instead, we need to understand why the birds are always found at the top and the fish appear originally near the bottom (32).
Specimens of the class that includes most contemporary fish are found in the fossil record from rocks whose age is estimated to be about 200 million years and upward into the present. Much deeper deposits contain the remains of types of fish that no longer exist, as well as fossils of sharks. By contrast, fossil whales, dolphins, seals, and porpoises are found only year the top of the rock column (32).
i) Kitcher doesn’t show us any site on earth where we can see this layout. So is there such a site, or is this a hypothetical reconstruction of faunal succession, correlating the finds from many different geographical sites?
ii) Assuming, for the sake of argument, that this reconstruction is accurate, what it looks like is a spatial rather than temporal distribution pattern. Trees and land animals occupy an ecological zone that is literally above the semiaquatic animals. In turn, semiaquatic animals are above aquatic mammals that must surface for air, while aquatic animals are above fish, and fish are above bottom-dwellers.3
iii) So there’s nothing evolutionary in the actual appearance of the fossil record. It’s only when you interpolate vast stretches of time into the fossil record that it seems to yield an evolutionary sequence. If, on the other hand, you deny huge intervals between one fossil and another, then it resembles a cross-section of the present ecosystem, except for some extinct species.
So it’s not the fossil sequence, as he describes it, that’s apparently evolutionary, but the imposition of a geochronological framework on the fossil sequence. Remove that extraneous scaffolding, and what’s left?
The plant record displays a similar, uniform, pattern. The earliest strata that bear plant remains contain residues of ferns, and, at higher levels, they are joined first by conifers, and later by deciduous trees and flowering plants. The picture, in both instances, is of a sequential history of life, one that belies the idea that all the major kinds of plants and animals have lived on the earth since the very beginning (30).i) This is a rather odd statement since there’s a fairly obvious correlation between the regional environment, on the one hand, and botanical diversity or distribution, on the other. And this is complicated by other factors, such as climate change or the introduction of foreign flora into indigenous habitats. So his evolutionary explanation is surely simplistic.
ii) And, once again, Genesis never says “that all the major kinds of plants and animals have lived on the earth since the very beginning.” If some of the natural kinds didn’t survive, that would not be at variance with the creation account.
Very different environments would have to be provided [on the ark] for polar bears and camels (34).i) He is imposing an extratextual assumption onto the text. Genesis is silent on the prediluvian environment. It says nothing one way or the other about camels and polar bears, deserts and icecaps.
ii) Moreover, it’s one thing to say that some animals prefer a particular habitat, quite another to say they can’t survive outside of a particular habitat. If you visit your local zoo, it’s not as if the thermostat is set at 130 degrees for camels and 40 below for polar bears.
iii) Furthermore, he’s assuming a global flood. But there are OT scholars who construe the text in local terms.4 If so, then the cargo would consist of species from the same general vicinity. If he’s going to present an intellectually responsible critique of Noah’s flood, then he needs to address local as well as global interpretations of the text.
For a penetrating study in the household economy of the ark, see Robert A. Moore, “The Impossible Voyage of Noah’s Ark” (171n23).The problem with this reference is that Moore’s article has not gone unchallenged.5 So why does Kitcher only give one side of the argument? Is he ignorant of the other side? If so, then he didn’t do his homework before writing this book.
You forget that at least some plants and fungi would have to be carried along, too, that cacti and orchids, willows and mushrooms, would have to have appropriate environments and proper care (34).i) Since these are not included in the ship's manifest, why does Kitcher saddle the text with an extratextual imposition?
ii) Perhaps his unstated assumption is that these could not survive outside the ark. If so,
a) This assumes the global interpretation. It’s irrelevant to the local interpretation.
b) Even assuming the global interpretation, is he saying that seeds could not survive outside the ark? If so, where’s the argument?
c) Is he referring to extant botanical species and modern varieties thereof? But the Biblical account makes no such assumption.
Once they arrive on Mount Ararat, can they finally rest? Not really, for if they are to produce living creatures that will repopulate the earth, then they must be extremely careful to maintain the separation of predator from prey. It won’t do for the intended grandmother of the future gazelles to disappear into the mouth of one of the ancestral cheetahs. (35).i) There was more than one pair of animals per kind. There were seven pairs of clean animals apiece (Gen 7:2).
Let’s also keep in mind that the recurrence of the septunarian motif suggests a degree of numerological symbolism. So we shouldn’t assume that all of these septunarian figures are literal. The actual figure may be more or less.
ii) Finally, the objection would only be relevant, if at all, on a global interpretation. I’m not saying that this objection is cogent against the global interpretation. Only that it’s not even relevant to the local interpretation.
The animals will have to be led carefully to points from which they can reach their intended destinations—so that the marsupials can make their way to Australia in the next five thousand years or so (probably a forced march for the more sedentary ones like Koalas and wombats), the polar bears to the Arctic, the llamas to South America. The plants will have to be treated carefully to ensure that they reach regions in which they can grow and thrive (35).i) Once again, objections like this obviously go beyond the narrative viewpoint of an ANE document, which Kitcher originally told us was his frame of reference. Genesis doesn’t talk about wombats and Koalas, polar bears and llamas. Kitcher is superimposing his own biogeographical outlook on to the text, in violation of document’s historical horizon.
ii) Even assuming a global interpretation, Kitcher is supposing that all the fauna and flora had to make it back to their point of origin on their own steam. But why should we credit that supposition?
a) The ark itself would teach the survivors about the art of shipbuilding. And even Gould, seconding Darwin, has pointed to “the frequent displacement of endemic island biotas by continental species introduced by human transport.”6
b) Likewise, birds can disseminate an area by alimentation, and thereby introduce foreign fauna into an indigenous habitat.7
There is an obvious way to decrease the workload for this overburdened band, to cleave more closely to the inventory provided in Genesis...To the extent that this idea cuts down on the necessary labor, it faces an obvious objection. Genesis creationism supposes that about five thousand years elapsed between Noah and the present. The process of diversification must thus be extremely rapid (35).i) This assumes the global interpretation of the flood. A responsible critic of Noah’s flood needs to treat each interpretation as a live option, and address himself to their respective implications.
ii) Even assuming the global interpretation, this objection has been addressed by writers like Kurt Wise in the form of AGE theory.8 Where is Kitcher’s counterargument?
Consider the horses. As breeders know well, foals sometimes display coat patterns, bars or stripes, that resemble those found in zebras. Darwin reviews a range of examples, explaining them in terms of descent of horses, asses, zebras, and other equine species from a common ancestor (47).It isn’t clear what this example is supposed to prove. No creationist denies that domesticated animals descend from wild animals. You don’t have to invoke an evolutionary throwback to acknowledge the interplay between dominant and recessive genes in diploid species.
The modification can easily be attributed to natural selection. Since eyes no longer have a function inside the caves, selection will favor those variants that reassign the resources previously committed to the development of the visual system (171-72n30).Kitcher is now resorting to teleological explanations: "function...reassign...previously committed to the development of." But teleology is forbidden in naturalistic evolution. The evolutionary process, if there were such a thing, isn’t going anywhere in particular. Natural selection is inherently witless and pointless. Is Kitcher unable to keep track of his own theory?9
Why are there birds with webbed feet that live on dry land? Woodpeckers where no tree grows? (47).How is that a salient objection to creationism? Kitcher has no grasp of the position he’s opposing.
On the one hand, habitat changes over time. On the other hand, endemic species emigrate to new habitat.
Why are the fossils of extinct mammal species in Australia similar to the marsupials that inhabit the contingent today? Why are the extinct armored mammals of South America akin to the currently living Armadillos? Why are the birds of South America so like one another and so different from the birds of the Old World? Why does the same apply in the case of reptiles and mammals? Why do the floras and faunas of islands regularly resemble those of the neighboring continents? (47-48)?Wouldn’t all these be instances of microevolution rather than macroevolution? Creationism doesn’t deny microevolution. Is Kitcher ignorant of that fact? What position does he think he’s opposing, anyway?
If you were designing a porpoise paddle, a horse leg, a human hand, a mole forelimb, and a bat’s wing, without any prior constraints, you could do a lot better by deviating from the common plan (48).i) This is an assertion, not an argument. Where’s the argument?
ii) We’re waiting for Kitcher to come up with a working model of a better design.
iii) What’s wrong with a human hand or a horse leg? There’s no such thing as optimal design, for there’s bound to be a tradeoff between specialization and general utility.
Hooves are good for running, but not so good for swimming. Webbed feet are good for swimming, but not so good for running. Wings are good for flying, but not so good for running or swimming.
Retractable claws are great for clinging, climbing, and self-defense, but not so good for using a keyboard, performing brain surgery, shuffling a deck of cards, playing a violin, or making a Swiss watch. Is Kitcher so simple-minded that he can’t draw these elementary distinctions for himself?
The most powerful subsequent development of Darwin’s central argument comes, however, from biologists’ increasing ability to investigate the relationships among organisms at an even finer grain…Many of the modifications occur when there are copying errors in the process (52).i) Once again, he’s resorting to teleological categories. But this personifies nature. An unreasoning process cannot make mistakes. It cannot mistranscribe a code.
At most, only a personal agent can make mistakes. In order to fail, there must be a conscious intent to perform a certain task in order to achieve a certain objective. But natural selection is irrational. Can’t Kitcher remember his own theory?
ii) In addition, creationism doesn’t deny the possible presence of genetic defects in a fallen world. This isn’t a design flaw, but a consequence of original sin, with its attendant natural evils.
iii) There also seems to be the unspoken assumption, running through much of his book, that if God made the world, then the world should be as perfect as God. Hence, any natural imperfections disprove the existence of God.
But this inference is clearly invalid. The creature can never be a perfect as the Creator. The creature is inherently contingent. Many of these limitations are not imperfections, but merely features intrinsic to a finite mode of subsistence.
Genetic similarity provides a more fundamental criterion for assessing relationships of ancestry and descent than do the similarities in anatomy and physiology on which Darwin and his immediate successors drew. The overwhelming majority of older attributions of relationship endure, even though there are occasional instances in which genetic analysis reveals that one organism is a closer relative of another than of a third that has traditionally been taken to be its closest kin (172n35).Is that a fact?
If you want to know how all living things are related, don't bother looking in any textbook that's more than a few years old. Chances are that the tree of life you find there will be wrong. Since they began delving into DNA, biologists have been finding that organisms with features that look alike are often not as closely related as they had thought. These are turbulent times in the world of phylogeny, yet there has been one rule that evolutionary biologists felt they could cling to: the amount of complexity in the living world has always been on the increase. Now even that is in doubt.
While nobody disagrees that there has been a general trend towards complexity - humans are indisputably more complicated than amoebas - recent findings suggest that some of our very early ancestors were far more sophisticated than we have given them credit for. If so, then much of that precocious complexity has been lost by subsequent generations as they evolved into new species. "The whole concept of a gradualist tree, with one thing branching off after another and the last to branch off, the vertebrates, being the most complex, is wrong," says Detlev Arendt, an evolutionary and developmental biologist at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Heidelberg, Germany.
The idea of loss in evolution is not new. We know that snakes lost their legs, as did whales, and that our own ancestors lost body hair. However, the latest evidence suggests that the extent of loss might have been seriously underestimated. Some evolutionary biologists now suggest that loss - at every level, from genes and types of cells to whole anatomical features and life stages - is the key to understanding evolution and the relatedness of living things. Proponents of this idea argue that classical phylogeny has been built on rotten foundations, and tinkering with it will not put it right. Instead, they say, we need to rethink the process of evolution itself.10
One particularly interesting comparison, achieve in the second half of the twentieth century, looked at chromosomes from human beings and from chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans…the obvious Darwinian explanation for the similarity is that the four species descend from a common ancestor…If human beings were a completely separate creation, why did the creative force find it apt to form our species in the chromosomal image of the great apes? (54).Yet in a footnote, Kitcher concedes that:
Moreover, even brute genetic similarity can prove misleading, in that pieces of genetic material can sometimes be acquired without deriving from ancestors—viruses and bacteria can spread DNA into organisms they infect (172n35).i) I take this to mean that if some contagious diseases result in genetic defects, and some contagious diseases are also communicable at an interspecies level, then it would it be possible for these genetic defects to be contracted by a contagious disease, and thereby transmitted from one species to another (chimp to human or vice versa).
And if, by his own admission, that is possible, then how is this chromosomal commonality evidence of common descent?
ii) In addition, the genetic argument for common ancestry has come in for some detailed criticism. As usual, Kitcher ignores the counterarguments.11
The Darwinian explanation is that these genes originally evolved to direct some basic tasks within the cell—they are “housekeeping” genes—and multicellular organisms have taken over this machinery, sometimes modifying it, sometimes retaining parts of it that no longer serve their original purpose (57).Notice that he can’t resist the temptation of teleological explanations. But the mechanisms posited by naturalistic evolution are mindless mechanisms. If naturalistic evolution is true, then genes never evolved to direct a particular task, and they were never diverted from their original purpose.
Because of potential errors in copying DNA, multicellular organisms need DNA repair enzymes (173n39).
Hence there has to be another repair device, an enzyme (telomerase) that restores telomeres in germ-line cells…Telomerase has to be confined to germ-cell lineages, but there are occasional mistakes in which it becomes accessible in somatic tissues and allows for uncontrolled growth (173-74n39).
Genes cannot make mistakes. Only people can make mistakes. A capacity for error presupposes goal-oriented behavior. Dysteleology is parasitic on teleology.
He commits the same fallacy when he describes a “repair device.” This only makes sense if you subscribe to a doctrine of proper function. It would be licit for young-earth creationism, old-earth creationism, or theistic evolution to invoke teleological categories. It is illicit for naturalistic evolution to speak in the same terms.
Why should organisms so diverse share related DNA sequences if large groups of them have been separately created (57)?Well, if God wanted to design a biological organism that was largely similar to another biological organism, wouldn't the logical procedure be to write a similar code?
If you were a talented engineer designing a whale from scratch, you probably wouldn’t think of equipping it with a rudimentary pelvis (57).i) But the appeal to vestigial organs is an argument from ignorance. Indeed, it’s the evolutionary equivalent of the God-of-the-gaps—only the evolutionary biologist is invoking the Darwin-of-the-gaps. If he’s going to take refuge in that expedient, then he can hardly object to Intelligent design theory.
ii) In addition, creationism doesn’t deny that some organs may degenerate under certain conditions, viz. blind, cave-dwelling species. That’s a natural adaptation to the organism’s new environment. Another instance of microevolution.
If you were designing a mammalian body, you might try to set things up so that development doesn’t lead to a tangling of reproductive and urinary tubes so that one sex…is burdened with hernias waiting to happen (57).Actually, dual use technology strikes me as a very impressive example of compact design. A paradigm case of bioengineering efficiency.
If you were designing a human body, you could surely improve on the knee (57).i) How, exactly, could you improve on the knee? Why doesn’t he propose a working model? I notice a lot of evolutionary writers who like to make smart-ass comments about “design defects” without bothering to model a working alternative.
ii) What’s the problem with the human knee, anyway? It’s true that athletes frequently suffer from knee injuries, but that’s due to placing unnatural stress on the knee.
Likewise, old folks suffer from arthritic knees, but this is due to the aging process, and not to the design of the knee itself.
