John McLatchie, a celebrity ID-ist according to TSZ, and Alex O’Connor had a debate titled “Theism vs. Naturalism: Which is a Better Account of Reality?”
The actual debate starts at 14:08 with John McLatchie’s opening statement.
McLatchie’s “Evidence for Theism”:
- The Universe had a beginning.
- The fine-tuning of the laws of physics.
- The evidence of biological design.
- The evidence for the truth of Christianity.
McLatchie focuses on biological design in his opening statement first, and second on some scattered remarks on Christianity apparently from some Anglo-American evangelical angle.
This is boring because the title of the debate is “Theism vs. Naturalism” and none of McLatchie’s points are on theism. His first two points are cosmology, the third is biology and the fourth is Christianity. Evangelical Christianity is just one parochial/provincial form of theism, whereas McLatchie seems to care most about ID-ism which does not properly qualify as any sort of theism, even though McLatchie presents it as if it did.
ID-ism – as in McLatchie’s third point, evidence of biological design – is an argument about the nature of biology. The argument has no direct implications on theology, which is why it does not qualify as a theistic argument. Yes, biological organisms and their functions appear designed because they are complicated and purposeful, but this might mean that the designer is even more complicated, so who designed the designer? Richard Dawkins would agree that biology has hallmarks of design all over, but posits that the design is fundamentally derived from non-design. That’s how little connection biological design has to theism.
(As an aside, I recall that according to its advocates ID-ism was supposed to be sheer science, nothing sneakily religious or theological. The truth of course is that ID-ism was always meant as a sneaky way to get God into school textbooks and this is now – openly in a non-sneaky way – manifest in McLatchie’s presentation.)
The topic of theism requires properly a philosophical or theological approach, so luckily we have Alex O’Connor, a student of theology, who starts his opening statement at 34:25.
O’Connor’s first point against theism: “The inescapable God” (Psalm 139) is not a universal experience.
According to O’Connor, naturalism (atheism) would be a better explanation given:
- Hiddenness of God
- Geographical statistical arrangement of religious belief
- Problem of gratuitous suffering
I find the first point the strongest against theism. When a sincere seeker is not rewarded with results, it is a bummer for sure. However, there is a solution to it that O’Connor does not consider. Namely, some self-reflection is in order after a failed quest. You may think you are truly perfect and God should accept you as such, but are you really and should he really? In principle, God doesn’t have to obey your criteria or play according to your rules. Or, if you really are absolutely fabulous and wonderful, then there may be a better God in store for you instead of the geographical statistical average as per your local whereabouts.
O’Connor should really consider some self-reflection along those lines, because philosophy and theology are rather sophisticated pursuits, particularly when your intellectual level is above the average Joe. As for average Joes, O’Connors first two points weigh equally against atheism as against theism: Most interesting science and thoroughly matured atheism are as inscrutable for common folks as philosophically consistent theism and theology are. And you find more atheists in certain places and not in others, if that’s supposed to mean anything.
I leave O’Connor’s third point, the problem of suffering, be. In my opinion, the theists for whom the problem of suffering poses a problem are actually doubters, not believers. For me, the problem of suffering never was any sort of problem. But supposing that suffering is a problem, atheism doesn’t solve it. Atheism only asserts that gratuitous suffering is okay, “natural”. Which far from solves it.
In summary, the debate was more on topic by O’Connor, because his approach was properly philosophical. McLatchie’s ID-ism, as ID-ism in general, is basically off topic when it comes to theism. However, on this website ID-ism is very much the topic, so discuss.
Uh, what role does atheism play when examining the evidence? I already told you that you are presenting an entirely religiious position, and sure enough your denial is all about religion and nothing about evidence. I always get a bit of a chuckle when some religious person says that the scientific method is “atheist zealotry”, as though nature cares about anyone’s religious faith.
However, we’ve all been through this before. We can repeat that there are none so blind as those who WILL not see, but also, those people never see. Creationism is a particularly self-defeating sort of blindness.
The link to Shapiro’s pdf triggered a big security warning in my browser, so I did not proceed and cannot comment on that specific paper. I can relate my personal view on the pushback to gene-centrism instead: At some point when I was teaching at university me and a colleague got into a scientific discussion with a professor of ecology who was a big fan of Eva Jablonka’s ideas on epigenetic inheritance and genetic assimilation, whereas we were skeptical of those ideas. During this discussion he was also pleading for a return of focus on the organism, instead of one-sided investing in the genomic approaches that were gaining in popularity then. This I could sympathize with: ecology is a discipline were genomic approaches are difficult to apply and may be of limited use because ecology studies processes that occur at higher biological levels. Now, as a geneticist I quite like gene-centric thinking of course, but I am also pragmatic and think we should choose the approach that best suits our research subject.
