Continuing the Intelligent Design Debate

Nancy Pearcey, author of Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity, weighs in on the debate over Intelligent Design with an excellent article in Human Events entitled "Why Intelligent Design Will Win". Read the whole thing.

[Sorry, I wanted to add a little to this post - Seeker]

To summarize her main points:

1. The affirmation of design is good for science.
2. Contrary to the way it is often portrayed, ID does not thrive on "gaps" in science but rather on the growth of science.
3. ID incorporates the insights of the high-tech world of information theory. [Previously discussed in Science's Third Wave]
4. ID recovers the unity of truth [Darwinism can't be integrated with a coherent and positive ethic - it is disconnected from other truth because it is untrue.  And, it leads to a fact/value split, rendering only materialistic naturalism as the arbiter of values.]
5. ID accords with the ideals of a free and open society [pluralism, open inquiry].

I would add that while it is accused of being religion in a cloak, and while some people want to abuse it that way, most common sense thinkers will recognize that this accusation is untrue.  This obvious lie will motivate people to support ID.

Comments

[Christophe M.]

2 Quotes from your article that are incredibly wrong...
" This explains why science arose historically in medieval Europe, a period when western civilization was saturated with Christianity."
What about all the philosophers in Greece who had already found out that the world is a sphere, that everything was made up of atoms, plus the main theorems of geometry? Do they count for nothing? And what about the fact that Algebra comes from an arabic word because there were so many advances of mathematics in the muslim world at the time?

"The idea that religion provided intellectual sustenance for science," he explained on a recent blog, is "obviously borne out by history."
On the whole, the influence of religion on science is obviously negative. It tried to murder or intimidate all scientists whose theories contradicted the bible (the age of the earth, the fact that is was a sphere, the helio-centrism debate...). Te first scientists who wanted to study the human body for medicinal purposes had to secretly dig up bodies because of the Church's opposition. It took Western Europe almost 1500 years to go back to the scientific knowledge the greeks had before the fall of the Roman Empire. Is that really a positive environment for science??

The rest of the article is similarly full of absurdities, but that will be enough for today...

[seeker]

Actually, as mentioned in The Biblical Origins of Science, which reviews Stark's book on the subject, most of these stories of the church opposing science are just that - stories made up by anti-religious bigots, not actual history. Religious opposition to the sphericity of the Earth is one of the best canards out there - appealing to anti-religionists, but totally untrue.

And while fundamentalist religion opposes the arts and sciences (see Is Man Basicaly Good or Evil?), balanced, biblical Chrisitianity really did provide the best soil for science. In fact, most of the great discoveries of science in the last 1000 years were made under the Design paradigm, often deistic, while few significant discoveries, if any, can be attributed to a materialist evolutionary view. As argued previously, evolution is in many ways hindering science.

Regarding the wisdom of the Greeks and Arabs, I'll get back to you.

[Christophe M.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo#Church_controversy

Just a small example of the "positive environment" provided by Roman catholicism for scientific. They had, for example, to give their books in advance to Catholic scensors who discussed wether it fitted with the Church's view of the world. The debate was not on the fact that the world is a sphere, but on wether or not it is at the center of the universe.
The very fact that the Church should have its say on the matter is preposterous .

[seeker]

Of course, as I have agreed, the Catholic Church of that time was corrupt, and not only politicized and opposed good science, it actually persecuted real believers - look how it persecuted the reformers like Luther.

I agree with you that hypocritical, fundamentalist, corrupt religion often opposes science and true religionists, like the Protestant reformers. However, the latter did just the opposite, creating an environment that encouraged science.

However, the Catholic opposition to science at various points in history does not mean that xianity, or religion, per se, are opposed to science - only a certain flavor. To view the corrupt Catholocism of that period as representative of xianity, or to view xianity as monolithic in that image, is not accurate. If it had been representative, the Protestant reformation would have not arisen to combat it.

[seeker]

One more thing you have omitted - most of the scientists, like Galileo, were men of Christian faith, so the fact that the corrupt church opposed them does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that xianity is in opposition to science.

Along those lines, I note this concluding paragraph from a bio on Galileo, which further shows that Protestantism, a much more biblical xian faith, supported scienctific advancement:

The weight of papal authority which had brought Galileo to his knees also succeeded in halting the growth of the new science in Italy. It is no accident then, that following Galileo's death in 1642 that the greatest advances in science would come from outside Italy in countries like England, Holland and Germany. These were, after all, Protestant countries with a tradition of protest and toleration.

