« Now, I've got to work | Main | More on the crash »
September 20, 2005
Okay, one more
Thought you might want to read Bishop Wuerl's recent column on Intelligent Design and evolution:
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d8342b9bea53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Okay, one more:
» Readworthies XIII from The Blog from the Core
A handful of interesting, informative, and insightful articles: news, editorials, columns, essays, et al. [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 26, 2005 6:30:17 PM
Comments
Too bad the good Bishop doesn't understand "Intelligent Design Theory". This is evident by the following paragraph:
Yet there clearly is a middle ground – “intelligent design.” In this view we recognize both God’s free creation of all that is and the possibility, or even probability, that creation carried within it the plan of development which we can call evolution.
Contrast this with the statement of one of ID's main proponents, William Dembski:
"There are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence."
The Bishop is mistaken when he imagines that ID would admit that God used evolution as His plan of development. As the quote from Dembski shows, ID specifically asserts God interferes with evolution at various points to insert structures and systems (intelligently) designed as a whole which evolution is incapable of producing.
Posted by: catholic at Sep 20, 2005 2:36:04 PM
I do wish our clerical leaders would stick to their own expertise. Theology and philosophy. When they go on and on about science they are as ignorant as when they go on and on about economics. Can't they just leave it at that somehow or other God is at the bottom of everything that exists? I realize that things get sticky not so much about the appearance of man but about the appearance of one pair of humans who original sinned and from whom we are all descended and whose original sin we have all somehow inherited. I believe that our investment in original sin as we have come to conceive of it, not our investment in the existence of God, is the root of our problem with evolution. Doctrine develops. Is development of old doctrine off limits?
Posted by: Caroline at Sep 20, 2005 3:51:16 PM
"catholic" hits it. His Eminence does not understand the subject, but cleverly plays politics.
"The intuition of human experience that there is intelligent design in the universe is so overwhelming that only ideology would deny it a hearing alongside any other theories about the origin of life."
Nobody is denying it "a hearing" - we're just denying that it's science. "Intuition" is not science.
Anyone who starts with the question "what is science" comes to this conclusion too.
Of course, those on the losing side often like to reinvent words when it suits their argument.
Posted by: Ian at Sep 20, 2005 5:38:51 PM
I don't have a dog in this fight so O'm not going to engage in some extended discussion about this, but I do take issue with those who see this as a debate between philosophy and science.
First off, all science is founded on philosophical presuppositions. Positivism, post-positivism, materialism, epiphenomenalism, etc. They are all philosophical systems that serve as the structure for science--and are commonly mistaken by most people as "science" but they aren't. They're philosophy.
Science itself is very limited. Science can only describe. Period. Science can only say, "X occurs followed by Y. They might be related, but we can't be exactly sure how."
Even the most rigorous scientific studies never say they've "proven" anything. They can only "reject the null hypothesis" (i.e., seem to suggest that there is a statistically significant relationship between two things).
As soon as you get into saying what the relationship between X and Y MEANS, then you are doing philosophy which, if you know anything about it, is actually a rigorous discipline that gave birth to science. Doing real philosophy is not, as many people think, a simple matter of farting out an opinion.
Complexity may be a theory that can be tested or not, and to the degree it can, it is a science. But what that complexity MEANS is a philosophical question. Not a scientific one. Darwinism is one explanation. ID is another. Assuming that both explanations can meet the various tests of logic which competing philosophies must endure, then they both have a right to be at the table. I think the Darwinists who think they can win the battle by simply plugging their ears and saying "LaLaLaLa ShutUPShutUPShutUP" are looking awfully vulnerable.
Greg
Posted by: Greg Popcak at Sep 20, 2005 6:23:45 PM
One never hears reasonable opinions on this subject.
and then this Greg Popcak fellow shows up. Thank you for a reasoned response.
597 3859
Posted by: Boniface McInnes at Sep 20, 2005 7:29:50 PM
Greg:
Interesting reply, but the "structure for science" is not philosophical presupposition. The structure of Science is based on logic and data.
Kudos for noting that the philosphies you mentioned "are commonly mistaken by most people as 'science' but they aren't. They're philosophy."
