For what it's worth, here are some comments (revised) on intelligent design and theistic evolution that I recently left in a previous post in a friendly conversation with Eric:
1. I'll use evolution as shorthand for neo-Darwinism. And I'll use ID for intelligent design.
2. To my knowledge, ID is relatively "new" in the sense that Dembski describes it in his chapter "How does intelligent design differ from the design argument?" in his book The Design Revolution. An excerpt is available here. However, ID is "old" in the sense that it's in the same or similar vein as teleological arguments in general (aka arguments from design, which might be more clearly termed arguments for design). This stretches back as far as Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways if not earlier.
3. I'm very sympathetic and greatly appreciate the work of the ID guys. At the same time, I think I'm persuaded by Alvin Plantinga (e.g. "design discourse") and Del Ratzsch (e.g. "the persistence of design thinking") when it comes to assessing their work.
4. My impression is, relatively speaking, secular physicists (cosmology) seem more open-minded about arguments for design (e.g. fine-tuning) than secular biologists. I mean, there are plenty of close-minded cosmologists, but I'm speaking in comparison to secular biologists. Secular biologists seem like the dwarves in the stable in C. S. Lewis' The Last Battle, imprisoned in their own minds, and "so afraid of being taken in that they cannot be taken out". They stick their fingers in their ears and refuse so much as to entertain the possibility of anything other than a strictly material world. I guess most of them take after Lewontin: "materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door". Regarding fine-tuning, see the works of Robin Collins and Luke Barnes.
5. An interesting question to explore is whether evolution itself requires design to operate. By contrast, if the universe and all it contains including life is not designed, then would evolution even be able to get off the ground?
For starters, evolution appears to be goal-directed, that is, it appears to be teleological. It appears to be able to adapt means to ends. However, if the universe and all it contains is not designed, then how would evolution come to be goal-directed? How would it come to be able to adapt means to ends? For example, if all is undesigned, without teleological purpose, then how did the heart come to exist to pump blood to the body? A happy accident? Not to mention all the other functions in every organism on this planet. Multiply all this together and the chances of all these serendipitous events occurring seem improbable to say the least.
Stepping back, what are the chances of the origin of life? Next, of the origin of the first cell? Next, of the origin of the first multicellular organism? Next, of the origin of the first warm-blooded animal? Next, of the origin of intelligence or consciousness? And so on. Each step is not one small step, but a giant leap. A leap as giant as a human being becoming a star-child à la 2001: A Space Odyssey.
And all this is in addition to the chances of finely-turned laws to drive all this, but what are the chances of a law like natural selection in an undesigned universe?
6. I think a difference between theistic evolutionists and creationists (e.g. YEC, OEC) involves God's direction or guidance in creation. Creationists clearly see God's intervening or guiding hand (e.g. Stephen Meyer's arguments about the Cambrian explosion).
However, theistic evolutionists seem to be conflicted about God's guiding hand in creation. On the one hand, theistic evolutionists say God used evolution to bring about all life on planet Earth. This implies God guided the origin and evolution of life. On the other hand, evolution in and of itself is an unguided process. For example, evolution is in large part driven by random mutations. How are random mutations guided? If random mutations are guided, then how are they random?
Hence the dilemma theistic evolutionists have. On the one hand, theistic evolution accepts mainstream evolution which is an unguided process (e.g. Monod's Chance and Necessity). On the other hand, theistic evolutionists also want to argue God guided the process of evolution. How can a process be simultaneously guided and unguided?
As such, one wonders how distinguishable the evolution of theistic evolution is from the evolution of atheistic evolution. It doesn't seem to be very distinguishable to me. At best, the distinctions seem blurred.
7. I should note I'm generalizing, for there are different positions among theistic evolutionists. Not all of theistic evolutionary positions necessarily fall prey to what I've said. Yet, even for those that don't necessarily fall prey to what I've said, they seem a bit cagey on design detection. Many theistic evolutionists don't seem to think one can detect design in creation. Otherwise, if they could detect design in nature, then they might have good reason to accept ID. They'd have good reason to accept a position like Michael Behe's position. Behe, of course, is a theistic evolution who accepts ID. Yet many if not most theistic evolutionists wouldn't accept Behe's position.
8. Many if not most theistic evolutionists are methodological naturalists in their approach to science, which has its own significant problems.