And if you were designing the genomes of organisms, you would certainly not fill them up with junk. The most striking feature of the genomic analyses we now have is how much apparently nonfunctional DNA there is (57-58).i) Like the facile appeal to vestigial organs, his facile appeal to junk DNA is another argument from ignorance, a la Darwin-of-the gaps.
ii) Apropos (i), is so-called junk DNA in fact nonfunctional? Isn’t there mounting evidence to the contrary?12
Apparently, Intelligence also directed toward doing this by producing organisms that eat other organisms—and this, in itself, is a puzzling, even disturbing thought, since it would seem possible to equip all organisms with a device like photosynthesis that would avoid the messiness of predation (63).i) It would “seem” possible? Once more, where is his working model? Why does a seasoned philosopher of science think it’s intellectually acceptable to make one pseudoscientific claim after another? If it’s possible, then why doesn’t he point us to a working model? If he can’t, then he’s substituting science fiction for science.
ii) Would photosynthesis generate enough energy to power energetic animals? Last time I checked, plants were stationary. They don’t expend a lot of energy. How does that compare with highly mobile organisms? Or organisms with a high metabolism?
Turn now to the complaints about the absence of “intermediates” in the fossil record. Paleontologists have reconstructed all sorts of sequences of fossils to show various transitions in the history of life (66-67).Yes, I’m sure they have. Of course, reconstructing sequences by connecting widely separated dots with evolutionary interpolations is a convenient way of assuming what you need to prove. There are even some leading Darwinians who are highly critical of the standard methodology.13
Yet paleontologists are sometimes lucky, as in the case of Archaeopteryx and as in another example of a major transition, the reptile-mammal transition. Here there are many specimens of therapsides (mammal-like reptiles) and of early mammals (68).i) These examples have come under scrutiny.14 So why doesn’t he address the counterarguments? Is he ignorant of the opposing literature?
As I was preparing the final version of this essay, a second jewel may be added to the crown, with the discovery of the fossil remains of Tiktaalik an intermediate between fish and land-dwelling animals (174n48).
ii) How is a mammal-like reptile an example of an evolutionary intermediate rather than an ecological intermediate? For example, semiaquatic animals share some features in common with terrestrial animals as well as aquatic animals due to their ecological zone. They are designed to survive in that environment.
The known exceptions, most famously the Burgess Shale, are extremely rare—so rare that we can take the probability to be effectively zero (175n51).Is that a fact? What about the scientists who don’t regard the Burgess Shale as all that anomalous. Why doesn’t Kitcher deal with their arguments?15
Peter and Rosemary Grant have led a research team that has thoroughly studied the finches on several islands in the Galapagos archipelago, showing through detailed observation of the birds in successive generations, how natural selection ahs modified them, most notably in the size and shape of the beak (78).But seasonal variations in beak size would be a textbook example of microevolution rather than macroevolution, would it not? So how does this ephemeral variation count against creationism? I have to keep asking myself if Kitcher has the slightest grasp of what the other side believes.
The Grants’ work provides slightly more grounds for an optimistic assessment, in that, under swings of harsh drought and seasons of heavy rain, they were able to trace significant changes in the forms of finch beaks (176n60).
Another famous study, one that will be relevant later, concerns the persistence of sickle-cell anemia…the mixed combination, AS, not only yields the benefits associated with normal hemoglobin, but also provides protection against malaria (78-79).Once more, wouldn’t this be a case of microevolution rather than macroevolution? And how is the adaptability of organisms an argument against divine design? Why wouldn’t that flexibility be a mark of superior design?
Kitcher references the work of Dawkins and Dan-Erik Nilsson to establish the natural evolution of the eye (176n60). But, as usual, he disregards the arguments to the contrary.16
One possible interpretation of Darwin’s work is to view him as transferring ideas from British political economy to the natural world (177-78n73).So he’s admitting that Darwinism may really be a political allegory dressed up as a scientific theory?
Through millions of years, billions of animals experience vast amounts of pain, supposedly so that, after an enormous number of extinctions of entire species, on the tip of one twig of the evolutionary tree, there may emerge a species with the special properties that make us able to worship the Creator (123).i) This may be a valid objection to theistic evolution, but it has no traction with young-earth creationism or old earth-creationism. Does Kitcher lack the elementary discernment to distinguish between their respective positions?
ii) In fairness, Kitcher already attacked young-earth creationism by summarizing conventional dating methods. However, he doesn’t interact with literature which challenges conventional dating methods.17
It is plain to anyone who has ever seen an animal ensnared or a fish writhe on a hook, that we are not the only organisms who suffer. Moreover, animal suffering isn’t incidental to the unfolding of life, but integral to it. Natural selection is founded on strenuous competition…Our conception of a providential Creator must suppose that He has constructed a shaggy-dog story, a history of life that consists of a three-billion-year curtain-raiser to the main event, in which millions of sentient beings suffer, often acutely, and that the suffering is not a by-product but constitutive of the script that the Creator has chosen to write (123-24).Several issues here:
i) Once again, this assumes the macroevolutionary process. As such, if it’s a valid objection at all, it’s only valid against theistic evolution.
ii) Why does Kitcher assume that animals suffer? Doesn’t eliminative materialism—which is the most consistent form of naturalized epistemology and evolutionary psychology—deny the existence of pain and suffering?18
iii) Even if he rejects eliminative materialism, shouldn’t he at least be able to distinguish between higher animals and lower animals on the pain scale? Does a frog or caterpillar or earthworm or oyster or guppy suffer in the same sense (if at all) as a dog?
Why does a seasoned philosopher of science fail to draw such obvious distinctions? In what sense does a guppy suffer? Is Kitcher attributing consciousness to a guppy?19
Isn’t this quite clearly an anthropomorphic projection of human experience onto the animal world. Shouldn’t a philosopher of science be a wee bit more sophisticated than that? Why does Kitcher fall headlong into the arms of the pathetic fallacy?
iv) How much do animals actually suffer? Haven’t we all seen veterinarians inject pets and other domestic animals with a syringe? Observe that they don’t even flinch when the needle goes in. Animals seem to have a higher tolerance for pain than human beings.
Mutations arise without any direction towards the needs of organisms—and the vast majority of them turn out to be highly damaging (124).Doesn’t that undermine the explanatory power of evolutionary mechanisms like genetic drift?
There is nothing kindly or providential about any of this, and it seems breathtakingly wasteful and inefficient (124).i) This is a very ignorant statement. Even a passing acquaintance with Christian theology would inform him that providence encompasses natural evils.
ii) Kitcher frequently uses the worse “wasteful” without defining his terms. What, exactly, does he mean by “wasteful”? A redundant backup system is a mark of good design. It makes an organism more adaptable. There's more margin for error.
The last example is well chosen, for the behavior of the ichneumonidae—parasitic wasps—is particularly unpleasant. The wasps lay their eggs in a living caterpillar, paralyzing the motor nerves (but not the sensory serves) so that the caterpillar cannot move or reject its new lodgers. As the eggs hatch, and the larvae grown, they eat their way out of their host (125).Notice how he identifies with the caterpillar, as if the caterpillar were a human being in a caterpillar suit. How can a seasoned philosopher of science have such a childish reaction to the animal kingdom? Did he form his scientific worldview from reading James and the Giant Peach?
The mess, the inefficiency, the waste and the suffering are the effects of natural processes, so that they shouldn’t be seen as directly planned or introduced…the general inefficiency, the extreme length of time, the haphazard sequence of environments, the undirected variations, the cruel competition through which selection frequently works, is all foreseen (125).Once again, to speak of the natural world as “cruel” is a blatantly anthropomorphic projection onto an essentially amoral order of existence. Why is a hardnosed atheist turning the natural world into a morality play?
The second point is that the providentialist’s doctrine that humans and nonhuman animals suffer in the interests of achieving some greater good must be reconcilable with the assumption of divine justice. You cannot defend torturing a few individuals who are known to be innocent on the grounds that setting some examples will contribute to a safer society. By the same token, a just Creator cannot consign vast numbers of its creatures to pain and suffering because this will promote some broader good. Divine justice requires that the animals who suffer are compensated, that their suffering isn’t simply instrumental to he wonders of creation but redeemed for them (127).A couple of fundamental omissions here:
i) He hasn’t even begun to make a case for secular ethics. What is his basis for moral realism? How does he avoid the naturalistic fallacy?20
ii) Even assuming that he could make any headway on the first point, he hasn’t begun to make a case for animal rights in particular.
iii) And even assuming that he could make any headway on the second point, wouldn’t he need to draw some distinction between higher and lower animals? At what point along the continuum does an animal acquire rights? Does a lobster have rights? What about a cockroach? Or a rat?
Do some rats have more rights than others? What about rats that carry typhus, salmonella, and bubonic plague?
Is it hate speech to say that rats are vermin? Is that defamation of character?
Can rats be exterminated? Or would that be a hate crime?
Are they subject to due process? Judicial appeal? A court-appointed lawyer?
Is it immoral to use rat poison or rat traps? Should they only be executed, if at all, by lethal injection? Or is that cruel and unusual punishment?
When is Kitcher going to make a gesture towards discharging his own burden of proof?
Kitcher also devotes a few pages to his amateurish grasp of Gospel criticism and canonics (135-40). As usual, there’s no evident awareness of, much less interaction with, Evangelical scholarship to the contrary.21
Throughout the course of his book, Kitcher never ventures outside the safe bubble of his self-reinforcing ignorance.
1 Living with Darwin: Evolution, Design, and the Future of Faith (Oxford 2007).
2 Cf. W. Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography (Eisenbrauns 1998).
3 For another explanation, from a YEC perspective, of why human remains are found above ape remains, cf. K. Wise, Faith, Form, and Time (B&H 2002), 233.
4 Cf. K. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Eerdmans 2003); J. Walton, The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis (Zondervan 2001) R. Youngblood, The Book of Genesis: An Introductory Commentary (Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2nd ed., 2000).
5 http://www.rae.org/noah.html
http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp
http://www.creationdigest.com/summer2005/Vardiman_Ice_Cores_Age_of_Earth.htm
6 S. Gould, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (Belknap 2002), 109.
7 Cf. W. L. McAtee, “Distribution of Seeds by Birds,” American Midland Naturalist, Vol. 38/1 (July, 1947), 214-223
8 Ibid. 216ff.
9 For a thoroughgoing exposé of the way in which Darwinians surreptitiously smuggle teleological explanations back into naturalistic evolution, cf. J. Greene, Debating Darwin (Regina Books 1999).
10 http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19426083.100-evolution-hacking-back-the-tree-of-life.html
11 http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0320differences.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0905chimp.asp
12 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070613131932.htm
13 E.g. H. Gee, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life (Cornell 2001).
14 http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/cl_iconsstillstanding.htm
http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/04/tiktaalik_as_missing_link_a_ne.html
15 http://www.darwinismanddesign.com/excerpts.php
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/pe/1999_1/books/morris.htm
16 http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1416
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1509
17 Cf. John Byl, God and Cosmos: A Christian View of Time, Space, and the Universe (Banner of Truth Trust, 2001), chapter 8; Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (Park Street Press, 1997); Kurt Wise, Faith, Form, and Time (Broadman & Holman, 2002), chapters 4-5.
18 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative
19 http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v4/psyche-4-03-carruthers.html
http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v6/psyche-6-03-carruthers.html
20 http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evol-eth.htm
21 E.g. C. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (IVP, 1987; 2nd ed. forthcoming); D. Bock, The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative Christianities (Nelson Books, 2006); E. E. Ellis, The Making of the New Testament Documents (Brill Academic, 2002); D. A. Carson, & D. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Zondervan, c2005); C. Evans, Fabricating Jesus (IVP, 2006); M. Green, The Books the Church Suppressed: Fiction and Truth in The Da Vinci Code (Monarch Books, 2005); J. Ed. Komoszewski et al. Reinventing Jesus (Kregel, 2006); Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament (Oxford 1997); D. Trobisch, The First Edition of the New Testament (Oxford, 2000); N. T. Wright, Judas and the Gospel of Jesus (Baker 2006).
Steve,
ReplyDeleteIn several places you claim that this idea or that concept in evolutionary theory has been "challenged", and you wonder why Kitcher has "ignored the counter-arguments". Then I look and see that you offer sources like Answers In Genesis and the Discovery Institute and ID The Future as the "counter-arguments" Kitcher should entertain.
You've got to be kidding me.
Answers In Genesis???
If these "counter-arguments" carry scientfic freight rather than religious polemic weight, how come the only come from religious sources, and are not found as working criticisms in the scientific literature.
Perhaps the strongest argument in this post for Kitcher's point are the "counter-arguments" you invoke. I suppose some who read this will be taken in by the hand-waving you do here, but anyone familiar with the subject sees this as the frantic hand-waving it is... challenges to conventional dating methods??? Who challenges radiometric dating in the scientific literature? As far as I can see, the only "counter-arguments" are offered by creationists, creationists with theological vested interests in denying the implications of radiometric dating.
And your complaints about "illicit" use of "teleogical" terms like "mistake" (?) are just terribly naive about language. If the transcription process (WHOOPS! "transciption" -- another anthropomorphic term those pesky scientists stole from human activities!) functions in such a way that it produces a copy of X the vast majority of the time, the small number of cases where transcription fails to "transcribe" -- to copy the source to the destination -- accurate are called "mistakes" simply due to it's abnormality. It's a conscious anthropomorphism, and one that has good pedagogical utility -- it invokes the idea of a transcriber copying text from one place to another, and in some cases, failing to replicate the source accurately. That doesn't assign the human transcriber's design intent to the DNA transcription process -- it's enzymes for cryin' out loud. The transfer either duplicates the source or it doesn't, and when it doesn't, it's called a "mistake".
Should I pull out the trusty quote from Alice in Wonderland again about the meanings of words and who is their master?
I've no problem saying that DNA mistakes or even a raindrop "optimizing" to its most efficient form as it falls to the earth is "teleological", if by that you mean that it conforms to physical laws, laws which reify a "design", de facto or otherwise. But to suppose that "efficient", used by scientists in reference to mechanistic phenomena somehow presupposes a personal Designer is a blatant beg to the question at hand, and you know it.
If you doubt that, ask a scientist about the usage. I believe you'll find they use the terms you claim are "teleological" in non-teleological senses, and your demands that they use those terms according to *your* desires makes no more sense than supposing they have some obligation to include rebuttals of Answers In Genesis' ubiquitous "counter-arguments" in advancing their scientific statements and analyses.
-Touchstone
Touchstone said:
ReplyDeleteIn several places you claim that this idea or that concept in evolutionary theory has been "challenged", and you wonder why Kitcher has "ignored the counter-arguments". Then I look and see that you offer sources like Answers In Genesis and the Discovery Institute and ID The Future as the "counter-arguments" Kitcher should entertain.
You've got to be kidding me.
Answers In Genesis???
If these "counter-arguments" carry scientfic freight rather than religious polemic weight, how come the only come from religious sources, and are not found as working criticisms in the scientific literature.
1. Touchstone ignores the fact that Steve cited other literature besides literature from Answers in Genesis, the Discovery Institute, and ID the Future. For example, Steve also footnotes New Scientist and Science Daily. Not to mention evolutionists like Gee.
2. But what's wrong with AiG or the DI? One of the AiG articles Steve cites is from an associate professor of biology with a considerable background biochemistry and neuroscience. And the DI has a significant number of scientists with academic credentials from Ivy League and similar institutions. Their credentials rival many secular scientists' credentials. Or does Touchstone think DeWitt (or others) isn't competent to address the issues he addresses? Why not?
3. Is it because some of the people cited happen to be religious? Does being religious automatically discredit a scientist like DeWitt from speaking competently on a scientific topic?
