In the comments to this post, my brother writes: "The two are not compatible. Please explain how ID is compatible with any form of atheism. Where did the design come from?"
After all the time and money the Discovery Institute has spent to convince the world that Intelligent Design isn't inherently religious, we're not yet "on message." Could it be that even the senior fellows of the Discovery Institute have helped propagate the misunderstanding?
John West, for one, says ID is designer-neutral:
Contrary to the association, the scientific theory of intelligent design is not religious (which is one reason why creationist groups have criticized it). Design theory proposes that much of the highly ordered complexity seen throughout the biological world is better explained by an intelligent cause than Darwin's mechanism of chance and necessity, but it doesn't claim that science can identify who or what the designer is.
Michael Behe concurs:
Intelligent design proponents do question whether random mutation and natural selection completely explain the deep structure of life. But they do not doubt that evolution occurred. And intelligent design itself says nothing about the religious concept of a creator.
But Jay Richards implicitly links design to deity:
It’s simply the argument that certain features of the natural world—from miniature machines and digital information found in living cells, to the fine-tuning of physical constants—are best explained as the result of an intelligent cause. ID is thus a tacit rebuke of an idea inherited from the 19th century, called scientific materialism.
William Dembski denies the link:
Intelligent design, by contrast, places no such requirement on any designing intelligence responsible for cosmological fine-tuning or biological complexity. It simply argues that certain finite material objects exhibit patterns that convincingly point to an intelligent cause. But the nature of that cause—whether it is one or many, whether it is a part of or separate from the world, and even whether it is good or evil—simply do not fall within intelligent design’s purview.
And somehow simultaneously supports it:
Even so, there is an immediate payoff to intelligent design: it destroys the atheistic legacy of Darwinian evolution. Intelligent design makes it impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
So which is it? Is Intelligent Design truly silent about the designer(s), including the possibility of aliens or some other unknown origin of life? Or can we dispense with that notion and all agree that ID is a more sophisticated form of creationism?
11 comments:
Frankly, Jim, I'm totally unimpressed by your interpretative skills here. I fail to see how any of these quotes contradict each other (including Dembski's).
West: "Design theory proposes that much of the highly ordered complexity seen throughout the biological world is better explained by an intelligent cause...
Richards: "—are best explained as the result of an intelligent cause."
Richards: "And intelligent design itself says nothing about the religious concept of a creator."
Dembski: "It simply argues that certain finite material objects exhibit patterns that convincingly point to an intelligent cause. But the nature of that cause...simply [does] not fall within intelligent design’s purview."
Where are the contradictions that you claim? Rather, I see uniformity that ID is about intelligent causation and nothing more. It stops asking about the nature of that intelligent cause, because that's not a scientific question but a philosophical question. But it does point toward a cause, which means that atheism (the denial of intelligence outside the universe) is no longer intellectually teneable. If ID is right, then we have to start at Deism (or pantheism, or theism, or whereever--that's not the point of ID).
Do explain for us how these statements are actually inconsistent. Notice that Behe highlights the religious concept of the Creator. Richards implies deity no more than West does. Dembski affirms the link to an intelligent designer, while denying anything beyond it. How is this not a coherent, unified account of ID's project and it's limitations?
There are two different strands of intelligent design represented here, which leads to some of the confusion. One is biological, which squares with aliens (directed panspermia, etc.) and doesn't require a deity, as traditionally understood. That's what West, Behe, and Dembski #1 are about (and why Dembksi wants to condense it down to "certain finite material objects exhibit patterns that convincingly point to an intelligent cause," which, as I have pointed out elsewhere, is a pretty trivial claim).
On the other hand, you have Richards (if cosmological "fine-tuning of physical constants" is the responsibility of aliens, those aliens are for our purposes practically gods) and Dembski #2 (all of a sudden the existence of design is somehow proof of something outside the natural framework).
If Dembski is not outright contradicting himself, then he is being disingenuous in his dual definition for "intelligent design."
Don't take it from me. Read what a big Dembski fan, DaveScot, has to say. Equating "intelligent causation" with "supernatural causation" is the bait-and-switch I'm talking about.