9. Denis Lamoureux is a theistic evolutionist. But I think confused or conflicted or something along those lines in his arguments for what he terms "evolutionary creationism" which really just seems to be his spin on theistic evolution. Not to mention Lamoureux talks about "intelligently designed evolution" which piles on the muddle-headedness. On the one hand, Lamoureux wants to say God used evolution to create all life on our planet including humans. On the other hand, he wants to maintain evolution is a fundamentally random process, which in turn would seem to commit him to evolution being an unguided process. So I think this would go back to my earlier point about how can a guided process (evolutionary creationism) be unguided (atheistic evolution)? Otherwise, if Lamoureux is willing to accept that God guided "random mutations" in a way that we can detect evidence of design (e.g. God's infusion of de novo information) in these guided random mutations, then why doesn't Lamoureux become a full-blown ID advocate? That's why I think his position is a conflicted position or at least a position in tension with itself.
This is in addition to Lamoureux's other significant problems. For example, he denies the historical Adam:
This is the Gospel as stated in the Bible, and there is no mention whatsoever of Adam and whether or not he existed. Christian faith is founded on Jesus, not Adam. This religion is called Christ-ianity, not Adam-ianity...we must also separate, and not conflate, the historical reality of Jesus and His death and bodily resurrection from the fact that Adam never existed, because Adam’s existence is rooted in an ancient biology of human origins.
Another example is the fact that Lamoureux thinks Genesis 1-11 is more mythology than history.
And Lamoureux has even flat out said Scripture is mistaken in his Four Views on the Historical Adam chapter: "Holy Scripture makes statements about how God created living organisms that in fact never happened."
-“However, theistic evolutionists seem to be conflicted about God's guiding hand in creation.“
ReplyDeleteNo conflict in this EC who agrees with John Calvin,
“But since our sluggish minds rest far beneath the height of Divine Providence, we must have recourse to a distinction which may assist them in rising. I say then, that though all things are ordered by the counsel and certain arrangement of God, to us, however, they are fortuitous,—not because we imagine that Fortune rules the world and mankind, and turns all things upside down at random (far be such a heartless thought from every Christian breast); but as the order, method, end, and necessity of events, are, for the most part, hidden in the counsel of God, though it is certain that they are produced by the will of God, they have the appearance of being fortuitous, such being the form under which they present themselves to us, whether considered in their own nature, or estimated according to our knowledge and Judgment.” 1.16.9.
I’m pretty sure Calvin wasn’t referring to neo-Darwinism since Calvin lived and died well before its advent.
DeleteI didn’t say Calvin was an EC. Rather how he understands ‘chance’/‘fortuitous’ events can be applied to the ‘randomness’ of evolutionary events.
DeleteNo, it’s anachronistic to use the terms like this. It’s not as if Calvin could foresee what neo-Darwinists would mean by, say, random genetic mutations.
DeleteWhat did I say that was anachronistic? Of course Calvin didn’t speak about random genetic mutations in specific nor did he know about them. He was speaking of providence in general and our human experience of ‘random’ events.
ReplyDeleteSo how is this relevant to what theistic evolution means when it discusses random genetic mutations, for example? Your point is consistent with YEC, OEC, theistic evolution, etc.
DeleteAs I quoted in the first comment,
Delete-“However, theistic evolutionists seem to be conflicted about God's guiding hand in creation.“
You spell out the 'dilemma' like this,
-"Hence the dilemma theistic evolutionists have. On the one hand, theistic evolution accepts mainstream evolution which is an unguided process (e.g. Monod's Chance and Necessity). On the other hand, theistic evolutionists also want to argue God guided the process of evolution. How can a process be simultaneously guided and unguided?"
There isn't a dilemma. What appears to be random to both the theist and atheist only appears so. however given our epistemic position we can't discern God's hand in it so it looks fortuitous.
"as the order, method, end, and necessity of events, are, for the most part, hidden in the counsel of God, though it is certain that they are produced by the will of God, they have the appearance of being fortuitous, such being the form under which they present themselves to us, whether considered in their own nature, or estimated according to our knowledge and Judgment."
You also state,
-"As such, one wonders how distinguishable the evolution of theistic evolution is from the evolution of atheistic evolution. It doesn't seem to be very distinguishable to me. At best, the distinctions seem blurred."
This line of reasoning could be applied to any Christian who accepts Calvin's understanding of providence. Every event has God's guiding hand of providence behind it yet from our epistemic vantage point we only see statistics (just like an atheist) without our theology informing us.
Two Six-Sided Die
2 1/36 (2.778%)
3 2/36 (5.556%)
4 3/36 (8.333%)
5 4/36 (11.111%)
6 5/36 (13.889%)
7 6/36 (16.667%)
8 5/36 (13.889%)
9 4/36 (11.111%)
10 3/36 (8.333%)
11 2/36 (5.556%)
12 1/36 (2.778%)
What Calvin said is applicable to ordinary divine providence, but it is not applicable to the special creation of life and the human being. Certainly Calvin did not think that God's hand in creation was undetectable.
DeleteOr otherwise how he understands ‘chance’ / ‘fortuitous’ events can be applied to the ‘randomness’ of "micro-evolutionary" events post special creation.
That's fine. But this is a different charge against evolution than the one Hawk presented which I quoted.
DeleteDiscussion of abiogenesis is it's own topic different from discussion of common descent or the evolutionary ancestry of humans.
"There isn't a dilemma. What appears to be random to both the theist and atheist only appears so. however given our epistemic position we can't discern God's hand in it so it looks fortuitous."
Delete1. As far as "our epistemic position" is concerned, if we can't "discern God's hand in it so it looks fortuitious", then theistic evolution is indiscernible or indistinguishable from atheistic evolution. That's a point I made in my post. Like I said, many theistic evolutionists don't seem to think one can detect design in creation. So your point would reinforce my point. I guess...thank you?
2. However, the fact is, when theistic evolutionists speak of "chance" or "purposelessness" or "random" in random genetic mutations, etc., they're not always limiting their position to a purely "epistemic" position. They take ontological positions too. For example, many (not all) theistic evolutionists take the position that God front-loaded creation. This includes the laws of nature. They argue God sustains these laws, but otherwise these laws act on matter and unfold in space-time without the need for God's guidance or direction. Therefore the evolution of life on our planet is still an unguided or undirected process.
"This line of reasoning could be applied to any Christian who accepts Calvin's understanding of providence. Every event has God's guiding hand of providence behind it yet from our epistemic vantage point we only see statistics (just like an atheist) without our theology informing us."
1. At the risk of stating the obvious, many if not most theistic evolutionists simply don't subscribe to Calvin's understanding of providence. So your position wouldn't be applicable to many if not most theistic evolutionists.
2. Also, I guess you missed what I said in #7 in my post. I specifically said there are different positions among theistic evolutionists and not all of theistic evolutionary positions necessarily fall prey to what I've said. Nevertheless, I said, there's still a bit of cagey-ness on design detection. And you admit as much with your talk about "our epistemic position" and "from our epistemic vantage point we only see statistics (just like an atheist) without our theology informing us".
"But this is a different charge against evolution than the one Hawk presented which I quoted."
DeleteActually, what Conhecereis a Verdade said is not irrelevant. He makes a legitimate point.
And it's true you're at some odds with Calvin's own view of providence. As Conhecereis a Verdade said: "Certainly Calvin did not think that God's hand in creation was undetectable."
"Discussion of abiogenesis is it's own topic different from discussion of common descent or the evolutionary ancestry of humans."
No, the origin of life is quite relevant in a discussion about evolution. These can be separable topics, but they're not irrelevant to one another.
You are correct on all points you bring up.
DeleteAs far as "our epistemic position" is concerned, if we can't "discern God's hand in it so it looks fortuitious", then theistic evolution is indiscernible or indistinguishable from atheistic evolution. That's a point I made in my post. Like I said, many theistic evolutionists don't seem to think one can detect design in creation. So your point would reinforce my point. I guess...thank you?
In the post I understood this as you raising a potential problem for EC.
-"And it's true you're at some odds with Calvin's own view of providence. As Conhecereis a Verdade said: "Certainly Calvin did not think that God's hand in creation was undetectable.""
DeleteMy point is that an EC can still understand God's hand in what is epistemically indistinguishable from 'chance'. I agree that Calvin would likely have had a problem with common descent and abiogenesis, perhaps even the Big Bang that resulted in the creation of the earth through ordinary providence.
I didn't say they were irrelevant to one another only different. There are Christians who accept common descent but believe God created the first living organism. Some people will tie them together very strongly.
"You are correct on all points you bring up."
DeleteThanks. I was basically just repeating to you what I already said in my post.
"In the post I understood this as you raising a potential problem for EC."
Please re-read my post if you've already read it.
"My point is that an EC can still understand God's hand in what is epistemically indistinguishable from 'chance'. I agree that Calvin would likely have had a problem with common descent and abiogenesis, perhaps even the Big Bang that resulted in the creation of the earth through ordinary providence."
I didn't make these statements or arguments.
"I didn't say they were irrelevant to one another only different. There are Christians who accept common descent but believe God created the first living organism. Some people will tie them together very strongly."
Hm, it doesn't sound like you read my entire post. If you have, please re-read it because it sounds like you didn't follow it. For example, I brought up Michael Behe who is a theistic evolutionist which entails he subscribes to universal common descent.
I don't see that there are any issues at this point.
DeleteAt this point we are in essential agreement.
As far as I can tell, I misunderstood what you were doing in making this statement,
"As such, one wonders how distinguishable the evolution of theistic evolution is from the evolution of atheistic evolution. It doesn't seem to be very distinguishable to me. At best, the distinctions seem blurred."
Right now I understand it as you making an observation, not an argument.
Thanks, Shekar. This bit from JP Moreland might be helpful. Otherwise the book Theistic Evolution by J. P. Moreland, Stephen Meyer, et al is very good.
DeleteThank you, Hawk.
DeleteI agree with Moreland. I also have a problem with methodological naturalism. It is epistemically irresponsible to state what we can't find a priori.
I'm currently not convinced that we can detect design in the process of evolution. However, I am open to it. I don't think we can cut up reality a priori into nice little domains of science=nothing-to-do-with-god or the like.
"I also have a problem with methodological naturalism. It is epistemically irresponsible to state what we can't find a priori."
DeleteI completely agree! Del Ratzsch made some helpful comments in this respect here.
"I'm currently not convinced that we can detect design in the process of evolution. However, I am open to it. I don't think we can cut up reality a priori into nice little domains of science=nothing-to-do-with-god or the like."
1. I think detecting design does have its issues. I suppose it depends how one goes about attempting to "detect design" (e.g. William Dembski makes his case in The Design Inference).
2. Also, one can argue for design in various ways. For example, inference to the best explanation is what Stephen Meyer often argues. Another example is an argument from analogy like one particular interpretation of William Paley's watch-watchmaker argument.
3. There's likewise Thomas Reid's idea that's been picked up by Del Ratzsch and Alvin Plantinga. This argues our intuitions that a biological organism is designed more closely parallels the existence of other minds, the existence of the external world, the existence of the past (vs. the past was created 10 minutes ago), and other common sensical beliefs that we are justified to hold in the context of properly functioning cognitive faculties, etc.
There's likewise Thomas Reid's idea that's been picked up by Del Ratzsch and Alvin Plantinga. This argues our intuitions that a biological organism is designed more closely parallels the existence of other minds, the existence of the external world, the existence of the past (vs. the past was created 10 minutes ago), and other common sensical beliefs that we are justified to hold in the context of properly functioning cognitive faculties, etc.
DeleteI am sympathetic to Del Ratzsch and Plantinga, but this only goes so for the individual. It's not like I can say to someone "Hey use your intuition correctly!" It's easy in our current state to misdirect and misinterpret our intuition. So I can accept that someone can be using their intuitive faculties in way God designed, but someone else can shrug off such intuitions as a product of pareidolia, no different than seeing animals, body parts, etc. in clouds and just as meaningful.
Thanks, Shekar. Plantinga does argue there can be defeaters. And pareidolia could be one such defeater. However, if we have properly functioning cognitive faculties in the right situation or environment where there are no defeaters and so on, then our intuition that something is designed may be a warranted belief.
DeleteI'll just throw this out there, but not as someone who understands chaos theory and self-organization and the like.
DeleteIt just seems to me that order is inherent in the cosmos, not that it accidentally arose.
And if order, then apparent design. Indeed, apparent design is ubiquitous. Should we perhaps see design as a given? Maybe the burden of proof is not on us to detect unmistakable examples of design, but on materialists to demonstrate that apparent design is definitely not so.
Eric Said:
Delete"And if order, then apparent design. Indeed, apparent design is ubiquitous. Should we perhaps see design as a given? Maybe the burden of proof is not on us to detect unmistakable examples of design, but on materialists to demonstrate that apparent design is definitely not so."
The way I would approach this is that if you trust your intuition of design then the burden of proof against your personal take on things is for someone to show that there is no design.
Someone who doesn't share your intuition doesn't have to take your intuition as their own. So to convince someone else you would have the burden of proof making the case that there is design.
Burdens of proof are contextual.
Shekar-/
DeleteYou're right. They don't have to take my tuition as their own. They can do whatever the heck they please. Of course, they could do the same even if I were to show incontrovertible proof for my claims. In fact, that's probably what they would do.
Burdens of proof have to do with backing up one's claims. Materialists switched the prevailing paradigm from teleological to dysteleological without proving a thing. When one overturns an established way of thinking, one bears the primary burden of proof.
That doesn't mean we don't need to provide evidence for our own claims. But we don't need to "play ball" with those who will not argue in good faith.
The best I have seen them come up with is the argument from suboptimal design. The human body isn't as well "designed" as it could be because it is the product of natural unguided processes. This is, of course, a non sequitur. Why does it look designed at all?
Eric said:
Delete“That doesn’t mean we don’t need to provide evidence for our own claims. But we don't need to "play ball" with those who will not argue in good faith.”
I agree.
Eric said:
“The best I have seen them come up with is the argument from suboptimal design. The human body isn't as well "designed" as it could be because it is the product of natural unguided processes. This is, of course, a non sequitur. Why does it look designed at all?”
I don’t see a problem with an appeal to pareidolia as a response to apparent design. A more robust argument for design would be needed in that case.
Thanks, guys. My thoughts:
Delete1. One doesn't need to argue for design to argue against evolution (by which I mean neo-Darwinism). Modern evolutionary theory could (and in my view does) have significant problems on its own.
2. I think a central issue is many if not most evolutionists not only argue evolution explains the existence of complex organized life, but they'd argue evolution explains away complex organized life as evidence for design. After all, it's logically possible to accept both evolution and (intelligent) design at the same time (e.g. Michael Behe, Michael Denton), but many if not most evolutionists won't do so. In other words, many if not most evolutionists think evolution rules out design.
3. In addition:
"Someone who doesn't share your intuition doesn't have to take your intuition as their own. So to convince someone else you would have the burden of proof making the case that there is design."
True, there may be some people who don't have a design intuition. But it's striking even hard atheists and opponents of design like Francis Crick and Richard Dawkins admit they have this design intuition. Consider Francis Crick's infamous remark: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."
It seems obvious the reason biologists "must constantly keep [this] in mind" is because biological life does indeed look as if it was designed. Evidently a person must repeatedly tell themselves something like: "It isn't designed, it evolved. It isn't designed, it evolved. It isn't designed, it evolved." And so on.
Likewise, Richard Dawkins made his own infamous statement: "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."
So the design intuition isn't ubiquitous, but it's intriguing how many people, including self-described atheists and scientists who are experts in evolutionary theory, do share a design intuition.
4. And:
"I don’t see a problem with an appeal to pareidolia as a response to apparent design. A more robust argument for design would be needed in that case."
Just as one example, Dembski argues specified complexity distinguishes between apparent and actual design. Complex organized biological life meet the criteria for specified complexity, whereas faces in the clouds don't.
5. I haven't read his book, but I think Doug Axe may in part be arguing along similar lines in Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed to what Eric seems to be suggesting in his comments. Anyway, it might be worth taking a look at Axe's book.
Shekar--
DeleteYou'll have to explain to me how pareidolia can even be an argument against design, let alone a strong argument. Pareidolia refers to phenomena that imitate design but which we can easily tell are NOT designed. The cloud shaped like a chieftain's head or a rock formation shaped like a chieftain's head fools absolutely nobody. Not even four year olds. The cellular evidence in Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" is more analogous to a cloud floating by that resembles every minute detail of DaVinci's "Last Supper" pixel for pixel.
The only way it might be relevant is when the evidence is ambiguous. If we are far enough away from both Mount Rushmore and a similar rocky crag so that we cannot quite tell: are those actual chiseled faces or natural formations?
Still, even in this case, pareidolia is a failed argument for design. And NOT an argument against design.
(I wrote this before Hawk's reply. I guess I'm arguing for specified complexity.)
Hawk and Shekar--
DeleteMy main contention is not that I find arguments from design incredibly airtight and convincing, but that I find arguments against design to be virtually nonexistent.
Materialists often attempt to weaken and invalidate existing ID arguments, but they almost never go on the offensive. Explain to me why something that is highly, highly ordered is not designed. Heck, explain to me why very simple ordering is not design.
For the life of me, I don't know how you'd begin to do that. Am I missing something?
Thanks, Eric. That's a good question. I suppose one way (among many others) to approach it would be like this:
Delete1. Broadly speaking, we can ask whether the universe itself is designed or we can ask whether an object in the universe is designed (e.g. DNA, proteins, cells, organisms). That'd be like asking whether a painting as a whole has been painted or whether certain swirls in the painting that appear to be a flower, a bird, or a human have been painted. That's (roughly) the distinction between arguments for design in cosmology (e.g. fine-tuning of fundamental constants in the universe) and arguments for design in biology (e.g. specified complexity, irreducible complexity, functional coherence). Similarly, when we talk about "order", we can talk about order in the context of an argument for design in cosmology or biology.
2. I think "order" is somewaht of a vague or fuzzy term. It might be helpful to be more precise about what we mean. For example, physicists prefer to frame "order" in terms of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics where the amount of order can be maintained but it doesn't necessarily increase, or at least not without disorder elsewhere. As such, we might begin by looking at low-entropy to high-entropy states in the universe, or part of the universe, for instance. Presumably this would best fit into a design argument in cosmology.
3. In any case, it's true "order" of one kind or another is often where arguments from design begin. So, perhaps, a teleological argument might begin by asking how likely "order" of one kind or another is explicable on an atheistic (naturalistic) universe in contrast to a (Christian) theistic universe.
