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everything that evolution explains, is backed by all the natural evidence of evolution and, [sic] at some point will be superseded by another theory.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.
14 comments:
My position is that I am a fervent believer in a supernatural being I call God and that was incarnate in human form about 2000 years ago to bring us closer to God, to form a relationship with us, in Christian lingo: to save us. Why did I mention that? Because that is critical to everything else I have to say, and that way you know where I'm coming from and won't have to guess. However, I am also highly dependent on my rationale and logic to figure things out, so hopefully my arguments can also be viewed apart from my believes.
I'll only address one thing here to make following posts easier, Nacho's statement about the concept of a god that created the universe and then "walked" away. First, Nacho, are you agreeing that there is in fact a being existing outside of the material realm, and that this being did in fact create the world? Because I think that is pretty much all Schaefer "proved." The big bang proves the existence of God, intelligent design proves that too. So there really is no escape.
Secondly, Schaefer himself said at the Q&A that science does not prove who this God is, history does. What Christianity does is show us who this God is. We have very concrete evidence showing a powerful God that is in line with this creator we talked about, we have most of this historical evidence from the Bible but secular works and archaeological findings have confirmed the truthfulness of the Bible more so than any other historical text. That said, the Bible also talked about this Jesus character who is God incarnate and recorded a lot of what he did. So Nacho, even though science speaks nothing about God playing an active role in our lives since the big bang, history speaks volumes! Quite literally! And bear in mind I did not go into any historical evidence that talks about this for the reader's sake, but if you are interested, I could.
Nacho said "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."
I agree 100%. Empirical data can only generate descriptions, not the essence, of what is.
Nacho also said, "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)."
Back when I was 14 or so, I realized I didn't *really* believe all I thought I did about God. My parents were wise - they told me to research it, because if God was real, the truth of it would become clear.
So I did - I looked the question straight in the eyes - and after research, I concluded that God really had to exist, that Jesus was really God incarnate, and that the bible is a trustworthy account.
Christianity, in its pure form, is not about blind faith. (Although statements to the contrary are often issued by the weakminded). The bible specifically calls people to judge the facts of Christ's life as a point of life. This is the mission statement for the book of Luke, found in Luke 12:3-4. "Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." And in 1 Corinthians 15:32 Paul says (apparently speaking of an experience in a Roman coliseum), 'If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."' The point is, it has to be true, or Christians are wasting our lives.
Faith is important, but it's meant to be a willingness to take evidence to its logical conclusions, rather than contradicting the evidence.
Travis
I think it is okay to separate the natural from the supernatural in terms of science, but one must be able to distinguish what the two ultimately lead to. Science is very good at reproducing qualities of the universe, but it can never uncover its own existence. A character in a book can never come to the conclusion that he has an author if all of his evidence is gathered beneath the book's cover; one must look beyond the book to discover how the book was created, unless of course the author explicitly includes undeniable clues within the text that point to him.
Science, despite its recent ‘celeb’ status, is not without it's critical limitations. Science is good at discovering how this universe works, yet it will never produce why. Science fails to prove many forms of truth that are accepted as rational, such as the existence of some man called Abraham Lincoln who ran a country called the United States of America.
The religion of science sovereignty is unique and peculiar in that, unlike other forms of truth, it is the only one whose subjects readily reject all other types of truth but it's own. A history professor is quick to teach that one ancient civilization dominated another because they used weapons made from iron ore: a scientifically stronger material than wood and many forms of stone. A court of law never hesitates to accept testimonies and science in tandem, and one would be hard pressed to convince anyone that a solid testimony could never enhance gathered scientific evidence. In fact, many times the scientific evidence is not enough.
It then becomes somewhat silly to conclude that deep, puzzling questions about life and the universe--why we're here and what's beyond--can be answered by science. It is merely one aspect of the cache of weapons deployed in the search of truth.
For those that are not convinced, I would be interested to hear solutions to the ultimate problem of natural causation of the universe as we know it; namely, "how did matter spring from non-matter?" Science has time and time again come to the conclusion that this cannot happen, and while no science is totally conclusive, evidence continues to mount against spontaneous existence, not for it. We live in a universe of causation, and we must at some point put our foot down and conclude that the causation couldn’t have gone on forever.
We must search for the uncaused with every weapon of truth that we have. To say we as believers are not in search of truth because we do not limit our search to scientific truth is absurd.
In response to tc fish:
I did not say I adhere to the idea of a creator that walks away from its creation. What I said is the fact that the same physical laws that are applied these days seem to be applicable up to the beginning of times (without the need to hypothesize any miraculous steps in the middle) is in conflict to the idea of a creator who actively participates in the creation of live species. If you accept the first, and the universe evolved naturally, why then would you expect the creator to have an active participation in the creation of life (other than to lay down the natural "laws" that command the process)?
I response to travis:
I can not deny your beliefs. They are yours and yours only to keep, as you can not deny a love my mother and my father. But the key is to see that other people rationalizes their metaphysical experiences in different ways, mainly through the looking-glass of their own culture and the society which they relate to.
Then, the only common ground you can find with someone who has a belief system completely different to yours is the use of rational arguments. You can not prove or disprove beliefs, and probably you could not even convince anyone using rational arguments, but you can exercise your intelligence trying to see the world from a different point of view. And that is the main reason I am posting here.