You propagate an error though: "Darwinism is one explanation. ID is another." While correctly noting that neither is science (although Evolutionary Theory - which is not "Darwinism" - is science) you reject that ID is science. Great. The problem with ID is that it claims to be science. In fact, the claim that ID is science is all that separates it from Creationism. Its adherents add "scientific" words like "complexity" and "irreducibility" and other mumbo-jumbo to the Creationist mantra, but at the end of the day they're Creationists with a new hat. There's nothing new under the sun.
Posted by: Ian at Sep 20, 2005 8:25:30 PM
And those principles of logic are self-evident?
Posted by: Samuel J. Howard at Sep 20, 2005 9:26:48 PM
"Nobody is denying it "a hearing" - we're just denying that it's science. "Intuition" is not science."
Ian, what is science?
Posted by: lxv4 at Sep 20, 2005 9:31:45 PM
Greg, I agree with your basic point. Science describes the observable objects and processes in the universe. It doesn't pretend to get into the metaphysical. As soon one steps away from observation to posit something metaphysical, they cease doing science and start doing something else, whether it be religion, philosophy, or blind speculation.
The problem with ID is that it presupposes the existence of a metaphysical designer. It then casts about for evidence of something that could only have been designed and not naturally evolved. It isn't science. It isn't even particularly good philosophy. But, then, it isn't really intended to be either of those two. It only claims to be science to support a religious claim.
Posted by: catholic at Sep 20, 2005 9:47:26 PM
I'm very happy that, while the Bishop's copies of Aristotle and Plato were covered with dust, he mentions no dust on his copy of the Summa.
Posted by: Lawrence King at Sep 20, 2005 10:03:38 PM
Error has no rights. Move on.
Posted by: Anonymous at Sep 20, 2005 10:04:51 PM
ID is unecessary to beat down the weak arguments of philosopical materialism, which has nothing to do with science.
Materialistas are as fanatical as literal creationists, if not more. But they pretend it's "Science". That's the real deal.
Instead of defending ID or whatever, we could perhaps just demonstrate how materialism is unscientific, and how it dominates academia. Materialists pass own their ideology as "Science" and no one protests.
Posted by: Delance at Sep 20, 2005 10:41:03 PM
"(although Evolutionary Theory - which is not "Darwinism" - is science)"
Can't help but notice the world "Theory" in the Science of Evolutionary Theory. Is evolution between species an observed fact?
And it seems difficult to develop beyond the doctrine of the Fall and still keep Paul's stated reason for the Incarnation.
Posted by: Lickona at Sep 20, 2005 11:31:25 PM
To those who want to know what science is, you should start with the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
The whole entry is good, but you should go to "The Criterion of Demarcation" in particular. Greg touched on the subject of "meaning" back there and did a decent job of it.
But *that* is another story. :)
Posted by: Ian at Sep 20, 2005 11:57:17 PM
"Is evolution between species an observed fact?"
Yes. You can start reading here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
and here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Then dive in here:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=observed+speciation&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Posted by: catholic at Sep 21, 2005 12:26:02 AM
Here is another good example. The researchers have caught speciation in process:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3790531.stm
Posted by: catholic at Sep 21, 2005 12:39:49 AM
A few days ago I read the fascinating account of the Smithsonian researcher who has had his head chopped off by his superiors because he dared to publish, as editor of a non-Smithsonian journal of biology, a peer-reviewed article questioning Neo-Darwinism. He's not a "creationist" or necessarily offering a view on Intelligent Design, but as Diogenes makes the point today (http://www.cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm?task=singledisplay&recnum=3061), pre-conceived ideas in the scientific community are just rife!
See http://www.rsternberg.net/
Posted by: Venerable Aussie at Sep 21, 2005 4:58:45 AM
It's worth keeping in mind, when considering ID vs. Darwin, that the constant appeal to "Science" is a bit of a charade. There is no "Science" out there, but there are scientists and science texts and procedures that scientists use.
The theories of evolution (after all, there are more than one, as anyone who followed the career of that winsome scientist and writer Stephen Gould knows) all make more or less coherent attempts to explain how the world and living creatures we see today came to be. Those theories do not require positing that there is no God, that all religioius belief is rubbish, etc.
However, many scientists (in the name of science) do make such religioius and philosophical claims. Even more, many teachers of science in the elementary and high schools do the same (and of course, many of them are not scientists, and their grasp of the current state of biological science is not necessarily complete). ID is an attempt to combat this public attack on even the possibility of religious belief by some scientists with an appeal to "that same wonder which led so many philosophers, who were not necessarily at the same time theologians, to posit an ultimate reality that is responsible for all that is and how it operates," as Bishop Wuerl puts it.