4. By the way, science might explain how something works (mechanism), but that's not necessarily equivalent to what caused it to work (agency) or its purpose (teleology).
This is just one approach, but I think there are many others.
Hawk--
DeleteThanks for that. I was more talking about how there appear to be no proactive, cogent arguments FOR non-design (as opposed to defensive arguments intended to counter ID).
There are limits to what natural processes can do, so if ID can demonstrate irreducible complexity, naturalism is defeated. On the flip side, supernaturalism has no limits. So materialists are relegated to arguments against certain conceptions of God:
An all knowing, all loving God wouldn't have created creatures so "red in tooth and claw." So much unnecessary suffering.
God didn't need millions of years to develop the diversity of life, so evolution is a likelier scenario. Surely, a wise God wouldn't "spin his wheels" for so long.
Those kinds of probability arguments, given the stated characteristics of the Judeo-Christian God.
********************
It seems to me that the sciences of origins should be more open to speculative and philosophical (and even spiritual) inquiry.
Religion is more-or-less irrelevant to present-day lab work: repeatable, verifiable experimentation. It's not really methodological naturalism. It's method that is neutral to such considerations. It doesn't matter.
But with origins, we have no viable theories set forward by the scientific community on why there is something instead of nothing...on why there is order instead of chaos...on why there is life instead of an absence of life. Plus, evolutionary theories don't seem to envision processes powerful enough to produce the ensuing development. Naturalism isn't doing the trick. Why should ID be frozen out of the mix? I see no advantage.
Cool, thanks, Eric! Sorry I had missed your point earlier.
Delete1. I suppose if you want arguments against design, or at least against certain design arguments, then Paul Draper originally did a good job critiquing Michael Behe on irreducible complexity. Alvin Plantinga notes this in his book Where the Conflict Really Lies too:
"As far as I can make out, Draper is right: Behe’s argument, taken as Draper takes it, is by no means airtight. Behe has not demonstrated that there are irreducibly complex systems such that it is impossible or even monumentally improbable that they have evolved in a Darwinian fashion—although he has certainly provided Darwinians with a highly significant challenge. We have some of the same problems as with the fine-tuning argument of the last chapter: we don’t have a good way to ascertain the probability of these irreducibly complex systems, given the chance hypothesis, and we also don’t have a good way to evaluate the probability of these phenomena, given an intelligent designer."
However, Behe offered a response earlier this year.
2. Speaking for myself, I find it difficult not to see design in nature. I guess (to paraphrase Darth Vader) the design intuition is strong with this one.
Naturalistic evolutionists would even agree, but they would say it's merely apparent design, not actual design.
Different ID theorists have different approaches to distinguish between apparent design and actual design. William Dembski would reply we can justifiably make an inference from apparent design to actual design if two conditions are met: (1) the phenomenon to be explained (the explanandum) is extraordinarily improbable and (2) the phenomenon to be explained (explanandum) corresponds to an independently given pattern. In short, Dembski argues for specified complexity in making a design inference.
Stephen Meyer would argue by first looking at competing explanatory hypotheses for a particular explanandum or entity (e.g. DNA). Competing hypotheses might be chance, necessity, and combinations of chance and necessity, by way of neo-Darwinian evolution. However, Meyer would argue, intelligent design is a better explanation than these rival theories. In short, Meyer is arguing for an inference to the best explanation. (Of note, IBE is the same kind of argument Charles Darwin himself used in arguing for Darwinism.)
There are several other arguments for (actual) design.
3. I don't know that we necessarily need to make probabilistic (e.g. Bayesian) arguments for or against design, though of course Bayes is widely used. Dembski himself sides with the frequentist school. For example, as I've noted above, I'm sympathetic to what Plantinga and Del Ratzsch have said (e.g. design discourse).
4. Of course, arguments about natural evil are different kinds of arguments than arguments about design.
5. As I noted to GeoffRobinson below, it's interesting a hardened atheist and evolutionist like Dawkins ultimately falls back on philosophical objections to design rather than scientific objections to design (i.e. neo-Darwinism), even though the public is constantly told by evolutionists that the science is on their side, while ID theorists are anti-science or words to that effect. Personally, I'm fairly indifferent to whether we classify arguments for/against design as science or philosophy. I think the more relevant question is simply whether we can justifiably make a design inference. Whether this design inference can be argued scientifically and/or philosophically is a secondary issue at best.
Thanks, Hawk. I read Behe's response, and I pretty much buy that this convoluted notion of a step-by-step process involving all kinds of repurposing of elements from one step to the next sounds far too improbable to be a working hypothesis. Random mutation and natural selection are simply not powerful enough. Genes have some kind of built-in ability to adapt, to seek out new worlds, to boldly go where no DNA strand has gone before....