"If you accept the first, and the universe evolved naturally, why then would you expect the creator to have an active participation in the creation of life (other than to lay down the natural "laws" that command the process)?"
Why must the two conflict?
If God had a plan to create specific creatures and beings, why does a prolonged--albeit rube-goldberg--process make it less active participation? He didn't have to necessarily set up a room full of contraptions, push the power button, and see what happened. If we're talking about an omnipotent, timeless being, he knew full well what his decisions concerning the laws of the universe would produce then, and are still producing now. He knew that by setting the universe just the way he set it, I would one day spring forth from it.
And let's not forget that we still haven't been able to explain where higher level sentience comes from; he may still be actively playing a role in giving us the soul and capacity for personality that nature could be unable to produce. Although if science could do those things, it does not disprove God's hand in active, intentional creationism; but rather makes his foresight all the more spectacular.
Thank you for posting your different viewpoints! I believe in Christianity with a fever, but I am always looking for something to invalidate it. After all, if Jesus was not who he says he was and my religion is a farce, I've wasted an entire life serving a God that doesn't exist. I don't want to live a lie; I want truth.
In response to Nacho:
I guess I don't quite understand what beliefs you're speaking of that are more tied to culture than say, theory of gravity. How is belief in Jesus' existence and death any different from belief in Newton's? How is belief in Jesus' ressurection any different than believing that a friend has gotten over an illness? They both need certain evidence to be established - and once it's been established, it stands in similar concepts across cultures.
Have you never met somebody who became a Christian, even though they grew up in a vastly different culture? I have. I've met people who for a time were in danger of being killed by their entire family (and their culture) for becoming Christians. How could they even become a Christian if socio-cultural forces were so strongly against it?
"You can not prove or disprove beliefs"
Let's not forget that you cannot actually prove or disprove anything with 100% certainty (even science!). The only option we have is to test others' statistics and come to the most reasonable conclusion.
If in the event you can't find sufficient evidence for any one belief system, may I suggest Pascal's Wager.
Johnny:
It only takes a counterexample to disprove a theory. You can't do the same with your beliefs and your feelings.
Travis:
First:
Thinking Newton actually existed or not (and, btw, from manuscripts to contemporary paintings there is much more evidence of his existence) is not significant to understand and accept his theory. Einstein didn't need to prove the non-existence of Newton to prove his theory fell short: he just explained previously unexplained phenomena and predicted observations that contradicted some aspects of Newton's theory.
Second:
And I didn't mean you can't be converted to some other religion. What I meant is religion is a social, not individual, phenomenon. Neither you or the guy who converted to christianism wrote the bible and couldn't become christians if you didn't have access to one.
To Jeffrey:
Ok. Let's call "science" the supernatural explanation of physical observations. We should now call NOAA and tell them Thor causes the thunders, so the only thing they have left to explain is why he sends thunders to some places and not to others.
I think you forget your beliefs are so true to you as their beliefs are true to Muslims or Wiccans.
Correction:
It only takes a counter-example to disprove beliefs that are not blind. If you present something to me that turns my worldview upside down, I'll look it over for a good long time (to prevent type 2 error from hypothesis testing :P), and will concede if the evidence points elsewhere.
My religious beliefs are constantly evolving and changing as I gain more understanding about God, the universe, and everything.
Please do not assume that my faith has a foundation in trite, skin-deep ignorances that logic and evidence could not overturn.
Johnny:
Let's take the most essential belief of many theists: "God exists and He loves me" or, as tc_fish put it "I am a fervent believer in a supernatural being I call God and that was incarnate in human form about 2000 years ago to bring us closer to God, to form a relationship with us, in Christian lingo: to save us"
Now, give me a way to disprove that kind statement.
The same way you disprove any statement. You find a truth that excludes my truth claim. For example, if I claim that my God gave us his word, and that word is infallible, all it takes is one contradiction or false statement in his word to throw doubt into the mix. You could find some truth about the universe that excludes the need for God to be involved in its creation. You could find information that casts serious doubt on the resurrection of Jesus.
I understand that finding these things is not an easy thing to do, since all searches into these areas reinforce God instead of exclude him. But I have faith that evidence will be found, since it is the stance of non-christians to assume that no matter how much evidence Christianity has going for it, they just haven't looked hard enough for the crushing blow yet.
In contrast, people will believe in other religions, as well as naturalism, despite significant evidence and blatent contradictions in theory and text. I admire the amount of faith that people have in these worldviews.
Now, give me a way to disprove a worldview to someone that is comfortable throwing truth and logic out the door to hold onto that worldview.
johnny: you are still missing the point. I am not saying that your belief is not true, I am just saying that it is impossible to prove it (or disprove it). It is simply not a matter if scientific analysis.
An easier way to see it is by viewing the ways atheist prove god does not exist: they don't. If you read atheist literature [1] you will see they reject the idea of god as unnecessary (things can be explained naturally), dangerous (believers might take irrational actions against themselves or others), or even immoral (believing in god lead people to support activities like slavery, women oppression, etc, which are not up to modern human standards). They don't disprove god exists because "god exists" is not a falsifiable statement[2]. You can go and try to disprove the existence of the object of faith of taoists, pagans or scientologists [3] and you will understand what I am talking about.
[1] http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell0.htm
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
[3] They might be absurd, but you can't say they don't exist...
Post a Comment