If we turn the tables around, does being anti-religion or irreligious render one too biased to speak on other topics, even topics one is competent to speak about? Francis Crick has said one main reason he went into molecular biology was because he wanted to disprove religion; he believed if he could find a scientific explanation for the origin of life on Earth it'd essentially be a nail in the coffin of religion, because then God would no longer be necessary. In Touchstone's view, would this admission disqualify Crick's (and Watson's) Nobel Prize winning work and discovery of DNA's double helix structure?
4. More importantly, what does it matter who wrote the article or what source it's published from so much as whether the article makes a scientifically competent and fair argument? Why does Touchstone sling mud at AiG or the DI simply for being AiG or the DI?
Perhaps the strongest argument in this post for Kitcher's point are the "counter-arguments" you invoke. I suppose some who read this will be taken in by the hand-waving you do here, but anyone familiar with the subject sees this as the frantic hand-waving it is... challenges to conventional dating methods??? Who challenges radiometric dating in the scientific literature? As far as I can see, the only "counter-arguments" are offered by creationists, creationists with theological vested interests in denying the implications of radiometric dating.
Let's assume for the moment the argument(s) against conventional dating methods is correct. Again, what would religious or irreligious bias have to do with the facts or truthfulness of the case?
And your complaints about "illicit" use of "teleogical" terms like "mistake" (?) are just terribly naive about language. If the transcription process (WHOOPS! "transciption" -- another anthropomorphic term those pesky scientists stole from human activities!) functions in such a way that it produces a copy of X the vast majority of the time, the small number of cases where transcription fails to "transcribe" -- to copy the source to the destination -- accurate are called "mistakes" simply due to it's abnormality. It's a conscious anthropomorphism, and one that has good pedagogical utility -- it invokes the idea of a transcriber copying text from one place to another, and in some cases, failing to replicate the source accurately. That doesn't assign the human transcriber's design intent to the DNA transcription process -- it's enzymes for cryin' out loud. The transfer either duplicates the source or it doesn't, and when it doesn't, it's called a "mistake".
Should I pull out the trusty quote from Alice in Wonderland again about the meanings of words and who is their master?
I've no problem saying that DNA mistakes or even a raindrop "optimizing" to its most efficient form as it falls to the earth is "teleological", if by that you mean that it conforms to physical laws, laws which reify a "design", de facto or otherwise. But to suppose that "efficient", used by scientists in reference to mechanistic phenomena somehow presupposes a personal Designer is a blatant beg to the question at hand, and you know it.
It's obvious Steve's point about evolutionists using anthropomorphisms like "advanced" to describe, for example, human hands in contrast to retractable claws has completely sailed over Touchstone's head. The point is, if naturalistic evolution is true, then it's meaningless to make such value judgments. But thanks, Touchstone, for trying to put words into Steve's mouth. Better luck next time, you sly stone, you!
If you doubt that, ask a scientist about the usage. I believe you'll find they use the terms you claim are "teleological" in non-teleological senses, and your demands that they use those terms according to *your* desires makes no more sense than supposing they have some obligation to include rebuttals of Answers In Genesis' ubiquitous "counter-arguments" in advancing their scientific statements and analyses.
Obviously, Touchstone is blinded by his irreducibly complex bias in favor of (theistic) evolution. So we shouldn't listen to him when he talks about evolution because biased people aren't reasonable nor objective. What's more, given Touchstone's radical skepticism -- which eschews such things as knowledge, truth, and objectivity -- we have even less reason to listen to him. Yet we continue to give Touchstone an audience. Why? In our defense, it's sometimes fun to have a buffoon around, to say nothing of a highly evolved monkey! :-)
touchstone said...
ReplyDelete“In several places you claim that this idea or that concept in evolutionary theory has been ‘challenged’, and you wonder why Kitcher has ‘ignored the counter-arguments’. Then I look and see that you offer sources like Answers In Genesis and the Discovery Institute and ID The Future as the ‘counter-arguments’ Kitcher should entertain. __You've got to be kidding me. __Answers In Genesis???”
i) Kitcher has written a book in which he attacks YEC and IDT. If you’re going to attack YEC and IDT, then you need to attack the supporting arguments for YEC and IDT. You need to critique the reasons that advocates of YEC and IDT give for what they believe. It’s really rather elementary, T-stone.
If one is going to write a critique of Marxism, one needs to interact with Marxist authors. Why are you too obtuse to grasp this obvious necessity?
ii) AiG is not all of piece. I didn’t cite Ken Ham. Rather, I cited a biochemist and neuroscientist with a distinguished resume. Do you know more about cell biology than he does?
Who are you to pull rank, anyway? You’re just a layman. If you’re going to pull rank, then you automatically disqualify yourself from having anything worthwhile to say on the subject.
iii) Likewise, the Discovery Institute has a number of highly credentialed members. How does your resume stack up against the curriculum vitae of their members?
iv) And, of course, this is just a diversionary tactic on your part.
v) As Patrick pointed out, my sources weren’t limited to AiG and the Discovery Institute.
“If these ‘counter-arguments’ carry scientfic freight rather than religious polemic weight, how come the only come from religious sources, and are not found as working criticisms in the scientific literature.”
i) If the arguments for naturalistic evolution carry scientific freight rather than irreligious polemic weight, how come they only come from secular sources?
ii) Seveal critics of the standard evolutionary paradigm are irreligious, viz. David Berlinski, Francis Crick, Fred Hoyle, Richard Milton, &c.
iii) And we’ve also seen how the secular science establishment has blacklisted dissent. So your appeal is viciously circular.
iv) For that matter, why should I, as a Christian, automatically discount anything a Christian scientist has to say on the subject? You’re a closet Stalinist.
v) Once again, your ad hominem attack on the critics is just another diversionary tactic.
“If you doubt that, ask a scientist about the usage. I believe you'll find they use the terms you claim are "teleological" in non-teleological senses.”
Several problems:
i) If they are using teleological language metaphorically, then a metaphor is an analogy, and so they still need to explain how the metaphorical usage is analogous to some literal equivalent.
ii) Kitcher is doing more than retailing teleological figures of speech. He is arguing that nature contains dysteleological features that disprove the existence of God.
If, however, his verbiage is merely figurative, then his argument falls apart.
iii) Whether teleological usage can be retranslated into non-teleological concepts is a persistent issue in the philosophy of science—if you weren’t so ignorant of the abundant literature on the subject.
Darwinians want the cash value of teleological explanations without the ontological investment. They are overdrawn at the bank.
1. Touchstone ignores the fact that Steve cited other literature besides literature from Answers in Genesis, the Discovery Institute, and ID the Future. For example, Steve also footnotes New Scientist and Science Daily. Not to mention evolutionists like Gee.
ReplyDelete2. But what's wrong with AiG or the DI? One of the AiG articles Steve cites is from an associate professor of biology with a considerable background biochemistry and neuroscience. And the DI has a significant number of scientists with academic credentials from Ivy League and similar institutions. Their credentials rival many secular scientists' credentials. Or does Touchstone think DeWitt (or others) isn't competent to address the issues he addresses? Why not?
AiG and DI have theologicial investments that *obligate* them a priori to rejecting evolution. If DeWitt or anyone else has scientific re-interpretations or criticisms of the prevailing theories, there are scholarly avenues available to present that -- it happens all the time, thats how science works. DeWitt putting up a web page on AiG is just so much pseudo-scientific gloss on a religious argument, fodder for the faithful who trust in the charlatans at AiG. Read through DeWitt's article on 98% matching versus 95% matching and imagine that article being submitted to a real scientific journal. Heh.
Yet, Steve thinks this has truck on this topic.
[Insert conspiracy theories about science here, Patrick/Steve]
3. Is it because some of the people cited happen to be religious? Does being religious automatically discredit a scientist like DeWitt from speaking competently on a scientific topic?
Well, many of the people who advance evolutionary theory in the *positive* sense are religious, so there's not problem with a religious person engaging in science, whether you are for against evolution. The difference here, though, is that the expectation is for the dialog to proceed on scientific terms. For instance, DeWitt in his article refers more than once to the evidence supporting "separate creation" in contrast to the evolutionary interpretation. Huh? Is that a *scientific* assessment? I think not, and here you have DeWitt responding to scientific analysis with a theological critique -- if not, then whence the science behind "special creation"? I must have missed that theory in the literature.
And that's the point, here. Kitcher makes points consonant with not only the prevailing scientific interpretation of the evidence, but also confined to the epistemology of science. Steve points to critics who offer the idea of "separate creation" -- a wholly non-scientific concept born of theological investments, and wonders why Kitcher doesn't engage those "counter-arguments". But such complaints are seen to be just so much hand-waving if you consider it for a moment; how would one counter the idea of "separate creation"? One cannot, scientifically, as it is perfectly unfalsifiable, and can explain *any* evidence and phenomena.
If we turn the tables around, does being anti-religion or irreligious render one too biased to speak on other topics, even topics one is competent to speak about? Francis Crick has said one main reason he went into molecular biology was because he wanted to disprove religion; he believed if he could find a scientific explanation for the origin of life on Earth it'd essentially be a nail in the coffin of religion, because then God would no longer be necessary. In Touchstone's view, would this admission disqualify Crick's (and Watson's) Nobel Prize winning work and discovery of DNA's double helix structure?
No, I assume that all people, scientists included, have personal biases and metaphysical understandings. Science and scientific discourse is structured to discount these subjective perspectives through its epistemic reliance on shared observation and evidence. That is, as long as your theories perform against the data and the predictions it makes, then it does not matter if you are creationist, atheist, or Scientologist. But that only works when you actually participate and contribute in the scientific process itself. Standing on the sidelines wondering about 'separate creation' doesn't qualify. I don't care if you are a YEC or a strong atheist, if you can put up theories that work scientifically, then you have put up theories that work scientifically.
4. More importantly, what does it matter who wrote the article or what source it's published from so much as whether the article makes a scientifically competent and fair argument? Why does Touchstone sling mud at AiG or the DI simply for being AiG or the DI?
As above, if DeWitt were to publish his complaints in a scholarly journal, subject to review and critique for scientific integrity, I'd have no problem with it. This has nothing to do with being DeWitt as the author, and everything to do with the lack of accountability in addressing the issue in terms of science. I "sling mud" at AiG and DI because they present religious critiques of science, throw in some technical jargon, and try to fob it off as scientific discourse. It ain't, not even close. And Steve (or you) offering these kinds of polemic institutions as your sources for "counter-arguments" only goes to highlight your theological investments as opposed to a substantial scientific critique. If these "counter-arguments" were substantial in their science, they'd be much more effective and meaningful working in scientific circles -- that's how critiques and alternate interpretations of the evidence make headway, scientifically. Look at the tremendous progress the "evo/devo" model has made in replacing/upgrading the modern synthesis in the last decade or so. Evo/Devo's advancement as scientific re-interpretation and critique of traditional evolutionary interpretation provides a dramatic picture of everything AiG and ID's critiques are *not*.
Let's assume for the moment the argument(s) against conventional dating methods is correct. Again, what would religious or irreligious bias have to do with the facts or truthfulness of the case?
Even if we assume that conventional dating methods are *not* correct, we do not have a scientific basis for this assumption -- the evidence is against us. As a matter of science, this assumption would be a religious (or at least non-scientific) commitment, and one that contradicts the indications drawn from science. You are free to make that religious commitment as an assumption, but it's just false labeling if you call that science. Whatever bias this introduces ("dating methods are wrong") doesn't matter in science as long as you remain committed to a fair reading of the evidence.
It's obvious Steve's point about evolutionists using anthropomorphisms like "advanced" to describe, for example, human hands in contrast to retractable claws has completely sailed over Touchstone's head. The point is, if naturalistic evolution is true, then it's meaningless to make such value judgments. But thanks, Touchstone, for trying to put words into Steve's mouth. Better luck next time, you sly stone, you!
That's quite an ironic comment, there, Patrick, as it makes clear that you've missed the implications of a naturalistic reality -- it has gone over *your* head (and by Steve's, too, apparently). If we account for evolution in terms of naturalistic processes, processes that have stochastic roots even, then all these terms *still* have significant meanings -- "advanced", "efficient", "optimized". The fact that you think these terms would be somehow rendered meaningless if naturalistic processes are shown to account for biological development demonstrates that the basic concepts at work here have escaped your grasp. In other words, this complaint from you and Steve is just a sign that you are either incapable or unwilling in your understanding of what these terms mean when invoked in a scientific context. Again, I refer you to Carroll's Humpty Dumpty, who seems to have a good philosophical grasp on meaning and semantics that you do not, even as a silly character in a whimsical tale.
-Touchstone
Steve,
ReplyDeleteCould you expand a bit on the vestigial argument? Why does it amount to a Darwin-of-the-gaps?
"ii) Seveal critics of the standard evolutionary paradigm are irreligious, viz. David Berlinski, Francis Crick, Fred Hoyle, Richard Milton, &c"
Also, Michael Denton is an agnostic.
T-Stone opined:
ReplyDelete---
AiG and DI have theologicial investments that *obligate* them a priori to rejecting evolution.
---
As if secularists didn't have atheistic investments that *obligate* them a priori to rejecting intelligent design.
To quote one of those atheists: YAWN!
Mathetes said:
ReplyDelete"Could you expand a bit on the vestigial argument? Why does it amount to a Darwin-of-the-gaps?"
They classify certain organs as vestigial because they haven't discovered a function for the organs.
But that's an argument from ignorance. And they putty over the gaps by appeal to Darwinism.
Thanks!
ReplyDelete"[Insert conspiracy theories about science here, Patrick/Steve]"
ReplyDeleteNothing conspiratorial about the fact that dissenters are blacklisted. That's a matter of public record.
"For instance, DeWitt in his article refers more than once to the evidence supporting "separate creation" in contrast to the evolutionary interpretation. Huh? Is that a *scientific* assessment?"
Notice how T-stone ducks the evidence put forward by DeWitt. Instead, T-stone simply resorts to labeling. He artificially compartmentalizes reality into "religious" domains and "scientific domains." Instead of responding to the evidence, he invokes his classification scheme.
The first question we should ask is not if something is "scientific," but if it is true. Science should be modeled on the truth, not vice versa. Is a particular position in touch with reality? That's the only relevant question.
"You are free to make that religious commitment as an assumption, but it's just false labeling if you call that science."
Once again, instead of dealing with evidence and argument, he hides behind tendentious definitions.
"And that's the point, here. Kitcher makes points consonant with not only the prevailing scientific interpretation of the evidence, but also confined to the epistemology of science."
Kitcher devotes a fair amount of time to attacking theistic evolution, which T-stone says he believes in.
"As above, if DeWitt were to publish his complaints in a scholarly journal, subject to review and critique for scientific integrity, I'd have no problem with it."
i) To begin with, peer review has become an instrument of censorship.
ii) Second, even Kitcher rejects the facile appeal to peer review.
“In several places you claim that this idea or that concept in evolutionary theory has been ‘challenged’, and you wonder why Kitcher has ‘ignored the counter-arguments’. Then I look and see that you offer sources like Answers In Genesis and the Discovery Institute and ID The Future as the ‘counter-arguments’ Kitcher should entertain. __You've got to be kidding me. __Answers In Genesis???”
ReplyDeletei) Kitcher has written a book in which he attacks YEC and IDT. If you’re going to attack YEC and IDT, then you need to attack the supporting arguments for YEC and IDT. You need to critique the reasons that advocates of YEC and IDT give for what they believe. It’s really rather elementary, T-stone.