Robin,
You people overcomplicate this stuff … no one can point to any tools used to create a bird or a bumble bee … It’s simply that birds and bumble bees have the appearance of design from what we know about human design. That’s it! THAT is the argument! Don’t overcomplicate it!
As for HOW Goddidit, we have no idea but that doesn’t mean the inference is inappropriate. It is quite appropriate simply because WE HAVE NO OTHER EXPLANATION that makes any sense to us, given our knowledge of human design.
In a way, it’s a weak argument … but it’s the only argument we have. I don’t think it’s possible to come up with a stronger one.
“HMGuy” describes me better these days — I left the AF 26 years ago. “HM” stands for “Holistic Management.”
Alan Fox,
AFAIK you can’t do any of this fancy stuff. I certainly cannot anyway. Like I said, the Design Inference is a weak argument, but it’s all we have. I don’t think it’s possible to come up with a stronger argument and that’s OK. The emperor of science needs honesty, not imaginary fancy clothes. If ever there was a good example of a naked emperor pretending to wear fancy clothes, Darwinism would be it!
Flint,
Atheism plays a role it seems because the possibility of an intelligence is excluded. My Design Inference argument is not a religious one. It’s simply … (a) we infer design when we see a watch in the sand … and (b) the best inference we can make when we see a bird or bumblebee is the same — design because there are many similarities between watches and birds / bumblebees. We cannot prove this. We cannot explain HOW the original designs were created. We cannot point to the tools that were used. So it’s admittedly a weak argument. But it’s all we have. Darwin’s “explanation” is weaker still.
Well…in the world I come from, the appearance of design comes directly from the manufacturing process that followed the design parameters. In other words, “design”, in and of itself, isn’t actually visible anywhere in the products; “design” is visible in the plans and the planning discussions (assuming there are any). So saying that birds and bumble bees have an appearance of design analogous to human design is a bad analogy, argument by spurious similarity, and internally contradictory.
This is precisely why I note in my essay Choices, Choices, Choices that an omni-god would leave no evidence of design anywhere because an omni-god would never bother making any sort of plans (actually, I show that an omni-god would be incapable of making plans, but I digress). An omni-god would simple create things instantaneously – no design or manufacturing process required. So saying things like biological organisms have the appearance of “design” based on what we know about human design is a meaningless statement, never mind being bad theology and a bad analogy and an awkward fallacy of the general rule.
As shown, it isn’t just inappropriate; it’s meaningless.
Goodness…this is so silly. There are two major flaws here:
1) We do actually have other explanations that make perfect sense to a whole slew of fairly smart folk. That you don’t happen to like or agree with them doesn’t make them either nonexistent or nonsensical. This is simply a case of biased selective observation coupled with a serious case of pigheadedness.
2) Worse, defaulting to a likely erroneous position based on a bad analogy is kind of the epitome of irrational.
In a way…? 🙄
I won’t hold my breath that you will suddenly begin to appreciate other explanations, but to say ID is the only argument we have is just plain old absurd.
Interesting. Thanks for the explanation!
It is not a bad analogy for the simple reason that we see a myriad of devices in Nature that resemble human made devices. We are not saying “therefore this PROVES design” … we are simply saying “these similar devices in Nature are consistent with design” … again, it’s weak but it’s all we have.
Naturalistic ideas are even weaker because we have no examples — ZERO — of “design by copying errors.”
So you could say we have two alternative arguments …
1) WEAK
2) WEAKER (or broken)
The only examples of “design by copying errors” are desperate attempts like “antibiotic resistance in bacteria” … which is not “design by copying errors” at all. To say so is just factually incorrect. It’s actually a highly sophisticated “programmed adaptability” type system. AI if you will.
In embracing this crap, Darwinists have literally become the New Flat Earthers.
Robin,
You don’t think its possible (and happens all the time) that people find things they have no idea what they are, but they know they were made by someone?
Doesn’t that fact destroy your entire argument?
Based on what I know about life and about artifacts, life does not appear to me as if it is designed at all.
