In this post I'll offer a response and critique to the lecture 'Intelligent design' by Steven Goldberg. [1.] Goldberg discusses ID but gets things badly wrong; he either doesn't understand the ID position or he has misrepresented it. (It's hard to say how informed he is on the subject as he only makes reference to a single book; Darwin's black box by Michael Behe.)
Quotes and comments;
1. Goldman says ID violates the basic principle of 'science' (first formulated by Adelard he claims) that natural science must only explain things in terms of natural phenomenon. [2.] I don't find this legitimate or even possible. e.g. how would he explain his own thinking (e.g. his definition of science) in terms of 'natural' phenomenon? It also assumes there is such a thing as 'natural' phenomenon. Did Adelard think the universe was created or uncreated? If he created, how could things be 'natural'? He has to ignore himself for one thing! This seems extremely odd. But how would he explain a plow? Is it the product of natural forces?
Isn't he equivocating when he uses 'natural' and compares it to what Adelard meant by natural?
2. Adelard claimed that nature 'must' be treated as a closed system. Must? where does this must come from? Must (i.e. a moral absolute) isn't a natural phenomenon! This makes his whole claim absurd. If all is matter in motion there are no moral or ethical requirements or standards. This is the Achilles heel of the Naturalist myth. This ethical (moral?) absolute has been interjected into the proceedings by an intelligent and moral agent.... who then goes on to tell us we 'must' treat 'nature' as a closed system. i.e. this moral claim is coming from outside the system!
Adelard even uses the example of the rainbow in his dialogue. e.g. ''why is there a rainbow?" he asks his nephew. "Because God put it there for a reminder.''
"No, no; I want an explanation of how it occurs....'' says A.
We see here how people confuse levels of explanation... and go horribly wrong when they insist there is only one explanation for things. e.g. a rainbow. Explanation happens on several levels.
3. G. claims ID is simply an argument from ignorance... but this is completely wrong. i.e. the idea isn't that evolution (materialism) can't explain x so this means God did it. The argument is, rather, 'we know how complex systems arise, and it's as the product of design by intelligent agents.'
4. G. tells us that we see evidence of 'self-organization' in technology... and uses the example of the automobile. This is a pointless exercise in equivocation. You can't jump from 'self-organization' of inert matter to some analogy of 'organization' within a human community of inventors. This is meaningless. i.e. he's comparing the 'self-organization' of the free market to the self-organization of inert matter, and this amounts to treating sand and human beings as the same kinds of things. He seems to miss the obvious point that human beings can invent things while matter cannot.
5. His theme song is "ID might even be right but it has nothing to do with science." Why? A. It isn't helpful. He of course fails to give the ID side where they offer evidence ID is helpful. e.g. the claim of junk DNA was suspect because it violated what we would expect from design.
Summary;
We can ask a key question at this point, 'does Naturalism work for things created
by intelligent agents?' (e.g. human beings) and the obvious answer is no. This means that Naturalism is not a complete method for doing science.
I see little acknowledgment on his part that in dealing with living
organisms (and their design) we are dealing with something unique... or
with the possibility this may require a new approach to study and to
understanding. e.g. we can't apply the same method of study we do to a
rock that we do to a poem.
What we need at this stage of biological study is not so much critique
of ID but some constructive ideas. People like G. (and he's far from
the worst) want to stomp all over ID while it's barely gotten out of the
egg stage and begun to walk. I don't see ID as an explanation for all
things, but as adding another level of explanation. I believe it can
make positive contributions to our thinking, and that one way it does
this is to provide a counter to the reductionism that seems to have
taken over the sciences in our day. While the materialist reduces all
things, the ID proponent looks at things from the other direction, as if
they were engineered and designed. To ban ID is to forfeit the benefits
of conversation and debate (and to engage in monologue).
Why might we think X was intelligently designed? a. if it is better
(more efficient) than human design in this area. b. if it shows evidence
of information. c. if x has features we find in highly sophisticated
human technology. e.g. error checking programs, redundancy, maintenance
programs, etc.
The materialist looks at the data and says, ''let's assume nothing
was designed by an intelligent being'' while the ID proponent says,
''let's assume X did in fact have an intelligent designer.'' (I'm
putting this in as simple a form as possible; as people like Dembski
advocate using a filter of sorts before assuming, for the sake of
research, x was designed.) We live in a society where most things were
designed by intelligent agents, so it's not a matter of asking if
anything was designed, but of how many things were designed. (As an
aside I find it comical that people living in huge cities, sitting on
the thirtieth floor, surrounded by technology, can be against the very
idea of design.) ID in this light is a kind of 'natural' counterpart
to materialism.
Whether the materialist (or the evolutionist) likes it or not, the universe has a
huge amount of intelligent design in it; the question is only whether
or not all of it came from human beings. i.e. intelligent design is a
metaphysical reality. The materialist must tell us how it came to be
that electrons and quarks have given birth (as it were) to intelligent
design. i.e. there is nothing in a particle that would lead anyone to
think it is capable of foresight, intelligence, creativity, will or
purpose... but yet we see all of this in music, art, and technology.
I thought this lecture was the poorest of the series, but having said that, the series is very interesting and helpful. Highly recommended.
- Michael Johnson
Notes;
1. TTC The science wars - Steven Goldman/lecture 23. Intelligent design and the scope of science
2. Adelard of Bath (Latin: Adelardus Bathensis) (c. 1080 – c. 1152) was a 12th century English natural philosopher. (Not to be confused with Abelard
'Adelard also displays original thought of a scientific bent, raising the question of the shape of the Earth (he believed it round) and the question of how it remains stationary in space, and also the interesting question of how far a rock would fall if a hole were drilled through the earth and a rock dropped through it...' - Wiki
- why should we all be forced to obey rules for 'science' invented 900 years ago?
3. - he says no theory can have the status of a fact... which is interesting. 'It is a category error to say any scientific theory can be a fact; Not e. theory, not general relativity and not quantum theory.' That's quite an interesting comment.
- I agree; but I didn't expect him to say so.
4. - if 'scientific truth' is changing as fast as it is... why should anyone believe a word of it? - it's vital to note that while theories are challenged... the underlying Naturalism never is.
5. Since Behe is a colleague of his at LeHigh it might have been more interesting to have him come in for a conversation than give this one sided lecture.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