You are saying here that Kitcher should provide religious and theological rebuttals, here? That's not what Kitcher is attempting. His goal is to address YEC and ID from a *scientific* standpoint. This is clear from all the quotes you have provided in your post. It's not a goal of his to respond to YECs on their own terms -- religious convictions borne of a particular interpretation of Genesis. Rather, he is providing a critique of what those religious convictions mean in light of the available science.
Given that, DeWitt's appeal to "separate creation" is completely irrelevant, for example. It's not a scientific rebuttal DeWitt is offering.
If one is going to write a critique of Marxism, one needs to interact with Marxist authors. Why are you too obtuse to grasp this obvious necessity?
Kitcher's not obligated to address YECs on theological terms, what are you talking about? If he wants to assess the scientific ramifications of that theology, then he can do that, and *is* doing that, from what I can tell. Who are you to tell Kitcher he *must* engage YECs religiously when his goals are scientific discourse?
ii) AiG is not all of piece. I didn’t cite Ken Ham. Rather, I cited a biochemist and neuroscientist with a distinguished resume. Do you know more about cell biology than he does?
I think not, and that's why I want to have what the man is saying put forth in an accountable, reviewed context, if it's gonna carry weight. The article in question isn't complicated in this case, and amounts to little more than saying "98% similiarity with measurement method A, 95% similiarity with mehod B". Which of course gives rise to the question of what DeWitt's article actually *does* in terms of critiquing evolution. But relevance issues aside, it's precisely because these topics get very involved very quickly that there is a review and editorial process in place that provides a measure of protection against "baloney with a frosting of technical jargon" being advanced. One reads the DeWitt article and says "So what? A 95% match, counting the way DeWitt wants, still leaves the basic implications for evolution unchanged." This wouldn't wake the cut as a significant critique if it were put into the peer review process.
DeWitt is welcome to demonstrate his expertise, but he's not going to be taken seriously if he's publishin on Ken Ham's website, rather than in a serious scientific context.
Who are you to pull rank, anyway? You’re just a layman. If you’re going to pull rank, then you automatically disqualify yourself from having anything worthwhile to say on the subject.
No, the fact that I *don't* have a PhD in biology is precisely why I expect the findings on these matters to be accountable to verification and peer review. As the DeWitt article (and the whole of AiG) demonstrates, it's quite easy to bamboozle the retail public with technical mumbo-jumbo. I'm not in biology, but I am professionally involved in technical disciplines. As such, I'm keenly aware how easy it is to spew complete crap packaged in technical language, and have the general public who are not expert in this area be fooled and deceived in good part. Happens all the time. To combat this, serious contributors to the science in my field subject their findings and analysis to the scrutiny of others who *expert* in the subject domain as a measure of protection against "mumbo-jumbo" that can be deceiving or misleading to non-experts.
So, I'm not pulling rank here, but am doing the reverse. I'm declaring my status as "non-expert", and asking for accountability to other experts in this field as a minimum qualification for something I should take seriously. This is where AiG utterly fails as credible source on science -- it's a laughingstock when its arguments are subjected to real review by its scientific peers.
iii) Likewise, the Discovery Institute has a number of highly credentialed members. How does your resume stack up against the curriculum vitae of their members?
Well, look who's actually pulling rank here, Steve. I don't accept the "authority" of DeWitt or anyone else just because they have a PhD, as you apparently do. I believe a PhD is *necessary* for offering expert analysis in many of these areas, but not *sufficient*. If a PhDs analysis is worthwhile, it will stand up to scrutiny and critique by *other* credentialed experts in the field, experts who do not share vested interests with the expert in question. That's how the science community has developed protections against the "go get a PhD for 'credibility' when you advance your religion as science" problem -- accountability to peers who will most likely not have the same agenda. So, no, the PhD itself does not impress me. It's a necessary beginning requirement for many topics, but being able to make arguments that are coherent and convincing to the other experts in the field *does* impress me.
This is what AiG and the DI lack -- credibility among the other experts in the field. If they had it, they could get their analysis published in the premier journals.
iv) And, of course, this is just a diversionary tactic on your part.
Heh. The *diversion* is you pointing at AiG, Steve, where we are supposed to think that articles like DeWitt's are somehow a) relevant or b) substantial to the question at hand. It's easy for you to create the superficial *appearance* of solid critiques to Kitcher's points, but those are just a matter of appearances. Nothing more than a cynical understanding that most people won't bother to really digest what DeWitt is saying and evaluate it in the light of a) mainstream scientific understandings, and b) relevance to your argument in resisting Kitcher. It's just hand-waving, Steve. I know it, you know it, and anyone who bothers to investigate will know it. Those links are just so much "hand-waving", an attempt to divert readers from the absence of a substantive scientific critique on your part.
v) As Patrick pointed out, my sources weren’t limited to AiG and the Discovery Institute.
Yeah, you quoted Gould in support of, um, the apparent idea that different 'arks' might have been used to transport the marsupials to Australia. Kitcher is thereby devastated by such non-sequiturs? The more legitimate the source, Steve, the less relevance and less quarrel in any case it has to what Kitcher is saying. The "counter-arguments" that actually purport to contradict Kitcher here are from the lamest of sources, scientifically.
“If these ‘counter-arguments’ carry scientfic freight rather than religious polemic weight, how come the only come from religious sources, and are not found as working criticisms in the scientific literature.”
i) If the arguments for naturalistic evolution carry scientific freight rather than irreligious polemic weight, how come they only come from secular sources?
Science is a naturalistic endeavor, Steve. Check it out. It's pinned to natural explanations of physical phenomenon. As such, it can handle precisely as much religion as fits inside those constraints. Kenneth Miller has no trouble getting published in scholarly scientific channels as a Christian. His offerings are offered on scientific terms when he offers them there. He's free to argue non-scientifically (as he often does), but such arguments are delivered through different channels.
ii) Seveal critics of the standard evolutionary paradigm are irreligious, viz. David Berlinski, Francis Crick, Fred Hoyle, Richard Milton, &c.
Sure, as I mentioned to Patrick, evo/devo is a juggernaut of sorts in the literature over the past several years. It has many points that are advanced that displace/upgrade/overturn significant parts of the Modern Synthesis. But when Crick speculates about the possibilities regarding panspermia as explanation for the origin of life, for example, it remains speculation until it obtains evidential support as a competing theory. Anyone can cook up whatever hypothesis they want, and there has never been a shortage of competing and dissenting hypotheses. That's a good thing. But it very much looks like you suppose that this kind of dissent somehow destroys whatever consensus exists on the prevailing theories. Just because Setterfield wonders if the speed of light sped up or slowed down by many orders of magnitude does *not* call into question all the physics based on the constancy of c (which is darn near all of it!).
iii) And we’ve also seen how the secular science establishment has blacklisted dissent. So your appeal is viciously circular.
Not. Evo/Devo, Steve (among a host of others). Science yields to evidence and performance against predictions, but resists purely theological assertions. Your claims of blacklisting are just desparate flailing about for an explanation for YEC and ID's conspicuous lack of scientific substance.
iv) For that matter, why should I, as a Christian, automatically discount anything a Christian scientist has to say on the subject? You’re a closet Stalinist.
You shouldn't automatically discount it. But you shouldn't automatically give it a pass from scrutiny, either, which is the only way sources like AiG can be digested, or worse, advanced as part of your argument. I'm happy to let the experts hash it out, Steve. I read the literature and follow along because I'm interested. But at the end of the day, I rely on the peer process to keep things accountable, transparent, and honest. That's an odd characterization of 'Stalinism', I'd say. Rather, you're giving DeWitt or Ham or Luskin a pass as to their arguments just because they are Christians would be much more congruent with the 'party politics' of Stalin. The arguments should stand on their own merits, and be able to withstand the scrutiny of the wider community, no matter if you are Christian, atheist or Zoroastrian.
v) Once again, your ad hominem attack on the critics is just another diversionary tactic.
See above.
“If you doubt that, ask a scientist about the usage. I believe you'll find they use the terms you claim are "teleological" in non-teleological senses.”
Several problems:
i) If they are using teleological language metaphorically, then a metaphor is an analogy, and so they still need to explain how the metaphorical usage is analogous to some literal equivalent.
That's precisely why they use those terms, Steve. It's pedagogical. "Transcribe" doesn't actually involve any writing in the sense humans generally think of that word (pen to paper). It's analogous because it maps the idea of a source body of information, and a process to reproduce it to a destination. The analogy doesn't have to invoke a brain or a personality; manifestly it doesn't work in this case, when we are talking about enzymes working with DNA and RNA. All analogies are false in some regard, or they aren't analogies. The analogous parts that *do* have isomorphic value are the basis for the use of the terms.
ii) Kitcher is doing more than retailing teleological figures of speech. He is arguing that nature contains dysteleological features that disprove the existence of God.
Not. Science cannot disprove the existence of God, and so long as you suppose such, I submit you are clueless about science, its epistemic foundations, and its practice. You're just so stuck in your commitment to YEC that you have confused the discrediting of YEC chronologies as science with disproving the existence of God. It has simply disproven [Manata disclaimer: 'prove' in the tentative, inductive, scienific sense here] your *interpretation* of Genesis. That's not at all the same thing. Disproving Steve is not disproving the existence of God.
Although I can see from many of your posts why you would get those two confused.
If, however, his verbiage is merely figurative, then his argument falls apart.
iii) Whether teleological usage can be retranslated into non-teleological concepts is a persistent issue in the philosophy of science—if you weren’t so ignorant of the abundant literature on the subject.
It manifestly *can* be, Steve. Words mean what the speakers intend them to mean, remember? Humpty Dumpty, and all that? The practical constraints are just being understood and able to convey that meaning, and the scientists involved have no problem with the consensus understanding of these terms, so far as they are "teleology-neutral".Can you point me at some of the abundant literature here. See the discussion on this at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, for example:
Opinions divide over whether Darwin's theory of evolution provides a means of eliminating teleology from biology, or whether it provides a naturalistic account of the role of teleological notions in the science. Many contemporary biologists and philosophers of biology believe that teleological notions are a distinctive and ineliminable feature of biological explanations but that it is possible to provide a naturalistic account of their role that avoids the concerns above.
Like I said above, teleological conclusions beg the question, and as this short paragraph here affirms, these same terms obtain with or without a personal designer/creator. If there is no personal direction underneath, the teleology is just contstrued as a "naturalistic teleogy" -- "efficient", then is just a symbol pointing at purely naturalistic processes and outcomes, for example. Word with teleological connotations are enormously useful in terms of pedagogy, but it's naive to think that such usage commits the speaker to a necessary "invisible hand" of a personality driving the phenomenon.
Darwinians want the cash value of teleological explanations without the ontological investment. They are overdrawn at the bank.
You're firmly committed to begging the question here, Steve. Too bad.
-Touchstone
Touchstone writes:
ReplyDelete"AiG and DI have theologicial investments that *obligate* them a priori to rejecting evolution."
Nobody obligates a scientist to associate with an organization like Answers In Genesis or the Discovery Institute. The judgment that such an organization is correct on the relevant issues is made prior to the decision to associate with that organization.
And an organization can have some religious associations without those religious associations' justifying the sort of dismissive approach that Touchstone has taken. The judiciary in the United States has some religious associations (the influence of religious philosophy on the founding of that judicial system, court sessions opening with prayer, etc.). Yet, there are atheistic and agnostic judges within that judicial system. It would be unreasonable to dismiss them as religiously motivated on the grounds that the larger system they're associated with has some religious associations. Similarly, while an organization like the Discovery Institute has some religious associations, there are agnostics, for example, who work with the organization or associate with it in some other manner.
Touchstone writes:
ReplyDelete"Those links are just so much 'hand-waving', an attempt to divert readers from the absence of a substantive scientific critique on your part....Yeah, you quoted Gould in support of, um, the apparent idea that different 'arks' might have been used to transport the marsupials to Australia. Kitcher is thereby devastated by such non-sequiturs? The more legitimate the source, Steve, the less relevance and less quarrel in any case it has to what Kitcher is saying. The 'counter-arguments' that actually purport to contradict Kitcher here are from the lamest of sources, scientifically....Rather, you're giving DeWitt or Ham or Luskin a pass as to their arguments just because they are Christians would be much more congruent with the 'party politics' of Stalin."
Steve has cited a larger variety of material to support his assessment than you're suggesting, and he hasn't been "giving DeWitt or Ham or Luskin a pass as to their arguments just because they are Christians". In what sense does a source have to "contradict Kitcher" in order to be relevant? A source can qualify Kitcher's argument in a way that furthers Steve's case without directly contradicting Kitcher.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteIt's not *associations* that I identify as problematic, but *commitments* that are problematic. It would be disingenuous to suggest that Ken Ham does not have an overriding theological commitment to the preservation of his interpretations of scripture. Or that the Discovery Institute isn't committed to the overturning of materialism. AiG and DI have different (if somewhat overlapping) commitments (AiG -> YEC interpretations of scripture, DI -> overturning of materialism), and those commitments rightly call into question the relative objectivity with which the view and analyze the scientific evidence.
Same thing goes for whatever organizations are committed to rejecting all scientific evidence that may be marshalled in support of design or cosmic teleology. The evidence is what matters in science, an a priori commitments to a conclusion just declares one's hostility to the facts when they arise and don't comport with the a priori conclusions.
That's not to say that scientists are, or even can be totally free of bias and a level of a priori thinking. But those biases are taken into account as a problem to be addressed, and the requirements of shared observation, peer review, and external duplication and verification are in place as counter-measures against the biases that may be encountered.
It isn't a perfect remedy, and science in large part depends on the intellectual honesty of its participants to eschew unnecessary (in terms of science and natural phenomena) a priori commitments, and to let the evidence and observations serve as the basis for scientific conclusions.
For an organization formally committed to the idea that the earth is <10,000 old, that means that it's very difficult, if not impossible to conduct scientific investigation and analysis according to scientific epistemology. It isn't the *association*, then, that's a problem, but the *commitment* to the answer that is problematic. Same thing with DI; if you are committed to overturning materialism, your objectivity in assessing the question materialism's sufficiency as explanation in science is dubious.
Or, to use your judicial analogy, if a judge is *committed* to a theology of racism, we can't say necessarily that his rulings are unfair on the merits. However, we do understand that pre-existing theological *commitments* to the supremacy of white people are problematic, and warrant checks in the system to guard against the pollution of rulings on the merits by those commitments -- other judges will review and assess on appeal, for example.
And, as any lawyer will tell you, if you can establish such a theological commitment to white supremacy on the part of a judge, you have solid grounds to ask that the judge recuse himself on any matters than involve race.
-Touchstone
Jason,
ReplyDeleteYou said:
Steve has cited a larger variety of material to support his assessment than you're suggesting, and he hasn't been "giving DeWitt or Ham or Luskin a pass as to their arguments just because they are Christians". In what sense does a source have to "contradict Kitcher" in order to be relevant? A source can qualify Kitcher's argument in a way that furthers Steve's case without directly contradicting Kitcher.
So I'm thinking of this from Steve (above) when reading your comment here:
But creationists point to catastrophic events which precipitate rapid sedimentation (e.g. Mt. St. Helens). Kitcher needs to interact with these counterexamples.
The immiediate question is: *what* counter-examples? Does Mt. St. Helens present a problem for geology and stratigraphy? I'm quite sure that a very substantial amount of catastrophe is accomodated in the models that geologists work from. So Steve waves his hands, and talks about "counterexamples", and any one who's paying attention just says "*what* counterexamples"? Maybe Steve can point to evidence for catastrophic phenomena that *aren't* accomodated by current geologic theories, but in the absence of that, this looks like pointing at an AiG site that tries to make something out of 3% indels, only without pointing to anything.