Also, claiming that to you life appears to be designed is not an argument at all — it is simply a report of your experience, which others are free to accept, question, or ignore.
If you want to be credited with having a design argument, it would help if you actually knew what an argument was. The claim that life appears to you as if it were designed is not argument. It’s not even an assertion. It’s just a report of your experience.
Granted, our experience is shaped by our conceptual framework. My conceptual framework is shaped by a decent understanding of molecular biology, ecology, anatomy, and physiology — it’s because I have a decent background in those subjects, plus being a life-long amateur naturalist, that life doesn’t seem to be designed to me at all.
So what’s your background in biology or engineering such that you can claim that your perception of life as designed relies on a better understanding than that of someone who simply doesn’t see life as designed at all? There are plenty of biologists and engineers in this discussion who don’t see life as designed. Anything you can say to convince us?
This cannot be right. Atheism would exclude the possibility of a designing intelligence only if God were the only plausible candidate for a designing intelligence. But since everyone in the ID camp insists that that’s not the case, it can’t be the reason why ID is rejected.
Unless you want to say that everyone in the ID camp is wrong, and God is the only possible candidate for the intelligent designer.
Kantian Naturalist,
To the huge majority of people on the planet life appears designed. Even to most atheists. So your bizarre outlier position is really not very meaningful is it? If everyone on the planet except you felt it looked designed, should we say that’s just meaningless opnions?
All of your constant talk of others always being “wrong” is really quite empty words.
First of all, I don’t believe you. I’m fairly sure this is a statistic you invented because it seemed true to you.
Second of all, what the majority believe doesn’t matter when it comes to science. Objective truth is not based on consensus opinion.
Why did you waste everyone’s time with this then?
LOL! That is, by definition, a bad analogy. And you’re coupling it with special pleading and (again) the fallacy of the general rule.
As has been noted, none of our devices 1) are born (they’re manufactured as noted), 2) grow, 3) metabolize anything (note that combustion, for example, is not a form a metabolism at all), 4) they don’t reproduce, 5) they are homogenous, not heterogenous, and 6) they don’t react in any way to any sort of threat.
I personally do not see any resemblance between our manufactured devices and anything biological.
You are, of course, welcome to your opinion. As noted above, I find your claim of any similarity to be dubious at best and outright absurd for the most part.
I have no idea what you think “design by copy errors” is supposed to mean, but that doesn’t appear to relate in any way to my understanding of the development of the diversity of life on Earth.
Again, you’re entitled to your opinion. I see the alternatives as:
1) A plausible set of hypotheses supported by a set of foundational theories, analysis, and facts.
2) Utterly ridiculous assertions based on fallacious logic and disingenuous arguments
But again…YMMV.
Phoodoo, my point does not rely in anyway on anyone knowing what something is; it only relies upon recognizing human manufacturing. So yeah…I have no problem with people finding man-made artifacts and not knowing what they are while knowing they were man-made. There is a whole field of science devoted to that in fact. So, to your last question above…no.
Robin,
What was the manufacturing process of the pyramids? We still don’t know to this day. But I am pretty sure that five hundred years ago, when someone walked through the desert and saw them, they didn’t think the wind just put them there like that.
So I am suspicious that you have even spent much time thinking about your convictions about the ‘manufacturing process ‘.
Last I read, there are some stones found at or near archaeological sites where there is some debate among the archaeologists whether one or another spcific rock was deliberately shaped, or used to shape another rock, or employed for some purpose without shaping. While the manufacturing process of chipping rocks is well known, it’s not always obvious whether it was applied in specific cases.
??? But isn’t this the point? That we are able to recognize the results of human manufacturing processes, even if we don’t know the exact process? I’ve seen several plausible (that is, possible using the technology of the time) methods by which the pyramids could have been constructed. Almost surely ONE of these methods was used.
Its an attempt to get atheism the fuck out of the science classroom!
Alas, the homeless demand squatters rights so they can have a roof over their heads. They changed the locks on the doors and now claim its their house.
Fuck that!
Atheism is not in the science classroom.
In spite of its name, atheism really is not an “ism”. That is to say, it is not a system of beliefs.
phoodoo,
Good point. She has no idea how the pyramids were made. She doesn’t even really know for sure that it was humans that did it. Maybe aliens made them! But she DOES agree that they are the product of Intelligent Design, which proves our point beautifully. But she still won’t accept this. She WANTS to believe that no ID was involved in creating Life … so that’s what she will believe despite the overwhelming evidence. We live in a New Dark Age.