DeleteOne thing that has always intrigued me is convergent evolution. Eyes have evolved independently in all kinds of creatures. If the eye of one creature is nigh unto irreducibly complex, then what are the eyes of a hundred different creatures?
As I've said before, I'm not ready to buy ID's scientific endeavors hook, line, and sinker. I'm not at all sure that any kind of guided evolution can be scientifically demonstrated. But the simplistic Darwinian step-by-step hogwash certainly seems passé. And I do believe even the academy is moving past it into more explanatory mechanisms.
Thanks, Eric. To lay my cards on the table:
Delete1. My position is I generally dissent from neo-Darwinism (or more precisely from certain fundamental components of neo-Darwinism) and I generally support the ID movement. I think the ID theorists have the more reasonable arguments in general. Both scientific and philosophical arguments.
2. That said, I don't think the arguments for design are without criticism. For example, I think Behe's irreducible complexity is quite reasonable, but I don't know that I would have quite framed it the way Behe does. I think I'd tend to side more with Doug Axe's functional coherence here. Axe, of course, is another ID theorist.
3. I don't find all the components of neo-Darwinism controversial. Genetic change over time or allele frequency in a population is a fact. Likewise speciation and common ancestry are facts. However, I would disagree with their scope (e.g. universal common ancestry).
4. The components of neo-Darwinism which are probably most controversial are natural selection and random mutations. That's because these two are considered the predominant drivers of neo-Darwinian evolution, as creative or innovative forces for de novo genetic information for instance. I would agree with critics of neo-Darwinism that natural selection and random mutations can't fully deliver what they promise, as it were. A key distinction, roughly speaking, is the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution.
5. I think one of the main problems with convergent evolution for the evolutionist is that convergent evolution seems to be clear evidence similarity doesn't necessarily imply common ancestry (i.e. inheritance from a common ancestor). Like you said, there are "hundreds" (if not thousands) of different examples of convergent evolution. Covergent evolution is hardly an isolated or a rare or an extreme case, but it's evidently a widespread phenomenon.
6. As I mentioned earlier to Shekar, I think one of the more striking tensions in theistic evolution is the following: if it's theistic, then it's not exactly evolution (which is fundamentally an unguided process); if it's evolution, then it's not exactly theistic (which is fundamentally a guided process). Theistic evolution wants to have it both ways. Can they reconcile this tension?
7. Yeah, I think you're right. As I pointed out to GeoffRobinson below, I think many leading scientists at prestigious institutions are indeed moving away from or beyond neo-Darwinism. Simply see the various alternative theories in the extended evolutionary synthesis. Such as Jeffrey Schwartz's evo-devo. Such as Stuart Kauffman's self-organization. Such as Massimo Pigliucci's neo-Lamarckianism. Such as James Shapiro's natural genetic engineeering. Such as Michael Lynch's neutral theory of evolution. And so on.
I've been following the ID movement since the mid-90s and I've been an OEC for less than that.
ReplyDeleteI've noticed something odd. Theistic evolutions and some Darwinists have theological and philosophical arguments, but they can't really defeat the scientific hurdles ID throws in their way.
The main objection tends to be Darwin-of-the-Gaps arguments. The problem is that the more we learn the more ID is supported.
Irreducible complexity has never been adequately answered. There isn't a single naturalistic Origin of Life scenario that's even remotely worth mentioning as approaching adequate.
Common descent is better but there's a lot of issues with those arguments them based on genetic and other evidence.
Cosmology is a nightmare for those opposed to design.
Thanks, Geoff. Good points. I'd add there are evolutionists who take issue with fundamental aspects of neo-Darwinism (e.g. Denis Noble, James Shapiro).
DeleteMichael Behe is an evolutionist. He believes in common descent. The main difference is whether you think structures were designed and changes show evidence of design. That's the number 1 difference in the debate.
Delete1. Yeah, I mentioned Behe is a theistic evolutionist more than once in this post and thread.
Delete2. Yeah, as I mentioned in my post and earlier comments in this post, I think one of the differences between (Christian) theistic evolution (neo-Darwnism) and naturalistic evolution (neo-Darwinism) is over God's guidance as well as design detection. Please see #6 and #7 in my post as well as subsequent comments in this thread. I've also briefly mentioned methodological naturalism.