Steve tries to slip in the assumption that meaningful counterexamples *exist* that are not incorporated into the working theories being used here. That's not at all my understanding, and I'd be interested to see where Steve might point to in supporting his assertions of these "counterexamples".
All of which to say, the complaint I'm offering here is that Steve paints what he hopes is an impressive picture of all the scientific dissent that exists to support his rejection of Kitcher's arguments, but when actually reviewed for a) pertinence, b) scientific substance and c) actual contradiction to Kitcher (direct or indirect), it is shown to be almost completely an exercise in hand-waving.
-Touchstone
T-Stone said:
ReplyDelete---
It's not *associations* that I identify as problematic, but *commitments* that are problematic. It would be disingenuous to suggest that Ken Ham does not have an overriding theological commitment to the preservation of his interpretations of scripture. Or that the Discovery Institute isn't committed to the overturning of materialism. AiG and DI have different (if somewhat overlapping) commitments (AiG -> YEC interpretations of scripture, DI -> overturning of materialism), and those commitments rightly call into question the relative objectivity with which the view and analyze the scientific evidence.
---
This completely begs the question. You are assuming that materialism is the default position, and that anyone who would go against materialism is de facto biased. Materialists get off scott-free in your system here.
Why don't materialists have to prove materialism, T-Stone? Why is it that they get to assume their position?
Indeed, how is it that the materialist is defined as the "objective" position by you? Especially given the fact that I've already quoted Lewontin to you in the past, where he admits that science does not require materialism but rather scientists assume materialism a priori so as to not allow a Divine Foot in the door. Tell me how that is "objective" but ID isn't?
Touchstone writes:
ReplyDelete"Or, to use your judicial analogy, if a judge is *committed* to a theology of racism, we can't say necessarily that his rulings are unfair on the merits. However, we do understand that pre-existing theological *commitments* to the supremacy of white people are problematic, and warrant checks in the system to guard against the pollution of rulings on the merits by those commitments -- other judges will review and assess on appeal, for example."
You seem to be redefining your argument in the middle of the discussion. I responded to what you said about "theological investments" that are "a priori". But, as I explained in my earlier response, nobody obligates the scientists and other individuals involved to associate themselves with an organization like the Discovery Institute. They can come to an agreement with the organization's beliefs, then associate with that organization. And why should we think that agnostics who associate with intelligent design, such as by participating in the activities of the Discovery Institute, are motivated by "theological investments" that are "a priori"?
You write:
"So I'm thinking of this from Steve (above) when reading your comment here:
But creationists point to catastrophic events which precipitate rapid sedimentation (e.g. Mt. St. Helens). Kitcher needs to interact with these counterexamples."
You made comments about Steve's article in general. Citing the example you've cited above doesn't justify your generalizations. You referred to how Steve was "giving DeWitt or Ham or Luskin a pass as to their arguments just because they are Christians". Your example cited above doesn't justify the conclusion I was questioning in that case or in the other cases I mentioned.
You are saying here that Kitcher should provide religious and theological rebuttals, here? That's not what Kitcher is attempting. His goal is to address YEC and ID from a *scientific* standpoint. This is clear from all the quotes you have provided in your post. It's not a goal of his to respond to YECs on their own terms -- religious convictions borne of a particular interpretation of Genesis. Rather, he is providing a critique of what those religious convictions mean in light of the available science.
ReplyDeleteA. The material that he is attempting to "refute" is theological in nature, so it would be a category mistake to simply invoke *scientific* - which for you means *naturalistic* - arguments. The text presents creation in a particular manner. In your rather hamfisted and exegetically incompetent manner you have attempted, without so much as a warrant from the text itself, to reduce the text to "allegory."
B. If the text is allegory or can be allegorized in exegesis, then why would a naturalistic objection refute anything in it? That position cashes out as "it wouldn't," which is probably why you resort to allegorical exegesis - it's insulation for you, an attempt to fireproof your own position.
C. A *literal* interpretation would be subject to *some* scientific objections, but those objections would have to be framed to refute a particular "literal" interpretation. What Kitcher does is pick one, which he doesn't seem actually "get" right anyway, and not others and fail to interact with counterarguments already offered. In the process, he draws several inferences about the state of the world, etc., that aren't in the text. How then do his arguments refute the text as "literally" interpreted?
D. In short, some, but not all, naturalistic explanations involve bringing considerations to the text not in the text in order to refute the text. So, what happens is those considerations are refuted, not what the text actually says. One has to make several steps to work from the text to those considerations and constraints. Where is the supporting argument for each step?
The evidence is what matters in science, an a priori commitments to a conclusion just declares one's hostility to the facts when they arise and don't comport with the a priori conclusions.
So, what evidence selects for a naturalistic explanation? Where's the argument for metaphysical naturalism that underwrites "science?" What you give with one hand, Tstone, you regularly take away with the other. Why is materialism the default position?
TOUCHSTONE SAID:
ReplyDelete“You are saying here that Kitcher should provide religious and theological rebuttals, here?”
That is your tendentious classification scheme, not mine.
“That's not what Kitcher is attempting. His goal is to address YEC and ID from a *scientific* standpoint.”
How would you know? I read the book. You didn’t.
“This is clear from all the quotes you have provided in your post. It's not a goal of his to respond to YECs on their own terms -- religious convictions borne of a particular interpretation of Genesis. Rather, he is providing a critique of what those religious convictions mean in light of the available science.”
i) You’re imputing positions to him out of thin air. As a matter of fact, he explicitly repudiates your facile appeal to the religious disqualifier.
ii) Moreover, Kitcher would be in no position to know if a YEC writer was using a theological argument rather than a scientific argument unless and until he read the YEC writer in the first place.
iii) Furthermore, you choose to define “science” according to methodological naturalism. But that is, of itself, one of the issues in dispute. It is not something that can be taken for granted in a critique of YEC or IDT.
“Given that, DeWitt's appeal to ‘separate creation’ is completely irrelevant, for example. It's not a scientific rebuttal DeWitt is offering.”
i) All you ever do in response to DeWitt is to seize on a single phrase, as if that invalidated his entire case.
ii) And even if that were his only argument, it is only “unscientific” on your question-begging definition of “science.”
“Kitcher's not obligated to address YECs on theological terms, what are you talking about? If he wants to assess the scientific ramifications of that theology, then he can do that, and *is* doing that, from what I can tell. Who are you to tell Kitcher he *must* engage YECs religiously when his goals are scientific discourse?”
You’re such a fool. You make things up whole cloth without having read the book yourself—presuming to speak on Kitcher’s behalf although you don’t know what he said half the time. By all means, keep sticking your neck on the chopping block.
“I think not, and that's why I want to have what the man is saying put forth in an accountable, reviewed context, if it's gonna carry weight. The article in question isn't complicated in this case, and amounts to little more than saying ‘98% similiarity with measurement method A, 95% similiarity with mehod B’. Which of course gives rise to the question of what DeWitt's article actually *does* in terms of critiquing evolution. But relevance issues aside, it's precisely because these topics get very involved very quickly that there is a review and editorial process in place that provides a measure of protection against ‘baloney with a frosting of technical jargon’ being advanced. One reads the DeWitt article and says ‘So what? A 95% match, counting the way DeWitt wants, still leaves the basic implications for evolution unchanged.’ This wouldn't wake the cut as a significant critique if it were put into the peer review process.”
i) Once again, if you knew what you were talking about, you’d realize that Kitcher rejects this definition of science in objection to IDT.
ii) And I also cited more than one of his articles.
“DeWitt is welcome to demonstrate his expertise, but he's not going to be taken seriously if he's publishin on Ken Ham's website, rather than in a serious scientific context.”
Then why should anyone take your amateur blog the least bit seriously? Is the material you post peer-reviewed?
“No, the fact that I *don't* have a PhD in biology is precisely why I expect the findings on these matters to be accountable to verification and peer review.”
False modesty. You cherry-pick what experts you listen to. You only listen to experts who do science from the standpoint of functional atheism.
“As the DeWitt article (and the whole of AiG) demonstrates, it's quite easy to bamboozle the retail public with technical mumbo-jumbo.”
Notice the duplicity. On the heels of his false modesty, he immediately attacks the DeWitt article as an attempt to “bamboozle the retail public with technical mumbo-jumbo.”
By his own admission, how is T-stone completent to evaluate the article?
“As such, I'm keenly aware how easy it is to spew complete crap packaged in technical language, and have the general public who are not expert in this area be fooled and deceived in good part.”
I appreciate your candid self-assessment. And I’d advise our readers to keep that in mind if they stumble across T-stone’s blog.
“Well, look who's actually pulling rank here, Steve.”
This is known as answering you on your own grounds. Pity you can’t follow your own trail of breadcrumbs.
“eh. The *diversion* is you pointing at AiG, Steve, where we are supposed to think that articles like DeWitt's are somehow a) relevant or b) substantial to the question at hand.”
The question at hand, according to Kitcher, is whether certain genetic commonalities between man and ape are evidence of common descent. DeWitt’s articles are directly germane to that question.
“It's easy for you to create the superficial *appearance* of solid critiques to Kitcher's points, but those are just a matter of appearances. Nothing more than a cynical understanding that most people won't bother to really digest what DeWitt is saying and evaluate it in the light of a) mainstream scientific understandings, and b) relevance to your argument in resisting Kitcher.”
“Mainstream” is not a synonym for truth. Indeed, people appeal to consensus in the absence of a solid argument. It’s an appeal to authority rather than evidence.
“Those links are just so much ‘hand-waving’, an attempt to divert readers from the absence of a substantive scientific critique on your part.”
The onus was never on me to refute Kitcher. My point, rather, is that he failed to discharge his own burden of proof. He set the bar at a certain level.
“Science is a naturalistic endeavor, Steve. Check it out.”
A classic example of rigging the rules. And it begs the question of where “nature” begins and ends.
If God made the world, then the world is the natural effect of a supernatural cause. Hence, divine agency intersects with the natural world. It is one of the causes (indeed, the primary cause) of all that happens.
If God heals some individuals in answer to prayer, then that is a natural effect of a supernatural cause. It intersects with the natural world. The correct explanation would be “God did it!”
“It's pinned to natural explanations of physical phenomenon. As such, it can handle precisely as much religion as fits inside those constraints.”
This is the same sorry argument that Bart Ehrman attempted to use in his debate with Craig to rule out the historical evidence for the Resurrection. Craig pointed out the intellectual confusion in Ehrman’s objection, as well as the dilemma that Ehrman made for himself.
“Kenneth Miller has no trouble getting published in scholarly scientific channels as a Christian.”
Naturally, since he’s a vociferous critic of IDT. That makes him a useful idiot for the secular science establishment to pawn off in response to IDT.
BTW, DeWitt doesn’t have any difficulty getting published in peer-reviewed journals either.
“But it very much looks like you suppose that this kind of dissent somehow destroys whatever consensus exists on the prevailing theories.”
Once again, you’re ditching your own argument. You’re original argument was about how only a religious zealot would attack evolution. So I gave you some counterexamples. Since you’re unable to dispute my counterexamples, you suddenly shift ground.
“Not. Evo/Devo, Steve (among a host of others).”
Lousy example since Evo/Devo is a salvage operation to rescue naturalistic evolution. As such, it has found a receptive audience in the guild. Anything to save the theory.
In context, that’s not the kind of dissent we were talking about, now is it? Dissent from Darwinism is what will get you blacklisted.
“Rather, you're giving DeWitt or Ham or Luskin a pass as to their arguments just because they are Christians.”
I never cited Ham or Luskin.
“That's precisely why they use those terms, Steve. It's pedagogical.”
You keep *saying* it’s pedagogical, but you never document your claim. You never show that when a Darwinian uses a teleological explanation, his usage is purely pedagogical. That is just your face-saving claim.
“Not. Science cannot disprove the existence of God, and so long as you suppose such, I submit you are clueless about science, its epistemic foundations, and its practice.”
Tell that to Kitcher or Dennett or Dawkins. I’m responding to Kitcher’s own contentions. That is how Kitcher is arguing in the very book under review.
Must you be such a dunce? You sally forth without having read the book yourself, swapping out Kitcher’s argument and swapping in your own, then imputing your views to him.
Even in the material I quoted, it should be clear to anyone who isn’t blinded by your own infidelity that when Kitcher (to take one example) points to the “waste,” “inefficiency,” and “cruelty” of nature, he is using teleological categories, and he is not using them as metaphors—for merely figurative “waste,” “inefficiency,” and “cruelty” would do nothing to undermine the argument from design. To the contrary, he’s appealing these dysteological features (as he sees them) to disprove the existence of the Creator.
If his value-judgment is purely anthropomorphic, then it doesn’t correspond to any objective fact about the natural world—in which case his argument falls flat.
“Many contemporary biologists and philosophers of biology believe that teleological notions are a distinctive and ineliminable feature of biological explanations but that it is possible to provide a naturalistic account of their role that avoids the concerns above.”
Notice how T-stone is now contradicting himself. Previously he said that teleological usage was only “pedagogical” or “anthropomorphic.”
In that event, it would be possible to translate teleological usage into non-teleological usage.
Now, however, he quotes something from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, according to which “teleological notions are a distinctive and ineliminable feature of biological explanations.”
This is typical of T-stone. He makes an ignorant statement. When his hand is called, he tries to cover his tracks by doing some remedial research. But his new argument is a mismatch with his old argument.
And, indeed, it’s very difficult for biology to eliminate teleological explanations. That is what naturalistic evolution would like to do, if only it could. And having no adequate alternative, it tries to disguise what it cannot eliminate. This is why Darwinians speak with a forked tongue. They bar teleology at the front door while sneaking it in through the back door.
touchstone said...
ReplyDelete“The immiediate question is: *what* counter-examples? Does Mt. St. Helens present a problem for geology and stratigraphy? I'm quite sure that a very substantial amount of catastrophe is accomodated in the models that geologists work from. So Steve waves his hands, and talks about ‘counterexamples’, and any one who's paying attention just says ‘*what* counterexamples’? Maybe Steve can point to evidence for catastrophic phenomena that *aren't* accomodated by current geologic theories, but in the absence of that, this looks like pointing at an AiG site that tries to make something out of 3% indels, only without pointing to anything.”
Is T-stone playing dumb, or is this for real?
i) Kitcher appealed to ordinary rates of sedimentation to prove the antiquity of the earth.
Anyone conversant with YEC will realize that YEC writers often appeal to Mt. St. Helens to establish accelerated rates of sedimentation, and then apply that at a larger scale in their models of flood geology.
Now, this may be a good argument or a bad argument. The problem is that Kitcher ignores it entirely.
ii) No one supposes that Mt. St. Helens presents a problem for geology and stratigraphy. YEC writers like Austin, Wise, and Marcus Ross don’t have a problem with geology and stratigraphy. Indeed, they’ve been trained in those very fields of specialization. And they are analogizing from events like Mt. St. Helens to flood geology.
iii) I didn’t appeal to AiG in reference to Mt. St. Helens, now did I?
iv) Apropos (iii), T-stone has been using a guilt-by-association tactic throughout this threat. Assuming that Ken Ham is incompetent, he tries to tar every contributor to AiG with the same incompetence.
This is a disreputable argument, but, then, T-stone is a disreputable disputant.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteThis completely begs the question. You are assuming that materialism is the default position, and that anyone who would go against materialism is de facto biased. Materialists get off scott-free in your system here.
Science is materialist in its methodology. It constrains -- on *purpose* (teleologically(!) -- its evidence, explanations and formulations to physical phenomena. Math is constained by its propositional calculus. So when you say materialism "get[s] off scott-free", I say it doesn't "get off" of anything; materialism is a foundational constraint on scientific epistemology. That constraint doesn't prevent theologians from musing about whatever metaphyics they want to muse on; it simply provides a constrained epistemology under which the physical explanations are sought for physical phenomena. Does theology get off "scott-free" by starting with the "theo" in it's name -- the concept of a metaphysical ontology that includes God?
Why don't materialists have to prove materialism, T-Stone? Why is it that they get to assume their position?
I can't think what you mean by the term "prove materialism". How would one "prove" materialism, or "prove" supernaturalism? No matter, materialism is adopted because it provides a measure of objectivity that is annihilated by supernatural metaphysics. It's just "physics", and is valuable precisely *because* it is constrained to physical explananda. Remember that an ominiscient, omnipotent God is an explanation for *anything*, for all possible phenomena. This is the "divine foot in the door that Lewontin was referring to; as soon as one allows for *any* kind of supernatural explanation, the supernatural explanation annihilates and obviates *all* natural explanations. For any given phenomena, if "God did it" is an acceptable answer, than there's no possible simpler explanation; any and all theories become "God did it", as God is the simplest answer for any phenomena in terms of parsimony (Ockham's razor). It's only by proceeding from the assumption that God created the universal to operate in a uniform, ordered way according to physical laws that have any hope of providing a level of intelligibility about physical phenomena beyond "God did it". As Steve has show on this blog, and DeWitt makes appeal to, "special creation" or "separate creation" concepts that presuppose the intervention of a supernatural deity completely remove any basis for further scientific investigation.
Christianity, being an expression of metaphysical subjectivism, *can't* hope to understand the physical world as a reflection of arbitrary *will*. The only way intelligibility is derived about the physical world's operation is through the assumption that God *chose* to create things in such a way that they operating according to fixed rules and dynamics. These "fixed rules and dynamics" are materialist concepts -- physical constraints and uniform behaviors that explain physical phenomena.
Indeed, how is it that the materialist is defined as the "objective" position by you? Especially given the fact that I've already quoted Lewontin to you in the past, where he admits that science does not require materialism but rather scientists assume materialism a priori so as to not allow a Divine Foot in the door. Tell me how that is "objective" but ID isn't?
Well, see above. The "objective" part derives from shared affirmation of observation and understanding of explanation. If an experiment yields results X, it is expected that subsequent experiments, similar controlled, will also yield results X, if X is to be accorded some epistemic value in support of a theory. Repeatability by independent investigators provides a means of discounting subjectivity, and improving the objectivity of the enterprise. If we let a "divine foot in the door" of science, epistemic meltdown results. One investigator claims Yahweh is the explanation for A, another believes its Allah, yet another supposes its really Ahura Mazda, and yet another doesn't believe any of those entities are more than pure imagination. And because we have breached the discipline of materialism -- demonstrability and verifiability through shared observation of physical phenomena, no explanations ever make any headway, save for in a purely political sense. YECs are the proof positive that *any* allowance for supernatural "sense-data"[sic] as epistemically binding would make physical evidence irrelevant -- they've already proven that physical evidence doesn't stand a chance in the face of supernatural dogma. The whole concept of "proof" in the scientific sense would be destroyed.
As for ID, it *could* be objective, but the movement has been commandeered by religious and culture warriors, and is hardly discernible as even pseudo-science anymore. There's no science left to even discuss with ID. All that's left are "philosophy of science" critiques and political power politics.
-Touchstone
“Remember that an ominiscient, omnipotent God is an explanation for *anything*, for all possible phenomena.”
ReplyDeleteUltimately speaking, yes. But God’s primary causality does not automatically negate ordinary providence. Indeed, it generally underwrites the role of second causes.
“This is the ‘divine foot in the door’ that Lewontin was referring to; as soon as one allows for *any* kind of supernatural explanation, the supernatural explanation annihilates and obviates *all* natural explanations.”
A gross and glaring overstatement.
“For any given phenomena, if ‘God did it’ is an acceptable answer, than there's no possible simpler explanation; any and all theories become "God did it", as God is the simplest answer for any phenomena in terms of parsimony (Ockham's razor).”
But suppose that God did do it? Suppose a cancer patient was healed in answer to prayer rather than chemotherapy or spontaneous remission.
But T-stone doesn’t allow a medical scientist to attribute the cure to God, even if that is the best explanation of the evidence before us.
“It's only by proceeding from the assumption that God created the universal to operate in a uniform, ordered way according to physical laws that have any hope of providing a level of intelligibility about physical phenomena beyond ‘God did it’…The only way intelligibility is derived about the physical world's operation is through the assumption that God *chose* to create things in such a way that they operating according to fixed rules and dynamics. These ‘fixed rules and dynamics’ are materialist concepts -- physical constraints and uniform behaviors that explain physical phenomena.”
i) T-stone is a throwback to the evolutionary deism of Erasmus Darwin, early Charles Darwin, Lamarck, Herbert Spencer, and Alfred Russel Wallace.
ii) He loves “science” more than he loves God. He banishes God from scientific explanations, not because it is true that God is absent from natural effects, but on the consequentialist grounds that divine interference would smudge our scientific rulebook. He must kill God to save science (as he redefines it).
You are saying here that Kitcher should provide religious and theological rebuttals, here? That's not what Kitcher is attempting. His goal is to address YEC and ID from a *scientific* standpoint. This is clear from all the quotes you have provided in your post. It's not a goal of his to respond to YECs on their own terms -- religious convictions borne of a particular interpretation of Genesis. Rather, he is providing a critique of what those religious convictions mean in light of the available science.
ReplyDeleteA. The material that he is attempting to "refute" is theological in nature, so it would be a category mistake to simply invoke *scientific* - which for you means *naturalistic* - arguments. The text presents creation in a particular manner. In your rather hamfisted and exegetically incompetent manner you have attempted, without so much as a warrant from the text itself, to reduce the text to "allegory."
If that's true, then YECs have no business asserting a young earth timeline, Gene. If the text here is purely theological, and *not* overlapping scientific concepts, then a Christian shouldn't care *how* old science thinks the earth might be. That's a simplistic view of scripture, you have there, though. I think Genesis 1-3 *is* primarily theological in nature, but it does appear to make *some* claims that are plainly phenomenonological. And by YEC views, Genesis is authoritative as *science* as well as theology, which, given their particular reading of the text, puts them directly at odds with the evidential record. It is*this* conflict that Kitcher appears to be talking about here; the assertion that a global flood occurred some thousands of years ago has unavoidable, necessary scientific implications, implications which the evidence doesn't just fail to support, but actively contradicts.
So, if there is a category mistake here, it is being made by YECs and others who assume that Genesis 1-3 is authoritative in its scientific descriptions, or even that it *contains* scientific descriptions, rather than theological declarations and assertions.
B. If the text is allegory or can be allegorized in exegesis, then why would a naturalistic objection refute anything in it? That position cashes out as "it wouldn't," which is probably why you resort to allegorical exegesis - it's insulation for you, an attempt to fireproof your own position.
Call it what you will, it's a harmonization, a reconciliation of the evidence and the text that preserves the theology. Better than a "hamfisted" exegesis that runs headlong into full blown cognitive dissonance as soon as the first bit of physical evidence is put in view, I think. I mean, we got past the geocentrism thing, right? Most of us, anyway.
C. A *literal* interpretation would be subject to *some* scientific objections, but those objections would have to be framed to refute a particular "literal" interpretation. What Kitcher does is pick one, which he doesn't seem actually "get" right anyway, and not others and fail to interact with counterarguments already offered. In the process, he draws several inferences about the state of the world, etc., that aren't in the text. How then do his arguments refute the text as "literally" interpreted?
"Literally interpreted" as a term leaves lots of wiggle room. Answers in Genesis, for example, aserts that the "literal" interpretation of Genesis demands a global flood. From this page on their site:
Noah’s flood was global, not local. But don’t take our word for it; let's see what the Bible has to say. Genesis 7:19-20 indicate “And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon all the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered” [emphases ours].
Additionally, there are many problems with the claim that Noah’s Flood was local. For instance:
1. Why did God tell Noah to build an ark? If the Flood had been only local, Noah and his family could have just moved to higher ground or over the mountain to avoid the flood waters.
2. The wicked people that the Flood was intended to destroy could have escaped God’s judgment in the same manner.
3. If the Flood were local, then God would be a liar, for God promised in Genesis 9:11 never to send a Flood to destroy the earth again. Yet the world has seen many local floods.
So, in the case of AiG, it appears that Kitcher has a proponent of a global flood, from a (if not the) leading YEC advocacy organization. Steve complains that there are alternate interpretations, and indeed there are, but that doesn't change the power of the scientific discrediting of the global flood interpretation. Indeed, the "local flood" interpretation is simply "insulation" (as you would call it) from the contradicting evidence provided by science for a global flood. So, if Ken Ham says the "literal interpretation" demands a global flood, and *you* demand it doesn't (arguendo), whom shall we agree with, and why? Because you bluster and blow even harder than Ken Ham?
D. In short, some, but not all, naturalistic explanations involve bringing considerations to the text not in the text in order to refute the text. So, what happens is those considerations are refuted, not what the text actually says. One has to make several steps to work from the text to those considerations and constraints. Where is the supporting argument for each step?
The assumption is, at least on my end, that the text should bare at least a rough resemblance to reality that we observe around us. That may not be a valid assumption, but it's one I take up all the same, with the understanding that "true" as a concept implies a "correspondance to reality". Given that, the *outside* knowledge that trees don't have hands leads us to the idea that Isaiah is using figurative speech when he talks about the trees clapping their hands. Extra-biblical knowledge of planetary motions and gravity and orbits leads us to discard interpretations of scripture that suggest the earth is fixed in a physical, central sense. Dating methods and a host of other observations from outside of scripture militate against he value of interpretations of Genesis that fix creation of the earth at some 6,000 years ago. We do not, cannot interpret a text in a vacuum. We cannot understand a text interpretationally without a prior understanding of language and the world around us.
As for refuting the text, I think that is a misunderstanding of the implications of the evidence. I think what gets refuted is your *understanding* of the text (or mine), rather than the text itself. If I suppose that trees really do have hands, and then learn that trees do *not* in fact have hands, then the text is not refuted; my interpretation of the text is refuted. So, I understand you'd like to invoke the emotive powers of "refuting the Bible" here as cover for your own interpretation, but I'll suggest that was is being discredited is not the *Bible*, but your particular understanding of it. That has a lot less rhetorical value, I know, for Gene to complain that *his* understanding is being assaulted, rather than the Bible itself, but that what's happening here, I suggest -- if, in fact you are one to espouse YEC views.
So, what evidence selects for a naturalistic explanation? Where's the argument for metaphysical naturalism that underwrites "science?" What you give with one hand, Tstone, you regularly take away with the other. Why is materialism the default position?
Science employs *methodological* naturalism, Gene, not metaphysical naturalism. If you dispute this, maybe you can point me to sources that demonstrate science's obligation to *metaphysical* naturalism. From the Wikipedia entry for Naturalism:
Many modern philosophers of science[1][2] use the terms methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism to refer to the long standing convention in science of the scientific method, which makes the methodological assumption that observable effects in nature are best explainable only by natural causes, without reference to, or an assumption of, the existence or non-existence of supernatural notions. They contrast this with the approach known as ontological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism, which refers to the metaphysical belief that the natural world (including the universe) is all that exists, and therefore nothing supernatural exists.
This distinction between approaches to the philosophy of naturalism is made by philosophers supporting science and evolution in the creation–evolution controversy to counter the tendency of some proponents of Creationism or intelligent design to refer to methodological naturalism as scientific materialism or as methodological materialism and conflate it with metaphysical naturalism.[3] These proponents of creationism use this assertion to support their claim that modern science is atheistic, and contrast it with their preferred approach of a revived natural philosophy which welcomes supernatural explanations for natural phenomena and supports "theistic science" or pseudoscience.
See that *tendency* part there? They are talking about you, Gene. This is precisely the conflation being described in action in your post. You either do not understand the distinction here, or are purposely misrepresenting it.
See my comments above to Peter Pike on materialism for answers to you "why is materialism the default position" question.
-Touchstone
TOUCHSTONE SAID:
ReplyDelete"It is*this* conflict that Kitcher appears to be talking about here; the assertion that a global flood occurred some thousands of years ago has unavoidable, necessary scientific implications."
And if that is what Scripture claims, it would then intersect with the subject-matter of science.
"So, if there is a category mistake here, it is being made by YECs and others who assume that Genesis 1-3 is authoritative in its scientific descriptions, or even that it *contains* scientific descriptions, rather than theological declarations and assertions."
No, Genesis doesn't have to make scientific declarations and assertions. It only has to make factual or historical declarations and assertions. And the subject matter of history intersects with the subject-matter of science. These do not coexist in airtight compartments.
"Indeed, the 'local flood' interpretation is simply 'insulation' (as you would call it) from the contradicting evidence provided by science for a global flood."
So, is T-stone saying that the Bible does, indeed, teach the occurrence of a global flood, even if a global flood never occurred?
"Science employs *methodological* naturalism, Gene, not metaphysical naturalism."
Methodological naturalism is simply metaphysical naturalism on the cheap. It's preferred on tactical grounds because metaphysical naturalism is harder to prove.
But methodological naturalism would only be warranted if metaphysical naturalism were true. If metaphysical naturalism is false, then methodological naturalism is mismatched with its subject-matter.
T-Stone said:
ReplyDelete---
Science is materialist in its methodology.
---
Except it's not. Science is neutral because it cannot speak as to whether materialism or immaterialism is valid. Such things must be assumed before science is employed. Thus, you commit a category error here.
Materialistic science is materialistic; but that is predicated on the archetypal materialism, not something inherent to science.
T-Stone said:
---
It constrains -- on *purpose* (teleologically(!) -- its evidence, explanations and formulations to physical phenomena.
---
Again, materialistic science constrains itself to the physical. But, as I already mentioned, Lewontin destroys this too:
"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated."
But let me assume you are correct here and Lewontin is wrong. If the methods of science constrains us to materialistic concepts instead of materialistic concepts constraining us to only certain interpretations of science, then how is it possible for Kitcher to object to an immaterial idea on materialistic grounds? How is Kitcher scientific when he disputes an immaterial claim with "science"? Is that not using science in the very way that you say science cannot be used--to answer an immaterial claim? Answer that one, buddy.
T-Stone said:
---
That constraint doesn't prevent theologians from musing about whatever metaphyics they want to muse on; it simply provides a constrained epistemology under which the physical explanations are sought for physical phenomena.
---
In which case you have to acknowledge that science does not equate to truth, and as such being "scientific" is no great accomplishment. In other words, why does anyone care if something is "scientific" in the first place? Because people equate science with a search for the truth. But this is a bogus equation. As such, science is leaching off the public's misunderstanding of what science is (and scientists are quite happy to be put in these hallowed positions of authority, so why should they challenge this assumption?). There is no benefit to a theory by calling it "scientific." It says nothing about the truthfulness of the theory.
Therefore, why should we care if YEC is or is not scientific? To the point, why should Kitcher (or your) care? It only matters if you impute higher worth to science than science warrants (which you do).
T-Stone said:
---
No matter, materialism is adopted because it provides a measure of objectivity that is annihilated by supernatural metaphysics.