That we don’t know the specifics of how the pyramids were manufactured, we do know they were manufactured by humans. We even have some of the plans. So, I don’t know what point you think you’re making here.
https://www.livescience.com/32616-how-were-the-egyptian-pyramids-built-.html
I am suspicious that you spent any time googling “how were the pyramids built”…
Sure. I have no problem with this. Many of the oldest tools were not modified much from their natural shape. There are a variety of animals that use natural objects as tools and apply no manufacturing to them at all. But then, I don’t think Paley et al would stumble upon such items and try to make an analogy between them and the intricate workings of the universe…
As noted, I actually do have some understanding of how the pyramids were made and we actually do have abundant evidence that the pyramids were made by humans. I can’t even imagine why anyone would doubt this.
As there are no plans or other type of evidence of designs for birds and bumble bees however, I have no reason to think there was any ID involved in life’s development.
Oh…and for what it’s worth, I don’t know what you think my avatar picture is supposed to represent, but I am a “he”.
Actually, this has been done. It became policy to prohibit atheism in science by the Islamic faith about a thousand years ago. At that time, they were at the cutting edge. Since they kicked atheism out, they have remained stuck in the past and contributed basically nothing to human understanding of reality ever since.
Not that this prevents them from purchasing the fruits of technology from the West – cars, TV sets, ipods, cell phones, and weapons. But develop any of these things themselves? No, that would require atheism (AKA evidence and logic).
Robin,
Robin, if you are going to try to argue something, at least try to understand what the argument is. It doesn’t matter if YOU think you know how the pyramids were made, or even if you think there are plans for how they are made.
I made it very clear, its baffling how you can still not get it. If there are people, ANY people who can see the pyramids, and without knowing when they were made, or how they were made, or who made them, and they would STILL be able to deduce they are not the result of windstorms or avalanches, or erosion, then its shows that we actually DO have the awareness to identify designed objects, without knowing anything about the design nor the process of manufacturing.
Try to pay attention, because you just sound like a guy who keeps wishing that design wasn’t true.
I totally understand what you are trying to argue, but you’re simply wrong. People don’t need to know anything about a manufacturing process to know a human manufactured object when they see it. I have no clue how airplanes and the space shuttle were manufactured, but I do know they manufactured because I can see the rivets, bolts, and welds. When people look at the pyramids, they can see the tool marks from the stone cutting. You can see the joints and how the stones were stacked and shaped. People can’t see or recognize any “design” in man-made items, but people do indeed recognize human-made objects because we all recognize when something has been manufactured. That’s how we know things weren’t made by natural processes like wind and erosion because natural processes don’t manufacture things.
I don’t have to wish design wasn’t true. Frankly, I don’t have to worry about design one way or another. As Steve so eloquently put it: “Its an attempt to get atheism the fuck out of the science classroom!” Well then…
I look at a mouse. And I can easily conclude that it is not the result of windstorms or avalanches or erosion. Nevertheless, it is not a designed object.
There is no atheism in the science classroom.
I think to the truly religion-addled, the notion of someone NOT having (and being controlled by) religion is simply incomprehensible. Atheism MUST be a religion, and it’s clearly the wrong one. So atheism in science classrooms is that evil force that drives the One True God out, and deludes suckers into believing in faiths like evolutionism.
It is true that a mouse is not a designed object … it’s a manufactured object and to me, it’s the manufacturing process that is so brilliant. Imagine if we humans had a car design that obtained its fuel from the local environment — no need for gas or electricity — and it also was self-repairing and self-duplicating!! THAT is sophisticated technology!! And all of the information for controlling the manufacturing process is contained — in the case of humans — in a single egg and sperm cell!! Incredible! (Sorry, Robin, I’ve know some male Robins but more female ones). Truly the most normal, natural inference is to a Designer of Surpassing Brilliance!
That may happen to some extent. But I suspect the problem is rather this: it is part of their faith that evolution and theism must be incompatible, so if evolution is being taught in the science classroom, then that must mean that atheism is being taught in the science classroom.
This is, of course, sheer nonsense.
BTW Phoodoo, you might want to hold off breaking your arm patting yourself on the back regarding your supposed clarity and brilliant prose. HMGuy’s response rather indicates he understood your post to be about my understanding of how the pyramids were built or whether I even knew that humans did it.
But I do appreciate your clearing up your point.
Uhhh…you do know you’ve got an internal contradiction in your post? If a mouse is not a designed object, how can you infer a “Designer of Surpassing Brilliance”?
And yes, most of the Robins (and Robyns) I know are female as well. But my father came from an English family and Robin is (well…was) a very popular man’s name in that culture.
Does your family come from the vicinity of Sherwood Forest, perchance?
A nice example of begging the question.
🙂
Yea well, according to the materialist-atheists, that is essentially what built the mouse- avalanches, accidents, wind, erosion, chemicals swishing around geysers in the ocean floor, ..any chaos will do.
I guess you also think they are nuts.
No, that’s your gross misunderstanding of what they are saying.
Neil Rickert,
Yep, Neil is absolutely right. Your tendency to regard any alternative explanation to “Intelligence” as amounting to pure chaos is what fuels your unwillingness to see the other person’s point of view.
The best way to refute an argument is to present that argument as it is best understood by those making it. That way, you are refuting what your opponents are actually saying. The worst way is to distort the opposing argument beyond any recognition, so that anyone must actually read your opponents’ argument to see what the hell you’re talking about, and then laugh at you.
You have mastered that second approach, and you’re at least consistent in sticking with it.
Robin,
There is no contradiction. The Inference that there must be a Designer is made from the brilliance of the DESIGN ITSELF … both of the object and of the manufacturing process. And it’s misleading anyway to say the mouse is not a designed object. The only reason we know of that multitudes of machines can work together as a whole (protein complexes making up a mouse) is that Someone Designed the Machines and the System in which they all work together as a whole. We simply do not have any knowledge of any other way.
Unwillingness or inability? Not that it matters much. But phoodoo has been talking with us at TSZ since the beginning, or close to. If he were capable of understanding people who disagree with him, he would have do so by now. One of the hardest lessons for a teacher to learn is that not everyone is teachable.
The root error of this analogy is that it’s not possible to assemble proteins, nucleic acids, and phospholipids piece by piece into a functioning cell, like we’re building a car on an assembly line. Organisms are not machines.
Of course one could say, “but God could do it!” Well, sure. Once you’ve given yourself permission to use that premise, all bets are off — a God that can perform any logically possible action, and will perform that action if God knows that doing so will contribute to more goodness in the Universe, allows you to assert anything at all.
Meanwhile the rest of us poor mortals are stuck using evidence and reasoning.
I wonder what “teachable” means. We know that more than one creationist has successfully earned a PhD in biology, for the express purpose of being better armed to fire critiques at biology. We know that according to studies, 80% of those who graduate with biology degrees and started as creationists, are STILL creationists at graduation. It’s pretty common knowledge that education does not cure creationism. So would you say a creationist earning a PhD was “teachabe” or not? Certainly they performed well at their studies, wrote the papers, passed the tests, did the experiments. So what does “teachable” mean?
Deja vu all over again…
From Petrushka on the thread The Ghost in the Machine (6/13/2013)
I think that you STILL do not understand my argument …
My argument is NOT … “protein machines are assembled in the same way as human made machines … ergo … Designer.”
My argument IS … the only Cause WE KNOW OF for multitudes of complex machines working together as a whole … is DESIGN by a DESIGNER. Therefore, postulating a Designer for LIFE is reasonable.
I will say AGAIN …. this is a WEAK argument. Necessarily so. But it’s the best one we have.
True I have no idea HOW “Godidit” if in fact “He” exists … but this does not negate the observation in bold above.
Well I still won’t give up on you KN, I will keep trying.
But at least you accept teleology, even if you don’t know what it means.
Robin,
No, I get it, physics is also teleological.
Until someone who is not a desparate atheist says “physics is teleological, life is teleological” then the atheists will come out screaming, “No its not, how dare you say that!”
But your statement is not an observation in any way. It is a statement of religious belief based solely on the will to believe. “We” do not know of your designer, because you made it up. Claiming a figment of your imagination is “reasonable” is another figment of your imagination. Your claim is not weak, it is baseless. It is not an argument, it is simply an uninformed statement.
Rather than trying to guess how your god did it, why not spend your efforts learning how nature did it? If you open your eyes, you will see that there are no gods and that you don’t need any. Or you can pray that you are right, but of course nobody is answering prayers because there’s nobody home.