After all, I have no problem believing that the universe was created by God, that his Providence remains active, and yet that evolution in some form has been active. How evolution has worked is hard to tell, especially when claims (such as that made by catholic of "another good example") are overstated. (The article's statements "may have witnessed the birth of a new species", "researchers believe the insects are in the early stages of diverging into separate species", "there are several examples of mutant genes that prevent different species from breeding but scientists do not know if they are the cause or just a consequence of speciation." are a good deal more tentative than "The researchers have caught speciation in process.")
The quarrel isn't really between Science and Religion. The quarrel is between individuals who at times overreach the boundaries of their disciplines and knowledge.
While I agree that Bishop Wuerl has not accurately identified the claims of Intelligent Design, he has accurately laid out the underpinnings of realistic (i.e., Thomistic and Aristotelian) philosophy which is part of the ID claims. Some scientists feel that philosophy, like religion, has no place in the public square, but honestly, who died and made them boss?
Posted by: Steve Cavanaugh at Sep 21, 2005 7:00:23 AM
Some scientists feel that philosophy, like religion, has no place in the public square, but honestly, who died and made them boss?
First, I've not heard of a scientific agenda to keep philosophy out of the public square. There's more than enough debate about these issues in the public square, if for no other reason than the religious right keeps it there by its constant pressure on state legislatures to force the teaching of religion in science classes.
More importantly, the issue is not what happens in the public square. It is what happens in the science classroom. As it turns out, scientists are uniquely qualified to determine what should happen in the science classroom. Religionists are not.
Posted by: catholic at Sep 21, 2005 12:10:21 PM
Catholic,
You gave several links backing speciation, but I know that there is at least of subset of Creationists who fully accede to speciation. Rather, it is "macro-evolution" they deny, and so the findings you cite will do little to move them (leaving aside that there is precious little that can move anyone dedicated to this fight).
Posted by: meteorologist at Sep 21, 2005 3:02:41 PM
Ian writes:
... Evolutionary Theory - which is not "Darwinism" - is science ...
Unclear to me what this means. When most people say "Darwinism" they in fact mean the theory of evolution by natural selection (as opposed to, say, Lamarckianism). If by "Darwinism" you mean just "atheistic materialism" it would seem simpler to say only that.
Posted by: alkali at Sep 21, 2005 3:10:01 PM
Here is another good example. The researchers have caught speciation in process. Huh? Did you read the same article I did? (Or did you just read the title?) It says "Whether the two closely related fruit fly populations the scientists studied - Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae - represent one species or two is still debated by biologists" and "Laura Reed maintains that such limited capacity for interbreeding indicates that the two groups are on the verge of becoming completely separate species". So, one scientist claims two populations are "on the verge" of speciation, and you cite it as catching "speciation in the process".
I guess Whatever Laura Reed Maintains is good enough for some folks.
Good grief.
Posted by: ELC at Sep 21, 2005 3:15:27 PM
Good grief.
I say the same thing about people who don't know how to interpret scientific data.
The study of the fruit fly is fertile ground (pardon the pun) for data concerning genetically based mechanisms for speciation. You can be skeptical because of the wording of one article written for the popular press, but do a little digging and you'll notice it isn't just Laura Reed doing this research.
Posted by: catholic at Sep 21, 2005 8:20:46 PM
"Is evolution between species an observed fact?"
Perhaps I'm wrong, but what I think that Likona was really asking is, "Have scientists observed macroevolution?" Not too many folks argue against microevolution, that is, small changes, but both Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae are still fruitflies. Evolutionary theory posits that a fruitfly could change into something else.
Posted by: Stacey at Sep 21, 2005 10:16:01 PM
"Have scientists observed macroevolution?" Not too many folks argue against microevolution, that is, small changes, but both Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae are still fruitflies.
The best evidence for macroevolution comes from DNA analysis. If one wanted to prove that man and chimpanzee had a common ancestor, they could not ask for a more compelling ex post facto evidence than what DNA analysis of the two species has shown.
Posted by: catholic at Sep 21, 2005 11:02:58 PM