---
Of course, such a definition of "objectivity" is down-right heinous here. There is nothing "objective" about assuming materialism. Thus, your "measure of objectivity" is really "fooling people into thinking there is objectivity", nothing more.
T-Stone said:
---
Remember that an ominiscient, omnipotent God is an explanation for *anything*, for all possible phenomena. This is the "divine foot in the door that Lewontin was referring to; as soon as one allows for *any* kind of supernatural explanation, the supernatural explanation annihilates and obviates *all* natural explanations. For any given phenomena, if "God did it" is an acceptable answer, than there's no possible simpler explanation; any and all theories become "God did it", as God is the simplest answer for any phenomena in terms of parsimony (Ockham's razor). It's only by proceeding from the assumption that God created the universal to operate in a uniform, ordered way according to physical laws that have any hope of providing a level of intelligibility about physical phenomena beyond "God did it".
---
These sentences commit a slippery-slope fallacy, a hasty generalization, begs the question, and (in addition) have the property of being an incredibly stupid thing for you to say on top of all that. Take a breath, stop hyperventillating, and think about what you said. In no way does acknowledging God's sovereignty and power preclude us from examining the means by which God acts. You have a wrong-headed view of God's power in the first place, just as all atheists do, and thus you mischaracterize how God acts. It's only your strawman that would cause problems.
As to the rest of your comments, they're mostly repetitive or assertion without arguments.
Peter,
ReplyDelete---
Science is materialist in its methodology.
---
Except it's not. Science is neutral because it cannot speak as to whether materialism or immaterialism is valid. Such things must be assumed before science is employed. Thus, you commit a category error here.
Materialistic science is materialistic; but that is predicated on the archetypal materialism, not something inherent to science.
Immaterialism?? Bishop Berkeley?? There is no matter, all things are immaterial? I think that is not the word you meant to use, else I missed part of the discussion. In any case, I wonder what you mean by *valid* in this case? I think that may be a non-starter, conceptually. How does one "validate" materialism, or supernaturalism, dual aspect monism, dualsim, etc. (assuming you didn't mean to say "immaterialism", there)?
T-Stone said:
---
It constrains -- on *purpose* (teleologically(!) -- its evidence, explanations and formulations to physical phenomena.
---
Again, materialistic science constrains itself to the physical. But, as I already mentioned, Lewontin destroys this too:
"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated."
But let me assume you are correct here and Lewontin is wrong. If the methods of science constrains us to materialistic concepts instead of materialistic concepts constraining us to only certain interpretations of science, then how is it possible for Kitcher to object to an immaterial idea on materialistic grounds? How is Kitcher scientific when he disputes an immaterial claim with "science"? Is that not using science in the very way that you say science cannot be used--to answer an immaterial claim? Answer that one, buddy.
That's something a moment's thought should have produced for you, Peter; In Genesis, we have an immaterial entity creating matter, and interacting with material creation. This amounts to what you call an "immaterial idea" doing things (or claiming things) that have *material* effects. If we look at Ken Ham's view of things, we have an immaterial God causing a material global flood. Science can't disprove (or prove) the existence of God - it's a materialist enterprise - but it *can* speak to the material consequences of a proposed action by an immaterial God. So Kitcher looks at Genesis interpretations by Ken Ham, and derives the scientific implications -- if Ham is correct than there was actually a global flood covering the whole globe several thousands of years ago, with real water and real catastrophic effects left in its aftermath. Kitcher doesn't need to address the reality or unreality of God; all he needs to do is assess the plausibility of the historic/scientific implications of Ham's understanding of Genesis.
Immaterial entity (God) causes material phenomenon (flood). Kitcher looks at the coherence of the proposed phenomenon in light of the available science. QED.
It's also worth pointing out that Kitcher isn't constrained from speaking extra-scientifically, if that's what he chooses. It's his book, after all. If he wants to wax philosophical or theological, that's his prerogative, as it is yours or mine. In terms of science, though, Kitcher is an old hand at the epistemic constraints. Science doesn't have the tools for assessing or incorporating supernatural phenomena.
T-Stone said:
---
That constraint doesn't prevent theologians from musing about whatever metaphyics they want to muse on; it simply provides a constrained epistemology under which the physical explanations are sought for physical phenomena.
---
In which case you have to acknowledge that science does not equate to truth, and as such being "scientific" is no great accomplishment. In other words, why does anyone care if something is "scientific" in the first place? Because people equate science with a search for the truth. But this is a bogus equation. As such, science is leaching off the public's misunderstanding of what science is (and scientists are quite happy to be put in these hallowed positions of authority, so why should they challenge this assumption?). There is no benefit to a theory by calling it "scientific." It says nothing about the truthfulness of the theory.
Science doesn't claim to establish ultimate, transcendent truth. The "truth" of science is alway tentative to some degree. But short of transcendent, ultimate truth, there's plenty of utility, and if you think about it for a moment, I believe you will realize that it's a false kind of polarity to assume that if an epistemology cannot produce ultimate, transcendent truth, it cannot be useful or "truthful" even so. Science claims to search for explanations to natural phenomena, Peter. It's as simple as that. That certainly does involve the acquisition of practical knowledge that we trust as "truth". I'm about to get on a 757 for several hours, and I believe in the "truth" of the aerodynamic understanding that scientists and engineers incorporate into the design of an airplane. I don't believe it is *perfect* knowledge, and I don't know what it means to "validate" this knowledge against "immaterialism". But I do understand that this knowledge can be called knowledge by virtue of its efficacy in getting me (and millions of other travelers today) where I want to go.
Therefore, why should we care if YEC is or is not scientific? To the point, why should Kitcher (or your) care? It only matters if you impute higher worth to science than science warrants (which you do).
How are you determining the "worth" that "science warrants", Peter. I have no idea what kind of criteria you are using here. For me, science is useful because it has practical benefits. It can help stop an infection with treatment for a wound. It enables me to fly a couple thousand miles in just four hours. It lets me connect and communicate with my colleagues and co-workers all over the globe, etc. One hardly needs to mention more than a couple of useful applications of science to make the point. Science is useful for explaining physical phenomena. If YEC ideas incorporate claims about physical phenomena, it seems reasonable that those claims would accord with our understanding of the physical world. If those claims *don't* fit with our understandings of the physical world, then we have a problem that's useful to know about; either we are mistaken in our understanding of physical phenomena, or YEC claims are mistaken, or both. Whatever the case, science is useful as it identifies an epistemic problem: the incompatibility of YEC claims and scientific understandings.
T-Stone said:
---
No matter, materialism is adopted because it provides a measure of objectivity that is annihilated by supernatural metaphysics.
---
Of course, such a definition of "objectivity" is down-right heinous here. There is nothing "objective" about assuming materialism. Thus, your "measure of objectivity" is really "fooling people into thinking there is objectivity", nothing more.
I didn't say the materialistic assumptions of science was the basis of it's objectivity; read what I said. The objectivity obtains from shared observation and verification. Materialism is chosen as a methodology (hence the name!) because of the intractability of building reliable/testable/verifiable knowledge that incorporates the supernatural. That is, you have things backwards here; we don't start with "objective through materialism", but rather start with what we can do in practical terms to achieve a level of objectivity: use observations and physical experiences that can be shared across independent observers as the "building blocks" of the epistemology. If we use these shared affirmations of observed phenomena as our "building blocks", we are limited epistemically to whatever can be observed phenomenologically and explained phenomenonologically. Hence, *methodological* materialism -- that knowledge which can be built from the "building blocks" that provide a practical measure of objectivity.
T-Stone said:
---
Remember that an ominiscient, omnipotent God is an explanation for *anything*, for all possible phenomena. This is the "divine foot in the door that Lewontin was referring to; as soon as one allows for *any* kind of supernatural explanation, the supernatural explanation annihilates and obviates *all* natural explanations. For any given phenomena, if "God did it" is an acceptable answer, than there's no possible simpler explanation; any and all theories become "God did it", as God is the simplest answer for any phenomena in terms of parsimony (Ockham's razor). It's only by proceeding from the assumption that God created the universal to operate in a uniform, ordered way according to physical laws that have any hope of providing a level of intelligibility about physical phenomena beyond "God did it".
---
These sentences commit a slippery-slope fallacy, a hasty generalization, begs the question, and (in addition) have the property of being an incredibly stupid thing for you to say on top of all that. Take a breath, stop hyperventillating, and think about what you said. In no way does acknowledging God's sovereignty and power preclude us from examining the means by which God acts. You have a wrong-headed view of God's power in the first place, just as all atheists do, and thus you mischaracterize how God acts. It's only your strawman that would cause problems.
I emphatically affirm God's sovereignty over all creation. That's not a problem for the pursuit of scientific answers, Peter. But I don't invoke "God did it" as the solution to the Twin Primes problem in mathematics. Is that a problem? Am I denying God's sovereignty by rejecting "God did it" as the answer to the Twin Primes problem? No. And similarly, I'm not denying God's sovereignty over science by exploring the physical phenomena *as* physical phenomena -- tied causally to the physical laws and structure of the universe.
There's no slippery slope problem to worry about, Peter. Steve here, for example, regular wonders about "common design" and "special creation". That's into the epistemic *abyss* scientifically if those ideas are considered legitimate scientific explanations. We don't need to worry about slipping down the slope, in other words. If "God did it" qualifies, we already *have* plenty of people claiming just that. Or do you suppose we might be able to investigate God's mind and design principles, proceeding from the hypothesis of special creation?
-Touchstone
Steve,
ReplyDelete"It is*this* conflict that Kitcher appears to be talking about here; the assertion that a global flood occurred some thousands of years ago has unavoidable, necessary scientific implications."
And if that is what Scripture claims, it would then intersect with the subject-matter of science.
Right, a point I made over on the "Stipulating" post comment stream.
"So, if there is a category mistake here, it is being made by YECs and others who assume that Genesis 1-3 is authoritative in its scientific descriptions, or even that it *contains* scientific descriptions, rather than theological declarations and assertions."
No, Genesis doesn't have to make scientific declarations and assertions. It only has to make factual or historical declarations and assertions. And the subject matter of history intersects with the subject-matter of science. These do not coexist in airtight compartments.
A historical declaration *is* a scientific declaration, Steve. Science is the search for explanations of physical phenomena, and thus insofar as Genesis makes claims about what *happened* in terms of matter and the physical world (the flood, for example), it necessarily makes claims that science can look at and investigate. If Genesis makes the claim of a small, local flood, that's a claim that science can look at, but the implications of *that* phenomenon are not likely to be dramatic enough to detect in such a way as to confirm or falsify the claim. But a *global* flood is also a claim that science can look at, and according to the experts, it *would* leave evidence behind that we would expect to see and observe.
Calling it "historical" doesn't change what happened, Steve. A flood (global or local) is a physical phenomenon that fits squarely into the purview of scientific investigation.
"Indeed, the 'local flood' interpretation is simply 'insulation' (as you would call it) from the contradicting evidence provided by science for a global flood."
So, is T-stone saying that the Bible does, indeed, teach the occurrence of a global flood, even if a global flood never occurred?
No, but the "face value" reading of Genesis -- without the benefit of testimony from science -- would be a global flood, or at least an obvious interpretation to consider. The evidence at hand provides a solid reason to reject the global interpretation, and embrace the local interpretation, as it is also a plausible reading, and doesn't come up as a falsehood in light of the physical evidence.
"Science employs *methodological* naturalism, Gene, not metaphysical naturalism."
Methodological naturalism is simply metaphysical naturalism on the cheap. It's preferred on tactical grounds because metaphysical naturalism is harder to prove.
You're just waving your hands, Steve.
But methodological naturalism would only be warranted if metaphysical naturalism were true. If metaphysical naturalism is false, then methodological naturalism is mismatched with its subject-matter.
Not. I believe metaphysical naturalism is false, and support methodological naturalism as an epistemic constraint for the practice of science. You're conflating two concepts that are fundamentally different -- metaphysical naturalism denies the existence of anything immaterial, and methodological naturalism does not. That's a "whopper" of a distinction to try and gloss over.
-Touchstone
“A historical declaration *is* a scientific declaration, Steve.”
ReplyDeleteAnother foolish overstatement. History and science intersect, but they do not coincide. History deals with unique particulars and unrepeatable events whereas science generally (but not always) deals with periodic processes, natural regularities, and repeatable events.
“A historical declaration *is* a scientific declaration, Steve. Science is the search for explanations of physical phenomena, and thus insofar as Genesis makes claims about what *happened* in terms of matter and the physical world (the flood, for example), it necessarily makes claims that science can look at and investigate. If Genesis makes the claim of a small, local flood, that's a claim that science can look at, but the implications of *that* phenomenon are not likely to be dramatic enough to detect in such a way as to confirm or falsify the claim. But a *global* flood is also a claim that science can look at, and according to the experts, it *would* leave evidence behind that we would expect to see and observe.”
i) T-stone is simply paraphrasing much of what I said, then taking credit for what I say. Well, imitation is the highest form of flattery!
ii) However, nothing can ever falsify the word of God.
“Calling it ‘historical’ doesn't change what happened, Steve.”
A straw man argument, T-stone.
“A flood (global or local) is a physical phenomenon that fits squarely into the purview of scientific investigation.”
Which I never denied. That, however, doesn’t make scientific statements synonymous with factual or historical statements.
“You're just waving your hands, Steve.”
This has become T-stone’s fallback formula. Unable to deal with arguments, he mouths a repetitive slogan—like a music box.
And if you want a textbook example of “hand-waving,” it would be someone who constantly resorts to jingoistic buzzwords and catchphrases in lieu of a counterargument.
“I believe metaphysical naturalism is false, and support methodological naturalism as an epistemic constraint for the practice of science.”
Notice the intellectual incoherence of his position. He adopts an epistemology which is out of sync with his stated ontology.
He denies that metaphysical naturalism is true, yet he insists on a methodology which is false to nature of reality. Even though reality is dualistic, admitting various spiritual causes that have physical effects, he acts as if God and other spirits agents don’t exist for purposes of “scientific” explanation. His idea of “science” is to pretend something is true which we know to be false. His idea of science is to install a filter which screens out the most important dimension of reality. His idea of science is feign the falsehood that all natural effects have naturalistic causes, even though his stated metaphysical commitments contradict that arbitrary restriction.
“You're conflating two concepts that are fundamentally different -- metaphysical naturalism denies the existence of anything immaterial, and methodological naturalism does not. That's a ‘whopper’ of a distinction to try and gloss over.”
To the contrary, I distinguished them and related them.
And let’s cut to the chase. Kitcher writes a book with the express purpose of attacking Biblical theism. His attack is not confined to YEC. Rather, it’s a wholesale attack on Bible history and the God of Scripture.
Kitcher attacks the justice of God. Kitcher attacks the competence of God. He imputes design flaws to the handiwork of God. He advertises animal suffering as a defeater to belief in God’s existence.
And what is T-stone’s’ reaction? Does T-stone have a word of criticism for Kitcher? No. T-stone always takes the side of the God-haters.
A real Christian would defend the honor of God against such aspersions. A real Christian would defend Bible history.
What prevents T-stone from defending Bible history as he construes it against the attacks of Philip Kitcher? Nothing. But T-stone is a thankless little ingrate. A patsy for militant atheism.
Does T-stone criticize Kitcher’s inaccuracies, caricatures, and equivocations? No, not once. Not a single criticism for a single thing that Kitcher said, even when it’s demonstrably wrong.
