Irreducible complexity, intelligent design, and science
A relatively fruitful discussion had started on the Facebook event wall before the April 10th event, and has gone from the forefront after the event. I would like to enable all involved to continue the discussion, as well as add some thoughts of my own. So, I invite everyone involved or spectating to join the discussion as it migrates here from Facebook, especially Nacho and Travis, who have carried the majority of the dialogue to this point. Here is my attempt to summarize the ground already covered:
The three main issues brought up were irreducible complexity, intelligent design, and the theory of science and truth. I have outlined the opinions on each of these topics below.
Irreducible Complexity
Trip said,
Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors.
Travis mentioned,
...a good book on Irreducible Complexity is Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box. Michael Behe is a microbiologist, and he discusses systems he believes are irreducibly complex from his field.
And Nacho countered,
If IC is an issue in evolutionary biology (I actually don't know, it's not my field), scientific research should lead to the discovery of natural processes that could lead to steps in evolution (and that discovery cannot be the postulation of divine intervention, just like in any other branch of science).
Intelligent Design
Nacho has stated his position with the following:
Would Schaefer use a theological argument to prove one of his discoveries in computational chemistry? If not, why does he request evolutionary biologists to do it?
As any other theory, it's [evolution's] falsifiable. But, if evolution fails, it should be replaced by another scientific theory which explains everything that evolution explains, is backed by all the natural evidence of evolution and, [sic] at some point will be superseded by another theory. I think the core of the discussion is if you can call "scientific theory" something that does require the use of supernatural explanations.
Ok, he [Schaefer] showed some physical evidence that shows the universe had a beginning and does not have a end, just like Christian theology explains. But doing so he assumed two things:
- The same physical laws that are valid today have been valid since the beginning of time, and
- there were no unexplainable events in the evolution of the universe that might affect the information we receive from that event.
The kind of god that he finds as as primary cause, then, is a god that walks away from his creation. Otherwise there should be "irreducible complexity" showing up at different stages of cosmological evolution.
Johann had this to add:
the entirety of the scientific community has agreed that ID/Creationism is bullcrap
Travis said,
I have a proposal - let's see where the evidence leads, and then label that scientific. Does the evidence support ID, or the cosmology usually associated with non-ID evolutionary processes? Let's leave the labels about what is scientific or not until after the evidence has been heard.
I think though that some of the problem is that we've created a false dichotomy between "natural" and "supernatural". There is only what is.
What I look for is truth - which I define as knowledge concerning what is. My assumption is that any knowledge of truth will be useful and apply to real life.
The Theory of Science and Truth
Nacho has said,
Saying that something is the way it is because "it was designed to be that way" does not allow any further scientific development so, I think, it can not be called science.
I'm not stating evolution is the ultimate answer, it's perfect or it's the absolute truth.
Your argument that ID still leave[s] the room for theological psychology or archeology is like replacing atmospheric physics by a norse mythology based explanation and then ask ourselves why thor makes some thunders hit the ground and others not.
Travis has written,
Some good books about the philosophy of science are The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn and Progress and Its Problems by Larry Laudan. They're both pretty readable, and talk a lot about how science can and cannot be used.
I think though that some of the problem is that we've created a false dichotomy between "natural" and "supernatural". There is only what is. What I look for is truth - which I define as knowledge concerning what is. My assumption is that any knowledge of truth will be useful and apply to real life.
Nacho responded,
You say my dichotomy of natural and supernatural explanations is false, but you do not say how and why. Science has explained consistently and efectively lots of things that were previously thought to be of miracolous [sic] nature. Why do you think this trend should be reversed?
Science is not a quest for truth, is a quest for a better explanation. It will never give you the reason or the meaning, those are philosophical or theological inquiries. And, if you are a believer as I think you are, you are not seeking the truth either. You know the truth (or at least, your truth).
Travis replied,
I think it's a mischaracterization (albeit a common one) that saying "it was designed to be that way" will end inquiry. After all, when presented with a design that works - the first thing people do is try and figure out why it works so well. For example, I once read a quote that I thought was profound by an early astronomer (Newton maybe?). He believed that learning about the world was "thinking God's thoughts after Him." If that isn't motivation for inquiry, I don't know what is.
I think that we should explore this dichotomy, as Travis puts it. Are there "natural" and "supernatural" worlds, or is the world we live in comprised of both? Is it a false distinction to exclude what is considered "supernatural" from discussion about the world? Note that I didn't say scientific discussion—that's because science is being used to explore only materialistic explanations for the world. Is that a valid definition of science, even? If not, what is science? What is truth? What is knowledge? Some of these existential questions are irreversibly married to the issues we are debating. I think much can be gained through discussing these questions and the statements above.