There are two different strands of intelligent design represented here, which leads to some of the confusion. One is biological, which squares with aliens (directed panspermia, etc.) and doesn't require a deity, as traditionally understood. That's what West, Behe, and Dembski #1 are about (and why Dembksi wants to condense it down to "certain finite material objects exhibit patterns that convincingly point to an intelligent cause," which, as I have pointed out elsewhere, is a pretty trivial claim)."
Actually, Dembski #1 doesn't seem to be restricted to biology at all. I quote: "Intelligent design, by contrast, places no such requirement on any designing intelligence responsible for cosmological fine-tuning or biological complexity." Cosmological fine tuning seems to be about the patterns that govern finite physical objects. In fact, throughout the essay Dembski seems to refer to both cosmological and biological design. In fact, in the material just after you quoted Dembski cites Aquinas' claim that from the natural order we can discover that there is some kind of god, which wholly squares with the quote you think is opposed to it. I still fail to see the contradiction, either from Dembski or with anyone else.
On the other hand, you have Richards (if cosmological "fine-tuning of physical constants" is the responsibility of aliens, those aliens are for our purposes practically gods) and Dembski #2 (all of a sudden the existence of design is somehow proof of something outside the natural framework).
See above.
If Dembski is not outright contradicting himself, then he is being disingenuous in his dual definition for "intelligent design." Or your simply making him say things he's not saying.
Don't take it from me. Read what a big Dembski fan, DaveScot, has to say. Equating "intelligent causation" with "supernatural causation" is the bait-and-switch I'm talking about.
No one is doing that. We can talk about intelligent causation all you want. But pray tell what you mean by "supernatural causation" and "intelligent causation?" I think both you and DaveScot are suffering from an obfuscated concept of "nature." In this sense, intelligence can be "natural," but that doesn't mean it's mechanistic. And if ID is correct, then it simply raises the question WHAT KIND OF INTELLIGENCE IS IT? It may not be God--that's true. But it inevitably throws the burden of proof on the atheist--Occam's razor would seem to indicate God as the simplest explanation. This, of course, means that if ID is true, then it's extremely difficult to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. See Antony Flew.
What frustrates me is that Dembski's words are so obvious, and yet you're ignoring them: "But the nature of that cause—whether it is one or many, whether it is a part of or separate from the world, and even whether it is good or evil—simply do not fall within intelligent design’s purview." (He has said and written elsewhere that "space aliens" are a live possibility.)
I'm calling for clarity, here. If Dembski wants to refer to the theological implications of ID, then why not name it, say, ID+? metaID? My guess is he won't, since he's so hung up on Christianizing ID.
I'm not ignoring his words. Rather, you seem to be confusing ID with it's implications (perhaps Dembksi is responible for this, but I fail to see how you're analysis of the quoted material demonstrates this). In other words, ID is a scientific research project that if successful, makes it intellectually untenable to be an atheist. However, that does not entail that the nature of the intelligence falls under the scientific aspect of ID. They are simply not equivalent. It's possible for ID to point to the existence of intelligence and yet say nothing about what kind of intelligence. That's all Dembski and the rest of the ID gang seem to be saying. It's not incoherent and it's not inconsistent in the least.
As for the quote: "But the nature of that cause—whether it is one or many, whether it is a part of or separate from the world, and even whether it is good or evil—simply do not fall within intelligent design’s purview." Notice that it's the nature of the cause, not the existence of the cause. Maybe that will help clear up the confusion....
"In other words, ID is a scientific research project that if successful, makes it intellectually untenable to be an atheist."
Again, again. If alien intelligence (or some other unknown "natural" intelligence) is a live option, and not just a rhetorical charade, then ID doesn't make atheism "untenable." I think that Dembski has answered your challenge to "explain how ID is compatible with any form of atheism." Atheists have no problem with alien existence. (In fact, they would argue that we have equal evidence for alien existence and any deity's existence.)
Dembski makes the leap because he's trying to appease two different crowds. On the one hand, he has to assure scientists that ID isn't dressed-up creationism. Hence the stopping-point. On the other, he has to ensure Christian backers that ID is their ticket to apologetic victory. Hence the consistent conflation of ID and ID+ when speaking to the faithful.
As an aside, look at the opposite quote, the one Dembksi parodies: "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist," as Dawkins famously opined. Even if this is true, it doesn't logically (or even practically) make it "impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled theist," despite rhetoric to the contrary. This is why Dembski can say that ID can accommodate all the findings of evolutionary theory.
As I have said before, I'm intrigued by the prospect of ID. I'm not against ID as a research program, or ID+ as a philosophical investigation. (Multiple Designers Theory is where it's at, really.) I am against, though, intellectual dishonesty in all its forms. Equivocation fits the bill.
Again, again. If alien intelligence (or some other unknown "natural" intelligence) is a live option, and not just a rhetorical charade, then ID doesn't make atheism "untenable." I think that Dembski has answered your challenge to "explain how ID is compatible with any form of atheism." Atheists have no problem with alien existence. (In fact, they would argue that we have equal evidence for alien existence and any deity's existence.)
But if the cosmological marks of design are included (marks of design that you consistently neglect) then "alien" design becomes highly improbable. Compatibility, after all, doesn't entail probable, and "intellectually satisfying" is often a game of probabilities.
Your point about Dawkins' quote is correct--but then why not simply read Dembski's claim that ID makes atheism intellectually dissatisyfing as a rhetorical remark of the same stripe as Dawkins. Either that, or call out Dawkins for being "intellectually dishonest."
"Dembski makes the leap because he's trying to appease two different crowds. On the one hand, he has to assure scientists that ID isn't dressed-up creationism. Hence the stopping-point. On the other, he has to ensure Christian backers that ID is their ticket to apologetic victory. Hence the consistent conflation of ID and ID+ when speaking to the faithful."
Even if Dembksi is trying to please two different crowds, why not simply think that he also thinks it's much more probable for there to be one designer than many? What about this is intellectually dishonest?
ID can be a strictly scientific program AND still be an apologetics winner for Christians. After all, even if MDT is right, then those designers are "unembodied"--i.e. not-physical? This leaps over the main intellectual stumbling blocks for many non-Christians--the existence of non-physical entities (substance dualism)? If ID is right, then it points to SOMETHING that is "out there"--that does half the battle for Christian theists, because then it becomes a matter of Christianity offering the best explanation of that something.
Again, I have stated already that cosmological ID and biological ID are separate arguments. Their predictions and premises are entirely different. (For an example of cosmological ID, see David Heddle's site.)
Look at the quotes again. John West, for biological ID: Design theory proposes that much of the highly ordered complexity seen throughout the biological world is better explained by an intelligent cause than Darwin's mechanism of chance and necessity,
Dembski's entire thrust of his Beliefnet article is biological intelligent design:
...intelligent design holds a winning hand in the scientific debate over biological origins... Intelligent design is a winner in the public debate over biological origins.... Precisely because intelligent design does not turn the study of biological origins into a Bible-science controversy, intelligent design is a position around which Christians of all stripes can unite.... Intelligent design is a modest position theologically and philosophically. It attributes the complexity and diversity of life to intelligence, but does not identify that intelligence with the God of any religious faith or philosophical system.... The evidence for design in biology is now overwhelming.... The theory of intelligent design confronts biology with an immediacy of design...
Yet Demsbki here says nothing about the possibility that aliens might be responsible for life on earth. Why? Because his audience isn't interested in epistemological modesty or stopping-points. They want an apologetic weapon.
Again, go back to Dembski's other article, where he flits back and forth between biological and cosmological ID: So too, intelligent design purports to show that there exist configurations of material entities in biology (e.g., bacterial flagella, protein synthesis mechanisms, and complex organ systems) that cannot be adequately explained in terms of antecedent material conditions together with the law-governed processes (i.e., mechanistic evolutionary processes) that act on them. This is biological ID. Yet Dembski wants to conflate it with cosmological (or shall we say "ontological?" ID). Aliens are out; divinity is in.
(Dembski's thinking that there's one designer, not many, is merely his theological prejudice trampling his scientific curiosity. Read through the MDT link; it actually makes more testable predictions than biological ID.)
As for Dawkins, in merely saying that Darwin makes for intellectually satisfying atheism, he's not being disingenuous. It's when he claims the opposite that he errs, logically speaking. He's a fine expositor of science, but a rather poor philosopher.
Again, I have stated already that cosmological ID and biological ID are separate arguments. Their predictions and premises are entirely different. (For an example of cosmological ID, see David Heddle's site.)
Right.
Yet Demsbki here says nothing about the possibility that aliens might be responsible for life on earth. Why? Because his audience isn't interested in epistemological modesty or stopping-points. They want an apologetic weapon.
And maybe it's because given cosmological design (which Dembski clearly thinks probable), aliens becomes a more difficult explanation.
In other words, simply because he doesn't acknowledge other possible explanations here doesn't entail that he doesn't think there aren't any other explanations. It might simply mean he doesn't think they're probable, given other evidence. There's nothing disingenous or dishonest about that at all.
Additionally, from the quoted material, he may say nothing about aliens here because he says nothing about the designer!!! He makes the negative claim that ID doesn't associate "intelligence" with any particular religious faith or philosophical system, but that's all. Notice that he doesn't limit the religious systems to monotheism here. You're asking him to do things here that simply are not in line with what he's saying.
Again, go back to Dembski's other article, where he flits back and forth between biological and cosmological ID: So too, intelligent design purports to show that there exist configurations of material entities in biology (e.g., bacterial flagella, protein synthesis mechanisms, and complex organ systems) that cannot be adequately explained in terms of antecedent material conditions together with the law-governed processes (i.e., mechanistic evolutionary processes) that act on them. This is biological ID. Yet Dembski wants to conflate it with cosmological (or shall we say "ontological?" ID). Aliens are out; divinity is in.
Jim, frankly, I'd love to hear an account for how "aliens" created the cosmological marks of design. Given the Big Bang, it seems highly improbable that "aliens" designed the universe, unless they were the sort of "aliens" that look and act like God(s). But then were simply playing word games, aren't we?
Dembski "conflates" them because BOTH are marks of design and BOTH have to be accounted for. Now, we could come up with different explanations--MDT explains biological, *God* explains cosmological, but this seems unnecessary (unless, of course, we're Christian neo-Platonists, like Tolkien. Honestly, I could buy this explanation, since we're simply talking about the Silmarillion).
(Dembski's thinking that there's one designer, not many, is merely his theological prejudice trampling his scientific curiosity. Read through the MDT link; it actually makes more testable predictions than biological ID.)
First, you're presuming Dembski shouldn't bring theological convictions to bear on his science. I reject the premise. After all, we approach nature with a certain set of beliefs and questions--the questions we ask in part determine the answers she gives. Soul of Science has numerous historical accounts of this practice occurring.
Secondly, your so caught up in biological ID that you're neglecting the fact that Dembski is attempting to account for both (which an alien account of MDT would seem to have a tough time doing). Dembski's preferred explanation for both kinds of design is very simple: "intelligence" (singular).
To charge Dembski with "intellectual dishonesty" is simply bogus. One might say your "anti-Dembski prejudice is trampling your scientific curiousity" (a much harder claim to make when you know a person, by the way). In short, I remain unconvinced by your documented evidence for Dembski's "intellectual dishonesty." It's simply not dishonest to use the singular "intelligence" in print because he thinks it the most probable, while simultaneously recognizing that the scientific data could also permit multiple designers. The two simply are not incongruous.
I love how we can't escape these conversations, no matter what the medium. It's about time we wrote a book.
I have more responses than time permits, so excuse the brevity here. Perhaps this will turn into an encyclopedic project, but I can't afford more at the moment.
Imagine coming across a Lego house while standing inside a real house. Both are obviously designed. In the absence of identifying marks (i.e., no signed blueprints discarded in the laundry room), would you be justified in claiming both were made by the same designer? Would your claim fall under the province of science or metaphysics?
Both show the hallmarks of intelligence. Yet it's likely that both were designed and constructed by different people (or groups of people). But we don't, can't, won't know who designed them according to science (following Dembski here).... This is going somewhere, I guess, but I have to leave in five minutes.
Grr.
I have no interest in drawing up an alienic theory of cosmological design. If biological ID and cosmological ID are so different in their premises and predictions, as I've stated and as you've agreed, then simply saying both are signs of intelligence proves nothing. Concerts and concert halls are both intelligently designed, but we rarely confuse a composer for an architect.
Post a Comment