[Steven S]

ID incorporates the insights of the high-tech world of information theory.

And biologists do not? Does the author know anything of the history of information theory and its application in biology? To me the big difference is that some biologists understand I.T. but IDers really don't.

[Christophe M.]

OK, let’s discuss this methodically.

The fact that most discoveries were done in Christian Medieval Europe (the main political model for roughly 1200 years) is already debatable, but only proves that science can still move on in a religious society. But since there were no non-religious society to compare to, it doesn’t bring us far. As I said before, although the Middle-Ages were not the “dark times” portrayed in the 19th century, science advanced very slowly during that period, whereas great discoveries had been made by the ancient Greeks, specifically in mathematics.

In fact, I think that most would agree that the acceleration of science happened mostly in the 19th and 20th century, which were the most un-religious of the past 2 millennia at least. France (I’ll take that country as an example, because it is the closest thing to a godless democracy, where Church and State are truly separated) has had a healthy scientific life in a non-religious atmosphere. I would tend to think that a society that is religiously neutral is at least as good a ground for science as a religious one, or indeed a better one.

Religion and science ask require a completely different mindset in that religion is about Faith, about believing something with or without proof. Doubt is the enemy of Faith. On the other hand, doubt should be the fuel of the scientific method. The constant search of proof is the core of science.

This doesn’t mean that a scientist cannot be religious. Galileo was, Einstein was and that did not diminish their quality as scientists. I have even heard that he (Einstein) believed that physics, through the perfection of the organization of the universe might prove the existence of God. However, God or a “superior intelligence” never made it in his scientific theories, because by essence, he could not find proof for it, he just had an intuition, which is not enough. You are perfectly allowed to see God in randomness, but as long as it cannot be proved, it should be kept out.

Now to Intelligent Design and evolution.

Evolution is a theory, a model designed to try to explain how nature works. So far, it seems that no better model has been invented. It probably has some loopholes but that doesn’t prove the theory wrong. In Physics, the classic example is relativity vs. Quantum Physics: both can be proved to be right in certain circumstances but they are not compatible. “Holes” in a theory only means there are things that need to be investigated further, not that the theory is wrong.

The very starting point of intelligent design is the idea that “randomness” cannot account for the evolution of such complex organisms as we see. It seems like good sense, but good sense is not science. If we relied on good sense, we would still think the world flat. In our case, there are many factors that are simply impossible to really grasp for the human mind. The speed of cellular division, the billions of years of evolution, the probability of such events…

So it needs to be proved that evolution cannot be a random process but needs a “designer”. From what I have read, a mathematician tried and his work is the cornerstone of the Intelligent Design theory. Trouble: his work is not widely accepted by his fellow mathematicians. 3 possibilities:
- He is wrong.
- He is right in principle, but his work is not convincing yet. In time, he or someone else will prove what he thought and Intelligent Design will have a solid base.
- He is right but fellow scientists refuse to see it.
The option n°3 is for me not an option. Scientists in general are not an anti-religion force looking for the demise of Christianity and they have no interest in denying truth. If really the mathematical ground for Intelligent Design is valid, then Science will recognize it at some point.

Basically he is either wrong or not yet convincing enough for scientists. In both cases, as long as scientists are not majoritarily convinced by this theory, I don’t see how we can even imagine teaching this in science class. Also, I don’t see why so many non-scientists should have their say on the matter. (if you’re going to argue that I am debating the subject, please note that my main point is that scientists should be trusted, so I am saying that my opinion shouldn’t matter).

I understand why this could be so important to many Christians to try and make the others adopt their worldview and understand the “total truth” (see the title of the book advertised above), but you also have to understand that as a non-believer, it is purely unbearable and that the most rational way to be able to all live together is to keep religion a totally private thing.

[Septeus7]

Quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo#Church_controversy

Just a small example of the "positive environment" provided by Roman catholicism for scientific. They had, for example, to give their books in advance to Catholic scensors who discussed wether it fitted with the Church's view of the world.

Quoting wikipedia on religion or the middle ages doesn't bode well for one's credibility as anyone can register and starting editing within 15 seconds.

You account is entirely backwards to what actually happened.

First, The Church didn't censor books because they expressened Heliocentric viewpoints. Copernicus' book on the subject circulated for seventy years without any trouble at all.

Second, the reason Galileo's views where censored was because the scientific community of the day thought that Aristotle's views were correct and used the political power of the Church to crush Galileo. It was the very so-called scientific knowledge that you praised that Greeks that caused the scientific community to reject Galileo's view apriori.

It wasn't the Church opposing the rediscovering of the scientific truth of the ancient Greeks but rather a Christian thinker (Galileo) trying to the scientific community free of the scientific formalism/dogma of the ancients.

Here's books for you to read on the actual history: "God and Reason in the Middle Ages", "The Rise of Early Mordern Science: Islam, China, and the West", and here's
a link to correct the wikipedia misinformation: http://www.galilean-library.org/galileo1.html.

"Evolution is a theory, a model designed to try to explain how nature works. So far, it seems that no better model has been invented. It probably has some loopholes but that doesn’t prove the theory wrong."

Why don't you go to this site (http://prescribedevolution.blogspot.com/) and try to argue for the truth of the statement with John A. Davison.

1. Evolution is not a theory but a fact. The fact of Evolution is not the issue but details of the Evolutionary history and mechanisms for that evolution.

2.No better model has been allowed to develop. Tell me whose model is better Darwin's or Leo Berg's model? Tell me why Darwin's model is better than Berg's?

3. In science the "loopholes" in fact refute the Model. If a theory is sceintific theory then it works without "loophopes."

Quote: In Physics, the classic example is relativity vs. Quantum Physics: both can be proved to be right in certain circumstances but they are not compatible.

That statement is so ignorant I don't know where to begin. Quantum Formalism doesn't violate any of the Formalism of classic Physics. Math doesn't contradict math. Different math just looks at different things and as result prior interpetations are updated or changed.

Quote: “Holes” in a theory only means there are things that need to be investigated further, not that the theory is wrong.

Why is that only meaning that "holes" could have? Why must the holes only be interpeted in a way that must have stuff in the gaps. Isn't that question begging." So science work by assuming that you will find something and so you do. Interesting.

Has it every occurred to you that the "holes" might tell us something because of there location.

Quote: The very starting point of intelligent design is the idea that “randomness” cannot account for the evolution of such complex organisms as we see. It seems like good sense, but good sense is not science.

Scientifically define "randomness." You seem to think science is the the process of assuming this "randomness" magic exists and inserting it wherever you can't explain something rather than discovering the "patterns" which explains how things move and operate.

Doesn't science proceed on the idea that ojects move in predictable ways and thus being "nonrandom" in there movement we can tell the object's course and its origin?

Quote: If we relied on good sense, we would still think the world flat. In our case, there are many factors that are simply impossible to really grasp for the human mind. The speed of cellular division, the billions of years of evolution, the probability of such events…

We never thought the world was flat and what about "good sense" would indictate the flatness of the world? Obiviously your "good sense" isn't that same as my "good sense" which notes the path of the sun in the sky.

Quote: "So it needs to be proved that evolution cannot be a random process but needs a “designer”. From what I have read, a mathematician tried and his work is the cornerstone of the Intelligent Design theory. Trouble: his work is not widely accepted by his fellow mathematicians. 3 possibilities:
- He is wrong.
- He is right in principle, but his work is not convincing yet. In time, he or someone else will prove what he thought and Intelligent Design will have a solid base.
- He is right but fellow scientists refuse to see it.
The option n°3 is for me not an option. Scientists in general are not an anti-religion force looking for the demise of Christianity and they have no interest in denying truth."

Scientist have no interest denying truth? Tell that to the Wright Brothers, Max Planck, or even the most recent winners of the Noble prize who had to use themselves as test subjects and get olcers because the sciencific community even looked their ways. A factual look at the history of science so that establishment science is almost always wrong (a some rogue with the correct theory has to fight the establishment and usually dies and poor and destained man) and a discovery most often happens by accident. Rubber was an accident, White Quantums dots (2005) where an accident. Others include, the Big Bang, Liquid paper, Penicillin, Telfon, and the list goes on and on and on.

Here's a fun book you should read:"Serendipity, Accidental Discoveries in Science"

[seeker]

Nice post and book refs, septeus. It continually amazes me that evolutionists can not disriminate between actual science, as opposed to interpretation of historical data, assumptions, and philosophy of science.