If T-stone were a Calvary, he would praise the Roman soldiers for the quality of the nails, the grade of lumber, the vintage of the sour wine, and their taste in thorn bushes.
For T-stone, Christians are the enemy. Not just the YEC crowd. Not just the OEC crowd. Not just the IDT crowd.
He leaps on the bandwagon, straight out of the starting gate, to attack a theistic evolutionist like Behe—before Behe has had a chance to answer his critics.
He doesn’t read Behe’s book first. Rather, he gets all his information from hostile sources, crediting their representations as reliable, and assuming the worst about Behe.
T-stone is an equal-opportunity hater of all things Christian.
So, if T-Stone hasn't read the book, what's all the blather about? Kind of stupid to run your mouth when you haven't read the book in question, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteI've commented on this before, but I'll state this again. When someone like Kitcher makes a point I don't agree with, it's no skin off my nose. He doesn't represent me or my faith. In fact, if he's gonna say stupid things, sometimes it's easy just to let him; people are smart and stupid comments can often just be let stand, self-indicting for the other camp.
But you, on the other hand, profess to be a Christian, a *real* Christian even, and yet you carry on here like the truth of Christianity (or the concept of truth) was some kind of self-indulgent fantasy. As soon as your conjectural interpretations run into scientific evidence, you embrace cognitive dissonance, and project a Christianity that is 'Steve-true' only, but detached from the evidences and the reality of the world we live in.
That *is* skin off my nose. When I have a colleague get interested in the Gospel, then goes to church with a neighbor to hear a rousing, thundering sermon on the importance of YEC interpretations to be a *real* Christian, I think it's time to speak up when he concludes Christianity is a trivial sham, and can't believe he is expected to "get a lobotomy" to embrace this religion.
So yeah, if I do believe the Bible is true, then you are much more a threat to its credibility with posts like this than Kitcher is
You are the major problem in this post, Steve. You've put *way* more stink on the Gospel, and cast far more dishonor on God than Kitcher has here [Insert self-medicating shibboleths here, Steve - "the Gospel is foolish to those who do not believe", etc., oh and "the fragrance of Heaven is the smell of death for those who are perishing", don't forget that trusty one...].
Maybe the clearest way to frame this is to look at some other "apologist" who is arguing for a flat earth because that's what *he* thinks is a faithful ("real Bible-believing") interpretation of scripture. An atheist (or even another Christian) advances scientific questions based on the implications of belief in a flat earth. The flat-earth apologist responds with all manner of bogus responses, and castigates the critic for his foolish questions.
Now, would you have a problem with the atheist who is linking to pictures of the earth taken from the moon, or the flat-earth apologist? Or would you recommend the rest of Christendom just keep their mouths shut, and let this guy proceed with his flat-earth "apologetics"?
I don't suppose young earth ideas are quite as obviously bogus as the idea of a flat-earth, but they are a good way there. You're selling a "flat earth" here that is just a bit less ridiculous than the flat earth (maybe I should have used geo-centrism as an example, as you can find active and vocal proponents of this idea as a "biblical truth" even today).
So, your whining about me siding with Kitcher rings a bit hollow when you are shoveling the manure you're shoveling here. Kitcher is advancing points that arise from a sceintific review of creationist ideas -- the global flood propounded by Answers in Genesis, for example. These are worthwhile questions, whether they come from an atheist, Buddhist, or another Christian. The evidence in view militates strongly, overwhelmingly against a global flood.
It may be worth pointing out how I first became aware of this blog. An acquaintance of mine had the pleasure of interacting with you in a couple of 'anonymous' posts, and was surprised by both the obnoxious attitude and the hilarious responses you offered. In just a short exchange, he realized that your response to any sustained criticism is insult and personal attacks. That's just something he has time for, but he did have a good and sharp email comment for me, one that brought me for the first time to your blog:
"so, is this what Christianity is, or are the other Xians just too chicken **** to put up with Hayes[soc]?"
That's a good question. You, Manata, and Pike do a good job dragging things into the gutter as a way to avoid your cognitive dissonances. You won't deal with the science, and instead you just rant because you don't get solidarity from another believer for the crap you're trying to sell in response to Kitcher. Fine, rant away. You guys can spew and scold all you want, but that's not gonna change my argument on the evidences and facts.
It the Bible is true, actually true, true as in the real world doesn't *annihilate* it true, it's useful to point out that it *is* manure you're shovelling here under the banner of Christianity. Your apologetics on the topic of origins and creation are testimony to the falsehood of the Bible. Kitcher can say the Bible all he wants, and that's something to be addressed too, but it's eclipsed by the damage done by a guy like Steve Hays who in posts like this provides a kind of validation of Kitcher's argument that he couldn't possibly establish on his own. He needs collaborators in disproving the Bible, and you're doing a very effective job in concert with him here, Steve. I'm offended to see that, as I think the Bible is true in a real-world sense, in an alethic sense, not just in a mystical, real-world-is-bogus-this-soothes-my-cognitive-dissonance-anxiety sense.
So don't go suggesting things like maybe the stratigraphic record is really only 6,000 years old and reflects the "spatial" compression of the biotope (aquatic on the bottom, land above that, sky above that). That's pure horse apples, Steve, and anyone paying attention knows it. It's just announcing to any who read that "true" doesn't really have much weight for you as a Christian.
Kitcher may be wrong about ultimate questions (and I believe he is), but to read him, he at least grants some respect for the *concept* of the truth. You have a habit of making a mockery of the concept, Steve, and I think that kind of orientation is *much* more of a serious and imminent problem for Christianity than any criticisms lobbed from the outside of the perimeter. You're an insider, falsifying the Gospel from the *inside*, Steve.
Anyway, that's my explanation for taking you to task here on this post. (Kitcher isn't here to interact with, either, but that's a secondary consideration.)
-Touchstone
TOUCHSTONE SAID:
ReplyDelete“I've commented on this before, but I'll state this again. When someone like Kitcher makes a point I don't agree with, it's no skin off my nose. He doesn't represent me or my faith. In fact, if he's gonna say stupid things, sometimes it's easy just to let him; people are smart and stupid comments can often just be let stand, self-indicting for the other camp.”
I see. You think that smart people can see through Kitcher’s stupid arguments whereas my arguments are so subtle and astute that even smart people can’t see through them without the help of someone of your intellectual stature. I’m honored by your vote of confidence.
“As soon as your conjectural interpretations run into scientific evidence, you embrace cognitive dissonance, and project a Christianity that is 'Steve-true' only, but detached from the evidences and the reality of the world we live in.”
A silly and self-refuting criticism since you yourself are laboring to put your own name on Christianity and persuade everyone of your idiosyncratic reinterpretation.
“That *is* skin off my nose. When I have a colleague get interested in the Gospel, then goes to church with a neighbor to hear a rousing, thundering sermon on the importance of YEC interpretations to be a *real* Christian, I think it's time to speak up when he concludes Christianity is a trivial sham, and can't believe he is expected to ‘get a lobotomy’ to embrace this religion.”
A transparently phony objection.
i) The only churches which represent your brand of theology, what with its alethic relativism, evolutionary deism, and religious pluralism (e.g. Mormonism is saving faith) are the dead and dying mainline denominations, viz. UCC, UMC, PC-USA, ECUSA, ELCA, &c.
That’s hardly a drawing card. These are not where we find the burgeoning church growth movements.
ii) When debating YEC, you pretend that YEC is your only target. But, of course, you’re animosities are far more ecumenical. You can’t stand YEC. You can’t stand OEC. You can’t stand IDT. You can’t even stand the theistic evolution of someone like Behe or Denton. So spare us the continued charade that you are only concerned with the unspeakable evils of YEC.
iii) There is no one-size-fits-all position. For better or worse, everyone is not going to be drawn to the very same position, regardless of where we range it along the continuum. And it’s not as if students are fleeing from Bob Jones University or Liberty University in droves because they’re put off by YEC.
iv) Your crocodile tears are duly noted, but if you really cared one fig about the intellectual plight of seekers or wavering believers, you would spend some of your time blogging on the errors of such articulate, prolific, and relentless enemies of the faith as Philip Kitcher, Victor Stenger, Richard Dawkins, Tanner Edis, Michael Shermer, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett, to name a few.
But, no, you pass over them in silence as you train your guns on Kurt Wise, David DeWitt, William Dembski, Michael Behe, Michael Denton, David Berlinski, et al.
This was never about your concern for others. This is all about you. It’s personal. It’s selfish.
You are a reactionary. You’re position is defined by YEC. Defined in opposition to YEC.
This is a blood feud between you and your earlier self, back in your own YEC days. The early self that’s tapping you on the shoulder. And in your blind, reactionary fury, you not only reject YEC, but you tar OEC, IDT, and even theistic evolution with the same broad brush.
This is all about trying to exorcise your old, YEC demons. You’re still bedeviled by them YEC demons. Can’t shake the feeling. Can’t leave it be. Can’t make a clean break and move on. If you’re so innocent, why do you act so guilty?
“So yeah, if I do believe the Bible is true, then you are much more a threat to its credibility with posts like this than Kitcher is”
Once again, I’m flattered by your faith in my immense intellectual influence. However, I really must share the credit with so many gifted writers in the YEC, OEC, and IDT camp.
“So, your whining about me siding with Kitcher rings a bit hollow when you are shoveling the manure you're shoveling here…It may be worth pointing out how I first became aware of this blog. An acquaintance of mine had the pleasure of interacting with you in a couple of 'anonymous' posts, and was surprised by both the obnoxious attitude and the hilarious responses you offered. In just a short exchange, he realized that your response to any sustained criticism is insult and personal attacks. That's just something he has time for, but he did have a good and sharp email comment for me, one that brought me for the first time to your blog: __’so, is this what Christianity is, or are the other Xians just too chicken **** to put up with Hayes[soc]?’…It the Bible is true, actually true, true as in the real world doesn't *annihilate* it true, it's useful to point out that it *is* manure you're shovelling here under the banner of Christianity… That's pure horse apples, Steve.”
For someone who acts oh-so offended by my “attitude,” the muck-racking tone you assume in response is unintentionally comical. Perhaps you should move your computer keyboard out of the barnyard before you pretend to take the high road.
“I'm offended to see that, as I think the Bible is true in a real-world sense, in an alethic sense, not just in a mystical, real-world-is-bogus-this-soothes-my-cognitive-dissonance-anxiety sense.”
To the contrary, you believe that macroevolution is true, while the Bible is mythological. And you banish the Creator of the world from the world he made by your atheistic embrace of methodological naturalism.
That’s how you harmonize your unconditional devotion to secular science with the early chapters of Genesis.
“You have a habit of making a mockery of the concept, Steve, and I think that kind of orientation is *much* more of a serious and imminent problem for Christianity than any criticisms lobbed from the outside of the perimeter. You're an insider, falsifying the Gospel from the *inside*, Steve.”
A lovely illustration of ink-blot psychology. You should have it framed so that you can admire your portrait everyday.
that observable effects in nature are best explainable only by natural causes, without reference to, or an assumption of, the existence or non-existence of supernatural notions.
ReplyDeleteThat's question-begging, just for starters. It also gets you a "get out of jail" free card on the nature of reality. If God is real and creation is special, as you say yourself, there is no need for this. Metaphysical naturalism is the warrant for methodological naturalism.
See that *tendency* part there? They are talking about you, Gene. This is precisely the conflation being described in action in your post. You either do not understand the distinction here, or are purposely misrepresenting it.
Ah, yes, another report from the wide world of Wiki. Touchstone, the conflation here is *yours* not mine. "Methodological naturalism" is just "metaphysical naturalism in drag. You admit to holding the one and not the other. It's a pity you hold to an ontology and an epistemology that are incongruent. You're the one making the conflation here, not me.
As for your citation of sources...well I wonder how that little project at Harvard that was supposed to disprove the existence of God via science has been going? Sorry, but your forked tongue rhetoric not withstanding, it's quite apparent that metaphysical and methodological naturalism go hand in hand.
And while we're here, let's talk about your "peer review" rule of "faith." On the one hand, you demand "peer review" for science, and on the other you declare the ecumenical councils and creeds as a proper rule of faith. This *is* consistent thinking on your part and betrays your need to insulate yourself from reality by allowing you to negate truths you dislike in favor of your deistic view of the world: things like YEC and OEC alike and justification by faith alone - which, incidentally, is NOT a "uniquely Protestant" position.
You've put *way* more stink on the Gospel, and cast far more dishonor on God than Kitcher has here
Ah, and we all know that you define the gospel as the facts of 1 Corinthians 15. But that's not the sole defintion of "gospel" in the NT or Christian theology. Equally so, YEC, IDT, and OEC are not the gospel, and by your own admission the truths of 1 Cor. 15 are real and literal and the facts of Gen. 1 - 3 are just "allegorical." So where's the real outrage? How does YEC cast dishonor on God and Christ and the gospel? You keep saying it does, but have yet to demonstrate it.
If man is brought to faith in Christ, it's via the preaching of the gospel, according to the NT, not the teaching of YEC, so where's the biblical warrant for your objection?
And notice the logic: YEC is untrue; the gospel (as facts about Jesus passion and resurrection) is true; if agent X disagrees with YEC based on "science" then that may keep him from believing the gospel? Not only does that conclusion not necessarily follow from the premise, it doesn't account for what Scripture says about what actually brings a person to faith in Christ: the Holy Spirit's work of conviction and regeneration, and the preaching of the gospel itself. Is the Holy Spirit impotent to overcome any alleged issues with YEC in the heart and mind of the hearer of the gospel or not?
Repentance and faith in Christ alone as Lord is the essence of the gospel, for that is what His passion and resurrection have underwritten, and both are works of the Holy Spirit via both His direct actions raising the spiritually dead to life and the means of preaching of the gospel of Christ. Touchstone could do with a lesson is basic soteriology.
Who then puts more stink on the gospel? The person who actually defends what the Word of God says or the one who acts as the patsy for atheism, who doesn't go after real enemies of the faith like Hitchens, et.al, but other believers, whose rule of faith amounts to the ancient creeds and "ecumenicity" (while expressing a distaste for what other believers like those of us in the Reformed tradition believe and teach - so much for "ecumenicity", and, at best, waffles on justification by faith alone in Christ alone?
"But creationists point to catastrophic events which precipitate rapid sedimentation (e.g. Mt. St. Helens). Kitcher needs to interact with these counterexamples. ...
ReplyDeleteSeveral issues:
i) Kitcher doesn’t show us any site on earth where we can see this layout. So is there such a site, or is this a hypothetical reconstruction of faunal succession, correlating the finds from many different geographical sites?
ii) Assuming, for the sake of argument, that this reconstruction is accurate, what it looks like is a spatial rather than temporal distribution pattern. Trees and land animals occupy an ecological zone that is literally above the semiaquatic animals. In turn, semiaquatic animals are above aquatic mammals that must surface for air, while aquatic animals are above fish, and fish are above bottom-dwellers.3"
I just got back from the NCSE's Grand Canyon river trip, which includes both mainstream and creationist geology descriptions of what we see in the Canyon. There's no comparison--flood geology can't explain the detail, and the Mt. St. Helens comparison is inapt. There *are* catastrophic events in the geology of the Grand Canyon--but lots of them, not one flood. There are hundreds of feet of successive ocean floor deposits, each showing the evidence of organisms living there. There are multiple lava flows, including several which dammed the canyon and then broke open. There are multiple series of distinct flood deposits. There are trace fossils of lizard tracks on fossilized sand dunes from periods of desert.
As for the geologic column, see former YEC Glenn Morton's article, "The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota."