Barry Arrington was astonished to find that Larry Moran agreed with him that it would be possible for some future biologist to detect design in a Venter-designed genome.
He was further astonished to find that REC, a commenter at UD, agreed with Larry Moran.
Barry expresses his epiphany in a UD post REC Becomes a Design Proponent.
Has Barry finally realised that those of us who oppose the ideas of Intelligent Design proponents do not dispute that it is possible, in principle, to make a reasonable inference of design? That rather our opposition is based on the evidence and argument advanced, not on some principled (or unprincipled!) objection to the entire project?
Sadly, it seems not. Because Barry then gives some examples of his continued lack of appreciation of this point. Here they are:
For example, consider this typical objection: “All scientific claims must employ methodological naturalism, and you violate the principle of methodological naturalism when you make a design inference in biology.”
If that objection is valid (it is not, but set that aside for now), it is just as valid against REC’s and Dr. Moran’s design inferences as it is against any other design inference.
Yes, indeed, Barry. It is not a valid objection, and if it were, it would be as valid against REC’s and Dr. Moran’s as against ID. There is nothing wrong with making a design inference in principle. We do it all the time, as IDists like to point out. And there’s nothing wrong with making it in biology, at least in principle. There is certainly nothing that violates the “principle of methodological naturalism when you make a design inference in biology”. I wonder where Barry found that quotation?
The point sailed right over REC’s head. He responded that the objections were not valid as to his design inference, because his design inference (opposed to ID’s design inferences) was “valid and well evidenced.”
I doubt it sailed over REC’s head. I expect it was the very point he was making – that there is no reason in principle why one cannot make a valid design inference in biology, but whether the inference is valid or not would depend on the specifics of the evidence and argument.
But that is exactly what ID proponents have been saying for decades REC! We have been saying all along that the various “typical objections” are invalid if the evidence leads to a design inference.
REC, the only difference between you and us is that you are persuaded by the evidence in a particular case and not in our case. But you are missing the point. If what is important is the EVIDENCE, then th “typical objections” lose all force all the time.
Barry, consider the possibility that you have been misreading the “typical objections” the entire time. That the yards of text that are spilled daily at UD railing against Lewontin and us benighted “materialists” are entirely irrelevant. The objection to ID by people like me (and Moran, and REC, and any other ID opponent I’ve come across, including Richard Dawkins in fact) is not that it is impossible that terrestrial life was designed by an intelligent agent, nor that it would be necessarily impossible to discover that it was, nor even, I suggest, impossible to infer a designer even if we had no clue as to who the designer might be (although that might make it trickier). The objection is that the arguments advanced by ID proponents are fallacious. They don’t work. Some are circular, some are based on bad math, and some are based on a misunderstanding of biochemistry and biology. They are not bad because they are design inferences, they are bad because they are bad design inferences.
In other words, the objection “all scientific claims must employ methodological naturalism” is invalid in principle, not in application, if it is even possible to make a valid design inference based on the EVIDENCE.
And here is where Barry steps on the rake again. Of course all scientific claims must employ methodological naturalism. It’s the only methodology we have in science – it is another way of saying that scientific claims must be falsifiable. That doesn’t mean we can’t infer design. Design is a perfectly natural phenomenon. If Barry means that we can only infer natural, not supernatural, design, he is absolutely correct, but that is simply because a supernatural design hypothesis is unfalsifiable. The reason Lewontin was correct is not that science is terrified of letting the supernatural in the door of science lest we have to face our worst nightmares, but that if you accept the supernatural as a valid hypothesis, you throw falsifiability out of the window.
You agree with us that it is the EVIDENCE that is important, and objections thrown up for the purpose of ruling that evidence out of court before it is even considered are invalid.
Yes, it is the EVIDENCE that is important, But on the other side of the EVIDENCE coin are the predictions we derive from the theory that we are testing against that EVIDENCE. If there are no predictions – and a theory that can predict anything predicts nothing – then we have no way of evaluating whether our EVIDENCE supports our theory. In fact, the word EVIDENCE only makes sense in relation to a theory. I’m no lawyer (heh) but doesn’t there have to be a charge before there is a trial?
Of course, by the same token, nobody can claim that ID is false – it may well be true that life was designed by a supernatural designer, whether at the origin-of-life stage as some claim, or at key stages, such as the Cambrian “Explosion” (scare quotes deliberate), as others claim; or for certain features too hard to leave to evolution such as the E.coli flagellae that enhance their ability to maim and kill our children. Or even to design a universe so fine-tuned that it contains the laws and materials necessary for life to emerge without further interference. Science cannot falsify any of that – nor, for that matter the theory that it was all created ex nihilo Last Thursday.
That’s why nothing in evolutionary biology is a threat to belief in God or gods, and why the paranoia surrounding “methodological naturalism” is so completely misplaced.
What is a threat to us all, though, I suggest, is bad science masquerading as science, and that is my objection to ID. Not the “broader” project itself as stated in the UD FAQ:
In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.
but its fallacious (in my view) conclusion that:
…that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
Fallacious not because I assume that the “intelligent cause” is supernatural, but because the math and biochemistry simply do not support that inference. Even if it’s true.
Oops
In trying to move a post of Gregory’s to guano, I accidentally moved a post by Petrushka instead. Sorted now.
Gregory,
You’re welcome to repost the substantive elements of your comment minus any personal attacks.
Alan Fox,
WTF does that mean, Alan. You and your fellow atheists attack any and ALL theists on this site. And yet, you have the ridiculous GALL to accuse me of putting Frankie, a fellow theist, in his place?
This is the height of absurdity! Did you stick your hotdog in your own mouth?!
Alan Fox,
What SPECIFICALLY are those so-called ‘personal attacks’?
Your atheist mentality is simply a bore, Alan. Come clean
Gregory,
Your criticism of Frankie’s comment was fair. I’ve PMed you.
Correct, There is nothing stopping scientific methodology from investigating any phenomena whether it is reducible to matter or not. We know the world through our phyisical senses that knowledge includes the things that can’t be reduced to the phyisical.
When it comes to the things on my list we investigate how they interact with matter. There is nothing wrong with this sort of investigation in fact sans special revelation it’s all we can do.
What methodological naturalism can’t do is say that all there is matter or all that “matters” is matter. That would be illogical to the extreme.
What some folks do is believe that just because we can’t weigh something means it does not exist. When I encounter someone like that I want to ask how much that particular belief weighs
The stuff on my list really exist in my mind they just don’t add weight to my body.
Methodological naturalism is restricted to looking at the natural so it’s investigation of supernatural things must be indirect and limited. Indirect and limited investigation is still investigation
peace
Yeah, that should have been obvious. So it’s a defense of fellow atheist KN at stake?
Gregory,
I’ve responded to you in the moderation issues thread.
No unexplainable is not a good synonym IMO. lots of things on my list are perfectly explainable they just can’t be explained with out appealing to something beyond and above nature.
Instead of unexplainable I would call it not-computable or irrational in the mathematical sense. That is probably because Ive been spending so much time working on my game/tool and I have it on the brain 😉
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Well, you are welcome to disagree. That’s what this site is about. Me, I tend to be content with a “we don’t yet understand” to an unwarranted appeal to the supernatural to supply an answer.
Gregory,
Your question has been answered in Moderation Issues. Modify your comment to not violate Lizzie’s rules and it won’t be moved to Guano.
Could you parse that one again? I’m not sure I understand what you are trying to say
and while we are at it
Do you agree that some mathematical problems are unsolvable even in theory given a finite amount of time?
When you come to such a problem is there anything wrong with admitting that it is unsolvable?
peace
I’m very curious about all sorts of aspects of the universe, our place in it and how it all came to be. However, I’m not concerned by the fact that we don’t have satisfactory or correct explanations for everything. I’d rather settle for not having an explanation rather than having to invent one.
I’m not a mathematician so I can’t supply an informed opinion. As an idiot guess I’d say why should some problems not have a solution? Did you mean finite or is it a typo for infinite?
As I said, you are welcome to challenge KN’s ideas. Why not make a start in your next comment? This site is a platform for people to share their strong opinions and argue for them in a non-rancorous way.
You’re apparently (based on what you’ve said here) someone of born in the 30’s or 40’s. Don’t lose track of justice or deeper joy than materialism could ever pretend to promise at the end of one’s earthly life. If you wish to die forlorn, angry at God, empty of soul, that’s openly up to you. Yet to turn your life is still possible, even if you think it may not be.
I’m not a mathematician either but that’s OK. I’m perfectly qualified to say that you will never given a finite amount of time solve Pi to it’s finial digit.
That is because Pi is irrational and transcendental it can’t be solved in a finite amount of time and since the universe is finite Pi can’t be solved at all in “nature”.
yet it exists
That is what I mean by supernatural.
peace
Do all satisfactory or correct explanations have to be “natural” ones?
Please explain your answer? 😉
fifthmonarchyman,
But why is that a problem? We can calculate a value of
to any degree of accuracy we need. And I’m not sure what you mean by “yet it exists”. It’s a mathematical abstraction. Am I getting an attack of déjà-vu here?
fifthmonarchyman,
There is no other explanation than a real (substituting for natural) explanation.
You are trying to have a serious discussion with someone who doesn’t understand base equivalency?
We can calculate the value of Pi to any degree of accuracy we need to accomplish materialistic tasks.
Life is not defined by the ability to accomplish materialistic tasks.
There is much more to it than that, stuff like the stuff on my list and Pi.
Is mathematical abstraction code for nonexistent in your worldview?
Are mathematical abstraction and supernatural synonyms in your opinion?
How much does déjà-vu weigh? 😉
peace
I didn’t pay close attention to the earlier thread.
That is materialism in a nutshell. It’s a presupposition arrived completely with out reference to natural evidence of any kind before you even begin to reason
As such it is self-defeating.
peace
Neil (Rickert) and Patrick are both mathematicians who could answer much better than I could. I’m persuaded by Neil’s useful fiction.
No. I avoid using “supernatural” if I can. Mathematics are a useful set of tools invented by people for doing calculations and modelling aspects of the world.
It’s a fact. We only know the reality we can detect, observe and measure.
How do you “know” the reality of that proposition? Exactly how did you detect, observe or measure it?
Why is that? Is it because “supernatural” equals not real in your worldview?
peace
PS we all know how this will end so I’ll take my leave
Alan Fox,
Neil is a mathematician. I’m an engineer with pretensions.
FMM:
No.
If there’s an argument that they are, please make it.
keiths:
newton:
Hypotheses don’t test beliefs. Science tests hypotheses.
If your point is that we can’t test the characteristics of a nonexistent entity, then of course I agree. I don’t think God exists and neither do you, presumably, so neither of us is likely to design experiments to test his characteristics.
What we can do is test supernatural hypotheses — provided that they are testable, of course.
The hypothesis “God selectively favors patients who are prayed for” is such a hypothesis.
It may help to remind yourself that the hypothesis above can be restated this way: “God exists, and he selectively favors patients who are prayed for”. If you falsify this hypothesis, it means either a) that God doesn’t exist, or b) that God exists but does not selectively favor patients who are prayed for.
Science is perfectly capable of handling this hypothesis. Why should it be artificially barred from doing so?
Methodological naturalism is a mistake.
It was a question not an argument. It was based on Allen Fox’s apparent idea that abstractions don’t exist.
FWIW I don’t think they are synonyms supernatural is an adjective and abstraction is a noun.
peace
As I pointed out earlier you would need to precisely define “favor” and “prayer” before your hypothesis can be any kind of valid test.
Of course you know a Christian would have vastly different definitions of these terms than an atheist would.
peace
Alan, to fifth:
Alan,
It’s surprising to me that you can’t see your mistake. It’s a big one.
To assume ahead of time that there cannot be a real supernatural entity is to assume your conclusion.
There’s nothing logically impossible about a real supernatural entity. Good scientists and skeptics understand that such questions need to be decided empirically, not by definitional fiat. Further, they recognize that scientific conclusions are provisional and may be overturned by future discoveries. Thus, they are open to looking at new evidence and arguments.
You are saying, in effect, “I, Alan, think that supernatural entities are unreal. Therefore science needn’t consider any evidence for them, either now or in the future.”
That’s closed-minded and counter to the scientific spirit.
fifth,
Of course, but the topic here is whether science can test supernatural hypotheses, not whether any particular hypothesis survives the test.
Do they come to this understanding empirically or by definitional fiat?
peace
Alan Fox,
The appeal to a supernatural is not unwarranted if a natural explanation is unavailable or appears unlikely.
If a giant ring of clouds forms in the sky that says, “I am a God!” in perfectly scripted letters, followed by the sun blinking on and off three times, do you attribute that to a God, or do you say, well, I guess we will just have to wait for a natural explanation?
That you wish to eliminate the possibility of a supernatural because the evidence doesn’t suit you is more a personal preference than a logical conclusion.
keiths:
fifth:
Empirically. Think, fifth.
Alan sees mathematics as a tool set. And that’s about right in my view.
I’ve moved the moderation discussion posts to the Moderation Issues thread.
Also moved a post to Guano.
what empirical evidence do you have to support the claim that “Good scientists and skeptics understand that such questions need to be decided empirically”?
Please be specific
I would like to empirically evaluate your argument.
peace
I would definitely put a high probability that the clouds were the work of an English speaker.
As all the English speakers we know of are human, the first hypothesis I’d test is that the formation was a human artefact.
Do the tools exist or are they merely useful fictions?
peace
Would you characterize an English Speaker as a natural phenomena?
peace
As I’ve said, I don’t think “supernatural” is a coherent concept. So it’s not a characterization I would use.
The tools are the methods used. My fictionalism is with respect to mathematical objects such as numbers and sets. I’m not sure what we mean by “a method exists”. I’m inclined to think that would simply mean that the method is available to be used. And, if that’s the relevant meaning of “exist” then they exist.
Some people aspire to the Fields Medal. Others to the Terrence Howard Medal.
I would go with “natural phenomenon”.
I like to get the singulars and plurals right.
Is “natural” a coherent concept in your opinion? I asked if an English Speaker would be a natural phenomena?
I’m sure we won’t be able to come to a consensus about what “supernatural” is if you can’t even say if a particular phenomena we experience every day on this forum (English speakers) are natural or not.
I think we have more in common than you think 😉
peace
I’m not trying to “come to a consensus” about what “supernatural” means. People use the word in different ways to mean different things. I haven’t yet come across a usage that makes a lot of sense to me.
But yes, I think that human English speakers are natural. By which I simply mean that they are reasonably regular phenomena that we can, therefore, among other things, study scientifically.