3. I brought up evolutionists like Noble and Shapiro for several reasons. First, they're atheists or at least secularists. Second, they don't support ID, while Behe obviously does. Third, because they still maintain they're "evolutionists" but they have argued against significant fundamental aspects of evolution (neo-Darwinism). Fourth, Noble and Shapiro are leading academic scientists who haven't even been censured by academia like many of the ID theorists have: Noble is at the University of Oxford and Shapiro is at the University of Chicago, though they might be emeritus now. As such, they represent significant critics of evolution from fellow evolutionists. In other words, it's not just ID theorists and "creationists" criticizing evolution, but leading scientists and fellow evolutionists are criticizing evolution (neo-Darwinism). So evolutionists (neo-Darwninists) can't dismiss criticisms as solely coming from "creationists". Most secular evolutionists believe the ID movement is a Trojan horse for "creationism" or something along those lines, even though that's false (but of course there are many Christian creationists in ID or who would support ID).
4. In addition, Noble and Shapiro (and many others) have their own proposals for a modern evolutionary theory (e.g. Shapiro calls his theory natural genetic engineering). These various relatively novel theories can be grouped into a family called the extended evolutionary synthesis. However, the very fact that extended evolutionary synthesis theories exist suggests many scientists aren't entirely persuaded by neo-Darwinism. Indeed, they see significant deficiences or at least incompleteness in neo-Darwinism, which is why they're proposing their novel theories. Some of these theories are more consistent with neo-Darwinism, some are less consistent with neo-Darwinism, but all of the theories agree neo-Darwinism is incomplete or deficient in some significant way(s).
Another thought or two:
Delete1. It's interesting even a hardened atheist and evolutionist like Dawkins falls back on philosophical objections to design rather than scientific objections to design (i.e. neo-Darwinism). This is despite the fact that most naturalistic evolutionists including Dawkins often argue "science" rules out design (and proves neo-Darwinism). After all, Dawkins' main argument is his ultimate Boeing 747 gambit which is fundamentally a philosophical objection, viz. who designed the designer? And on the scientific side Darwinism and design could be consistent with one another (e.g. Behe believes this). So the whole idea about "science" ruling out design seems to be untrue. At best, it's a very weak case. Which may be why Dawkins himself relies more heavily on philosophical objections to design.
2. At the same time, Dawkins argues God is "improbable". However, what kind of "probability" does Dawkins have in mind? It seems he's referring to prior probabilities. Yet, even if prior probabilities are low, that doesn't necessarily mean posterior probabilities can't be high. For instance, the prior probability of an average person like John Smith going on a date with a Hollywood celebrity like Emma Watson is low. However, once we add in other evidences - such as the fact that John bid and won on an auction to date a celebrity named Emma Watson, that John has lots of video of him with Emma Watson, that John's friends and family met him with Emma Watson, that Emma Watson tweeted about her date with John, and so on - then the posterior probability of them going on a date is high. Likewise, sure, God's existence could be "improbable" given Dawkins' starting point, but once all the evidence is in (e.g. ontological arguments, cosmological arguments, fine-tuning arguments, other design arguments), then God's existence could be highly "probable".
One interesting thing is that much as I like Behe it's almost impossible to pin him down on what he means by common descent. Or for that matter to get him to admit that the neo-Darwinists mean common descent *without* detectable design, and *especially* without intervention by the designer. Now, Behe will say (though he really doesn't make it at all clear how this is supposed to work) that *somehow* the designer could have built in the development of, say, the bacterial flagellum "at the big bang" by some kind of "initial conditions." But that isn't what it's going to look like, since the bacterial flagellum is going to appear quite suddenly millions (?) of years after the Big Bang with an appearance of design and unpreceded by any apparent gradualistic process. Which is going to look like intervention. At some level Behe must know that that's *not* compatible with what "real" evolutionists mean by "common descent." Yet he still uses the phrase and won't be dissuaded from it or even reconsider.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Lydia! That's a great point. I too respect Behe for his work, but what you say does expose a significant tension if not outright conflict in his thinking. I don't know why he doesn't take a position closer to, say, what his ID colleague Stephen Meyer has in mind in his arguments about the Cambrian explosion, which are interventionist by a designer. What does Behe have to lose at this point?
DeleteAs far as his whole "initial conditions" thing, I'm guessing Behe has in mind some sort of front-end loaded process. Maybe like God somehow front-end loaded these "initial conditions" to include a blueprint for irreducibly complex structures like bacterial flagellum. However, even if so, it's one thing to have a blueprint and quite another thing to implement it in reality. Given Behe's beliefs, it seems the implementation is still going to have to be by naturalistic processes, which really means neo-Darwinism or some similar gradualistic evolutionary theory. Yet, as you pointed out, the appearance of an irreducibly complex bacterial flagellum billions of years later is still "unpreceded by any apparent gradualistic process. Which is going to look like intervention." So I don't know how Behe gets around this without blunting to some degree his challenge of irreducible complexity contra neo-Darwinism.