To them it is all the same. That's why they lampoon ID to no end - to them, it's all religion and philosophy of science, yet when it comes to their own faith assumptions, it's all science. That's why they look at their evolutionary theory and think is it fact - because they can't, or more likely won't, distinguish between emprical data, historical data, primary assumptions, and faith assumptions. To them, their faith and primary assumptions are fact, so everything is fact. Except when they get it wrong, in which case they adjust their model and call it fact again. Poor science.

Thank God for people who look for patterns in science based on the assumption that there is a logical model, perhaps even a design, and rely on empirical data rather than evolutionary philosophy. These are the people who actually make discoveries.

[Christophe M.]

OK, given the aggressivity fo the answer to my last post, I think I'll just let you guys discuss among yourselves, so you can convince each others of what you already believe. Before I go, I will just answer to a few objections that were made.

I won't talk about your comment on the wikipedia, because that would another debate. Let's just say I find your accusation a tad unfair.

As for Galileo, wether the accusation came from the scientific community or the Church to start with does not change much to my point: the control of the Church over science and the very fact that the Church should have its say played are still largely accountable for this sorry affair.

For the "common sense" and the flat earth theory, you are frankly being hypocritical. Make a small survey and see how many people can infer that the earth is a sphere from looking at the sky. Ask them also if their answer would have been the same, hadn't they known in the first place that it was round. Now look around you and tell me that your first instinctive notion is not that the earth is flat. I'm sorry, but it just looks flat and it took some real thinking and more than a bit of intuitive common sense to understand that it was round. So that the claim that something is "obviously" too complicated to have happened by chance is completely worthless.

As for the loopholes thing. You might be right about the physics as I am "ignorant" and have no time to research for material to back-up my claim. But for evolution, when I read the article shown in the "don't fear the designer", the best loophole the writer could find was the absence of bat fossils. For a writer so adamant about the absurdity of evolution, it was a weak attack. How does the absence of fossils for one species disprove anything? Or how does that fit in a "designer" approach? Someone designed some evolutionnary process for most species and created the bat out of thin air somewhere along the way? Does that really make more sense?

Anyway, all this is playing around, because in the end the main point of my demonstration was not really attacked. I basically said that if ID was right, scientists would, in time, approve it. Wether they disapprove now out of intelorance and dishonesty, or out of the poverty of the ID theory is irrelevant. In all the examples you quoted, the guy fought his way through a reluctant establishment but in the end, "truth", as Christians like to say, was acknowledged. (by the way, I know what serendipity is and what we owe to chance, and I don't see how that is relevant with the debate)

My main point was basically: let the scientists sort it out. It might take long, but eventually, who is better suited than them than them to define science? In my opinion, even obviously well-informed and well-read persons should not have a say in this process.

If some breakthrough scientific discovery in physics contradicted a pre-existing theory, but that 80 or 90% of the scientific community rejected this theory, would we see groups of normal citizens advocate its teaching in schools? Would politicians talk about it? Would it be a debate outside the scientific community? No.

The fact that non-scientists have taken this issue and mande a big deal out of it just goeas to show that this is not just a scientific debate, but that they have an agenda to impose their worldview on others who do not share it (hence the accusation of ID as being "religious").

Thanks for the links and suggestions, I promise to have a look at most of it.

[Steven S]

Scientist have no interest denying truth? Tell that to the Wright Brothers, Max Planck, or even the most recent winners of the Noble prize who had to use themselves as test subjects and get olcers because the sciencific community even looked their ways. A factual look at the history of science so that establishment science is almost always wrong (a some rogue with the correct theory has to fight the establishment and usually dies and poor and destained man) and a discovery most often happens by accident. Rubber was an accident, White Quantums dots (2005) where an accident. Others include, the Big Bang, Liquid paper, Penicillin, Telfon, and the list goes on and on and on.

It's better to stay that a strong claim requires strong evidence before you will convince a majority of your scientific peers that you are right. For instance, how could one reasonably say that BB cosmology was the truth when observations were so poor in the fourty years between the creation of expanding cosmologies and the observation of the CMBR? Likewise plate tectonics took the geology community a long time to accept because scientists couldn't believe in it when there was no mechanism known that could move something as large as a continent. But the community came around when the evidence became overwhelming.
Really, it is kinda stupid to demand the scientists of the past to be any less critical of a given theory when we know the evidence in support of it and they do not.
Likewise, I generally think you're pretty stupid to accept such claims as "genetic information can't increase" when no method has ever been given to test such claims.