|
Author
|
Topic: Intelligent design: Dembski in Lindsay Jones's Encyclopedia of Religion
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 29. August 2003 01:40
Following the moderators guidelines
quote:
In other words, literature discussions can take place in Brainstorms if
1. It is your own literature
2. If you are using the literature to prop up your own argument
However, if you want the main topic of discussion to be someone else's article, book, etc. you should post in the Literature Review section.
I am using the literature forum to discuss a recent article by William Dembski.
Dembski has posted a new article on his website
quote:
The implications of intelligent design for religious belief are profound. The rise of modern science led to a vigorous attack on all religions that treat purpose, intelligence, and wisdom as fundamental and irreducible features of reality. The high point of this attack came with Darwin’s theory of evolution. The central claim of Darwin’s theory is that an unguided material process (random variation and natural selection) could account for the emergence of all biological complexity and order. In other words, Darwin appeared to show that the design in biology (and, by implication, in nature generally) was dispensable. By showing that design is indispensable to the scientific understanding of the natural world, intelligent design is reinvigorating the design argument and at the same time overturning the widespread misconception that the only tenable form of religious belief is one that treats purpose, intelligence, and wisdom as byproducts of unintelligent material processes.
Dembski seems to have jumped to the conclusion that "design is indispensable to the scientific understanding of the natural world" which may be correct at a metaphorical level but hardly self evident at the analogy level. Furthermore Dembski seems to be arguing for the implications of ID on religious belief and yet seems to suggest scientific relevancy. One may similarly want to reverse the argument since by opening up religious beliefs to ID's ability to contribute to scientific understanding, ID also runs the risk of undermining religious beliefs if it fails to live up to its claims or, as with any idea relevant to science, is disproven.
In this context, lacking any reliable ways to detect intelligent design and lacking any reliable ways to eliminate natural processes as intelligent designers, one may want to take notice of Ratzsch words
quote:
In the present case, however, it seems to me that design theories are going to have to produce some positive results which are not easily assimilable by reigning theories. And it seems to me that to date design has not achieved that.
Del concludes with the wise words that "And it seems to me that some ID advocates are getting
a bit too far ahead of actual events."
My argument is that until intelligent design will enter the scientific arena, it will be hard to argue that intelligent design has achieved what Dembski seems to suggest it has. Or
As I have argued elsewhere irreducible complexity and specified complexity seem to have failed to be shown to be reliable indicators of intelligent design but even accepting that they were able to infer accurately intelligent design, there is no a priori reason why they can exclude natural processes as intelligent designers. These two flaws alone severely undermine any claims of scientific relevancy of ID but ID may of course prove me wrong by meeting Del's challenge.
Until intelligent design movement can show that design is indispensable, it claims to that extent should be taken with some skepticism. It's a good thing that our educational system is urged to implement exactly such skepticism in its approaches to scientific issues :-)
Thus when Dembski states that "Intelligent design therefore directly challenges Darwinism and other naturalistic approaches to the origin and evolution of life." it presumes that such a challenge exists and that it is direct. At most ID can be said to attempt a challenge IF it can live up to its claims. Two relevant areas of ID include IC, irreducible complexity. But according to Behe, indirect pathways cannot be excluded a priori although Behe himself considers them, without much evidence, to be too unlikely. Recent work on evolution of complexity may have shown how such indirect pathways are not only not unlikely but perhaps quite prevalent in evolution. The other marker of design is argued to be CSI. Dembski argues that in a closed system CSI cannot increase but such limitations of course fade when the system is opened to either intelligent causes or natural causes. In fact evidence strongly suggests that mutation and selection can act much like a "Maxwellian demon" just like intelligent design. Thus CSI and increase in CSI cannot be used as a reliable indicator of intelligent design either.
To paraphrase Del Ratzsch, "Where is the evidence"? If intelligent design is really invigorating the design argument in any scientific manner then where is the (positive) evidence that intelligent design can produce positive results which could not have been assimilated by reigning theories?
I am not arguing that Intelligent design has not had an impact on religious thinking but on the scientific front I am still hoping for some positive evidence.
I would like to ask in addition how the example given by Dembski about Keppler and the craters of the moon can be reconciled with his claim that the design inference is free from false positives. In order for the design inference to be free from false positives one has to presume complete knowledge allowing the elimination of all known and unknown regularity and chance pathways lest it runs the risk of false positives. If one allows for false positives however, an eliminative approach which fails to provide positive evidence for design will fail as well. I fail to see how this flaw in the design inference can be easily resolved but I am open to suggestions.
Dembski himself seems to agree with Del when he states that "For natural theologians like Paley, the validity of the design argument did not depend on the fruitfulness of design-theoretic ideas for science but on the metaphysical and theological mileage one could get out of design."
suggesting that ID has fruitfulness design theoretic ideas for science. So far such suggestions need to be supported by evidence. At the moment ID's greatest success has been in the theological and metaphysical circles. Perhaps as Del argues, claims of relevancy to science may be too soon.
But perhaps I am too harsh in my comments since I re-read the reference of Dembski's contribution and it seems to be for "Lindsay Jones's Encyclopedia of Religion".
[ 29. August 2003, 01:55: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 29. August 2003 14:25
Dembski wrote (quoted by Pim) quote:
In other words, Darwin appeared to show that the design in biology (and, by implication, in nature generally) was dispensable.
In fact, Darwin did not "show that the design in biology ... was dispensable." What Darwin showed was that the postulation (or inference) of an intelligent designer, acting from outside the 'system' to occasionally supercede or suspend natural laws in order to take actions to produce the appearance of design, is dispensable.
The argument to complexity - the argument that complex structures and processes with the appearance of design exist in biological systems - is not, I think, the issue. The issue that IDists have raised since well before Paley is whether natural laws and mechanisms can account for the existence of those complex structures and processes. The whole point of Dembski's (and Behe's) verbiage about CSI and "specified complexity" and "irreducible complexity" is not so much to show that complex stuff exists, but is rather to argue that the complex stuff can't be explained by natural laws and mechanisms. To use Michael Ruse's Darwin and Design terms, the argument to complexity is (relatively) uncontroversial; it's the argument from that complexity to an intelligent designer that's the problem for ID.
RBH
[ 29. August 2003, 14:32: Message edited by: RBH ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 29. August 2003 20:11
RBH: To use Michael Ruse's Darwin and Design terms, the argument to complexity is (relatively) uncontroversial; it's the argument from that complexity to an intelligent designer that's the problem for ID.
Love the book and yes, Michael Ruse's argument that it is the leap from complexity to intelligent design (and from intelligent design to intelligent designer) which is a real problem for ID.
In some ways Dembski has complicated the argument more complicated by making it basically a gap based idea or as Del Ratzsch puts it "What I have reservations about, however, is the fact that designs produced by the deliberate setting of natural processes to produce them seem to escape the filter, and that means that all filter-relevant design theories become gap theories"
But does this mean that ID cannot serve any scientific function? Del again ". ID can at least serve a 'keeping em' honest' function, even if nothing else. I think that ID may very well have things to offer science, but I think that it is too early for ID to claim that it has done so."
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 31. August 2003 10:25
Nah, this doesn't belong at ISCID and will be deleted in short order. Please save your posts.
To clarify, topics of discussion in the Literature Review section need to offer substantial new contributions to the field of complex systems. A brief encyclopedia entry does not make the grade.
Focus on journal articles and/or books which offer a relatively novel thesis.
[ 31. August 2003, 10:32: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic