Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Intelligent Design

  • More on Evolution Conflict

    Ed Brayton has again weighed in on the framing of the conflict over science education. I agree with the way in which Ed has laid out the issues, and strongly recommend reading his piece.

    As an advocate of sound science education, I would like to repeat some things I’ve said before, but that are often forgotten in discussion.

    I am not opposed to free speech for intelligent design advocates. In fact, I see them exercising free speech all the time. What I would suggest they do about the peer reviewed publication is to simply establish one or more publications with peer review and publish scientific research in those publications. If it is done well, scientists will begin to read and respond to the new evidence they present. Of course I think the reason they are not generally published in peer-reviewed journals is because they are not doing research that is worthy of such publication.

    Further, I have no problem with ID being discussed at the college or university level to whatever extent the people who are teaching there want to discuss it. I went to college at a place where young earth creationism was a regular topic. Nobody is actually being repressed here, no matter how loud the whining becomes.

    But more important than my perception of repression or its absence–after all, I could be totally wrong–is the simple fact that there are other avenues open. In this age of the internet and various easy print publication opportunities, it’s quite easy to get something into print. But the real complaint is not getting published or not, it’s where one is published, or how much respect one gets from scienfic colleagues.

    That respect from scientific colleagues, however, has to be earned. And earning it is hard work. New ideas do work their way into the scientific community only slowly, and most new ideas get thrown out in the process of discussion. That is appropriate. One can argue that there should be more room or less room for new ideas, but ultimately, science must test ideas thoroughly before they are accepted.

    And that leads me to the place where I do not think that ID has a place–the high school science classroom. Why? Very simply I believe that the high school curriculum is packed enough with consensus science, and that it should be limited to that. Let new ideas be discussed elsewhere and when a scientific consensus arises, that will be time enough to add that material to the high school science curriculum.

    Framing the debate a s religion vs science, however, makes this difficult, no matter which side frames the discussion in that fashion.

    (Note: Read Ed’s piece before you comment here. I’m only making a small subpoint.)

  • Different Standards of Evidence

    In a post some time ago titled The Dog DID my Homework I commented on the odd inequity of intelligent design advocates asking for detailed evolutionary histories of each structure, while expecting no more than raw assertions of themselves.

    Carl Zimmer on The Loom has written a National Geographic article on the evolution of complex structures (I haven’t read it yet, but will get there soon). Casey Luskin responded (?) to the article, and Zimmer has in turn responded to him.

    Zimmer comments:

    It’s remarkable that he calls for an absurdly detailed reconstruction of history as evidence for evolution, while expecting nothing of the sort from advocates of intelligent design. Apparently the rules are different at the Discovery Institute. There you need only make vague references to a designer, claim some supposed shortfalls of evolution, and you’re done.

    I think this issue of the level of original research required of each side is the most telling point in the ID debate. ID advocates need to get down to doing and publishing original scientific research. Unfortunately, I don’t see any promising lines of such research, and apparently neither do the qualified scientists who should see them if there are some available.

  • An Intelligent Designer in the Gaps

    I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding of the problems with a “God of the gaps” position. This is not a logical fallacy, but rather is more like an observation on the one hand and an implication on the other. I’m not going to try here for a deep philosophical discussion, but rather a simple overview of what I see as the practical application of God of the gaps positively and negatively.

    Essentially, “God of the gaps” results when people first credit some observed phenomenon to the action of God, then discover that this phenomenon has a natural explanation, and finally remove that activity from God’s sphere. In reverse it effectively says that God’s action is to be observed in the things that we do not understand.

    It is quite possible for someone to hold that God is equally active in both the things we understand and the things that we do not. But that is not the God of the gaps position. When one argues that God is demonstrated by particular things that we do not understand, and that complete understanding would remove that evidence, that person is essentially using a God of the gaps type of argument for the existence of God.

    Let’s take an example. In arguing for intelligent design, Michael Behe proposes that there are irreducibly complex systems, that there is no evolutionary explantion (using all natural causes) to explain the existence of such systems. He further claims that there can be no evolutionary explanation because incredibly improbable events would have to occur to produce all the parts of the irreducibly complex system simultaneously and in the proper relationship. The proposed solution is an “intelligent designer” who puts these things together.

    Now Behe does not claim that the intelligent designer must be God, but nobody actually proposes any plausibly designer other than God. Any lesser intelligent designer would itself require explanation. So for the moment, let’s assume that the intelligent designer is God, and that Behe’s argument is an argument for the existence of God. There is this system which could not be produced by natural causes, yet it exists, so it must be designed, and through other logic we arrive at God as the designer.

    Now suppose I am convinced of the existence of God by this particular argument. Then some fine microbiologist discovers a plausible evolutionary path for producing the system that I was convinced was irreducibly complex. What do I do? Well, if I’m honest I determine that this piece of evidence for the existence of God is no longer valid. If it was the key to my belief, I might have to give up my faith. Otherwise I might still believe, but have one less piece of evidence for that belief. God essentially would have retreated, at least in part, from this section of my universe.

    This is not precisely a logical fallacy, although it could lead to one or two. It is quite possible that something of which I am not aware has tinkered with the development of life on earth. Though I personally don’t believe it to be so, God could be intervening regularly in the development of life. One is not required to reject the notion that “God did it” outright.

    But of what value is that claim? We have two major problems. First, it’s been done many times. As natural explanations have been discovered, people have seen less and less need to assume God’s activity. Second, God makes a rather lousy hypothesis. Now before my Christian friends accuse me of blasphemy, let me note that my car makes a lousy hypothesis as well, but it’s quite an excellent car. God doesn’t make a good hypothesis because he is not an hypothesis. He is too undefined for that, and more importantly his power is not sufficiently limited in our definition. An hypothesis that explains everything explains nothing. It’s the equivalent of “stuff happens.”

    Christian students of the Bible and theology who reject the God of the gaps type of argument do not do so because it is logically impossible. We do so because it conflicts with our understanding of how God functions in the universe, and because as such it has been an untenable position in the past.

    Intelligent design resembles a “God of the gaps” argument in that it finds gaps in human knowledge and plugs God into the gap in our knowledge. I cannot be certain that they are wrong in each and every case, though I see no particular reason to believe they are right. But simply asserting that an undefined intelligent designer did it sure sounds to me like the intelligent designer in the gaps.

    It’s going to be simple to watch and see. If evolutionary scientists continue to discover new processes and fill in the gaps, then ID will continue to look like a “gaps” type argument and will have all its failings, particular a receding God, and explanations that explain nothing. ID advocates now accuse evolutionary scientists of lacking detailed explanations of the development of various systems, while in turn they simply claim that “the designer did it.” I can’t exclude that as a possibility, but I also can’t see any positive evidence in its favor. It’s pretty clear to me now, and time will serve to make it even clearer.

  • More on Religious Battle Lines

    Ed Brayton has written an excellent post on this topic over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, titled Drawing Religious Battle Lines. I’ve already said my piece on this one, so I’m just going to send you over there to read this excellent essay.

    My high opinion of it has nothing to do with the fact that Ed talks about me a bit in the post. 🙂

    (Hmmm! Posting gremlins seem to have kept me from posting this earlier, so even though it’s a bit behind times, I’m going to post it for the link. Ed’s post is still excellent!)

  • Pro-Evolution Event at University of North Florida

    The Biology Department at UNF and the First Coast Freethought Society will sponsor a panel discussion on evolution and education titled Science Under Siege: The Attack on Evolution. The discussion will take place Monday, November 13, 2006, 7:00 – 9:30 p.m. at the UNF University Center. You can find more information and directions to the meeting location via the links above.

    This is probably too far away for me to get to, but if you live nearer it looks like a good thing. I also note that all the panelists are professors in the biology department. I hope this indicates that we are developing more scientists who are not only good in their field, but are able to communicate with non-specialists.

  • Allies for Evolution, not Everything

    Update: Jack Krebs has now posted a longer summary of the talk and links to audio files. I haven’t listened to the audio yet, but I don’t see anything in the summary that would alter my view on this. I’m glad Jack and Kansas Citizens for Science made sure to get good audio of this. (2nd update: I somehow left out the link to Jack’s post, and have now added it.)

    I’m regularly annoyed by angry recriminations that occur when someone discovers that the various people in favor of sound science education and specifically on the teaching of evolution don’t actually agree on all aspects of life, the universe and everything. Currently there is a flap about remarks by Kenneth Miller. Since I don’t have a transcript of those remarks I’m not going to try to critique those remarks. PZ Myers, however, has a rather angry post on Pharyngula calling Ken Miller a creationist because he suggested that creationists’ attacks were misdirected, and should be directed instead at folks like Dawkins.

    (more…)

  • The Age of the Earth

    Through the Christian Blog Carnival I found this post by Amanda from Imago Dei blog. She has been working through videos by Kent Hovind, and came to the conclusion that the age of the earth was not that important, and that Kent Hovind’s tactics were not going to accomplish all that much.

    Though all know that I do not accept a young earth, as Amanda does, I agree that it is hardly an essential of the Christian faith. I’m not all that sensitive to accusations of ignorance from either side. Ignorance can be corrected, and bluntly if one takes a completely opposite view on a topic like the age of the earth, one has to find some explanation for the huge difference. I would be content if we could just keep the spiritual judgment out of it. It would be nice if those of us who are Christians could debate the when and how of God’s creation as details, not essentials, and thus do so without accusing one another of being outside the faith.

    It doesn’t disturb me to be called ignorant. It does disturb me to have a fellow Christian say that I’m “just like an atheist” because I’m a theistic evolutionist. I congratulate Amanda on the tone and quality of her post on this divisive topic.

    While I’m at it, let me again recommend Kurt Wise’s book Faith, Form, and Time to those who are looking for a more reasoned defense of the young earth position. I don’t agree with Wise, almost from the start, but he makes an excellent presentation.

  • Design, Direction, and Evolution

    Over on The Panda’s Thumb a number of writers are reviewing the new book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. I haven’t read the book. I should, but I probably won’t get to it for two or three months. In the meantime, you can always read the book itself and the Panda’s Thumb reviews.

    A key issue in the debate about evolution and intelligent design, especially as it relates to Christianity, is the issue of direction in nature. Is there a purpose in nature, and is that purpose designed by God? If designed, how was it designed? Answers to those questions from ID advocates have varied. Some would claim that a theistic evolutionist such as myself is simply a closet ID supporter who refuses to admit it. Others would find the notion of a theistic evolutionist repugnant. A key to this question is the issue of direction.

    Quoting from the Panda’s Thumb review on chapter 1:

    “[There] is a fundamental conflict here [but] it is not between religion and science, or even between Christianity and evolution, but between traditional Christianity and Darwinism. Although the latter may allow for the existence of a deity, [that deity would not be] the God of traditional Christianity” (p. 173). Darwinism differs from evolution because it explains “the origin of not just one or a few species, but all species after the first

  • Book: God After Darwin

    In this wonderful little book (God After Darwin [ISBN: 0813338786]), theologian John Haught looks at our concepts of God in the light of evolutionary theory, and in relation to intelligent design. My notes are more of a response than a review.

    This book is not an examination of each movement in great detail, but rather a look at theology, and how it might need to adapt in the light of what evolutionary theory has shown us about the universe. Haught does not believe that metaphysical materialism is an adequate view, because it does not support, in his view, the novelty of creation. He rejects the views of philosophers like Dennett and Dawkins who claim that science has shown that there is no purpose in the universe and that everything can be explained by mechanistic natural causes.

    But he also rejects intelligent design, not on the usual grounds that it is not science–after all, he’s discussing theology–but because it too fails to adequately deal with novelty in the universe. Haught postively embraces evolution, moving God from the Alpha, the God who pushes from behind, to the Omega, the God of the future. God, as Haught sees him, does not coerce his creation, but rather continuously invites it into the future. God gives the gracious gift of new creation to the universe continuously.

    (more…)

  • Francis S. Collins on Religion and Evolution

    Courtesy of the Florida Citizens for Science blog, I found this article on Francis S. Collins, an evangelical Christian who sees no incompatibility between religion and science, including acceptance of evolution. The article can be found at Relgion Today (HeraldToday.com).

    I could add little to what Dr. Collins had to say. I came at the question from the other end, starting from a religious point of view and looking for compatibility with science.

    I do believe that the expectation that people reject evolutionary theory, which is supported by overwhelming evidence as Dr. Collins says, puts a stumbling block in the path of well-educated people who are considering the gospel message. Dr. Collins provides a good response to that problem.

    While I want consensus science, and that means evolutionary theory, taught in the public school classrooms of this state, I believe Christians should regard the “how” of creation as a non-essential, one that can be debated openly in the church without accusations of heresy.