Congdon Attacks ID
Almost every point in this critique of ID is off the mark. It is simply not true that ID deals with the origins of life; and evolution, with the “progress” of life once life arose. ID claims that numerous biological systems could not have come about via the Darwinian pathways from whatever their physical precursors were; that is, by slight, successive modifications of the previous, presumably less complex and less specified, system in the changing organisms. This becomes especially clear if we examine cellular structures and molecular machines.
On the issue of testability, etc. as signs of ID’s scientific nature, see William Dembski’s “Is Intelligent Design Testable?”
Intelligent Design is not theology. Congdon writes: “In other words, science, by the very nature of the discipline, is naturalistic and materialistic.” Nonsense. Methodological naturalism must be defended not merely asserted. Further, intelligent causes are clearly part of nature: we humans are intelligent. We encounter effects of intelligent causes all the time. Speaking of design in nature does not require us to discuss the designer of nature at all, although nothing prevents figuring out who the designer is from being part of the ID research program.
For these reasons ID is not “a contemporary version of natural theology.” In The Design Revolution Dembski devotes an entire chapter to distinguishing between intelligent design and the design argument for the existence of God. (Part I, Question 7, p. 64) At this point we come to the strangest part of Congdon’s essay, in which he condemns philosophy of religion and natural theology, whereby we can come to know God by reason without any aid from revelation, as illegitimate and “anti-Christian” disciplines. Even according to the Vatican Council, “If anyone says that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason by means of the things that are made, let him be anathema.” And if indeed it is true that “by and large, natural theology is dead,” then I suppose it falls onto me and, hopefully, a few other folks to revive it.
ID does not postulate a god of the gaps; it is an inference to the best explanation, seeing that there exist rigorous ways of detecting design.
Finally, the Christian faith may not blithely allow for scientific naturalism which does not admit intelligent causation, as such a thing is contrary to its understanding of grace. If God designs souls — that is, uplifts them into fellowship with Him, then it is unnatural flatly to deny, without adducing any evidence, that He can design bodies, as well.
May 11th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
“detecting design” = “detecting magical creation”.
Magic is a childish idea.
Dembski is a professional liar for Jesus. Scientists laugh at his stupidity.
May 11th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
I detect design, though certainly a suboptimal one (if I were
Godyou, I wouldn’t have designed it like that), in the odd collection of ASCII characters of which your comment consists.May 12th, 2008 at 10:42 am
“Further, intelligent causes are clearly part of nature:”
I agree. There is nothing super or non-natural about them.
“we humans are intelligent”
We are defined more by our technology than our intelligence. There are various degrees of “intelligence” across the animal kingdom. Intelligence is undefined.
“Speaking of design in nature does not require us to discuss the designer of nature at all”
But it does require a proposed process. Otherwise it is a non-starter and can not be compared with evolutionary theory. Evolution has not only a historically observed time-line but several proposed, testable mechanisms. It is not a matter of either/or but a matter of assessing which accounts for the evidence. ID is based on a faulty analogy to humanly designed systems and is dependent on what is known about evolutionary theory, a work in progress.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
> Intelligence is undefined.
intelligence, according to m-w.com:
1 a (1): the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2): the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one’s environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)
What’s wrong with defining it like that?
> But it does require a proposed process.
See Dembski’s The Design Revolution, Part IV, Question 34, where he poses a challenge: “Isn’t it the height of hypocrisy for design theorists to complain that Darwinism provides no details about the emergence of biological complexity when their own theory, intelligent design, likewise provides no such details?”
His answer is that ID,
It is true that
May 13th, 2008 at 7:48 am
“1 a (1): the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2): the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one’s environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)
‘What’s wrong with defining it like that?’”
Nothing. but it is still not quantified enough to draw a line between intelligence, which I would guess implies some sort of intent, and something like instinct. Definition No.1 could apply to any living organism and No.2 would be limited to what we know about human cognitive abilities. It’s quite a jump to extend the analogy of human intelligence to some sort of unknown non or super human entity based on apparent complexity, particularly if there is no empirical evidence of a design event.
“in contrast to Darwinism, is not a theory about process but about creative innovation. … [it] is not reducible to a causal chain where one step causes the next. … intelligences are free. In the act of creation they violate expectations. They create as they choose to create.”
What expectations? Based on the physical architecture of the human brain the potential is there. What natural process is violated here. I can’t see where this means anything.
“Where do those ideas come from? … No set of antecedent circumstances can account for a creative innovation.”
It seems more likely that the ideas are generated in the brain rather than beamed in from outer space. Again, all the antecedent circumstances lead to potential. I don’t see the mystery in all this. I don’t see where the evidence is to support Dembski’s implication that creativity is somehow disconnected from natural processes.
“Bottom line: Darwinism has a burden of proof that intelligent design does not have.”
That’s convenient. When will ID give a specific example of a “creative innovation first emerging”?
May 13th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
> It’s quite a jump to extend the analogy of human intelligence to some sort of unknown non or super human entity based on apparent complexity…
Your problem seems to be that intelligence is multi-faceted and takes many forms. Well, let’s take the definition you yourself suggest in your first comment: intelligence is the ability to invent sophisticated technology. Nobody doubts that biological system are at the very least super-advanced technological wonders.
ID defines intelligence as the ability to create information that is contingent, specified, and complex. Both human and biological technology exhibit specified complexity, so our first definition works well enough.
> What natural process is violated here.
Who said anything about violating natural laws or processes? The processes of thinking, discovery, creative innovation do not break any laws of nature. But they are still very difficult to predict.
> It seems more likely that the ideas are generated in the brain rather than beamed in from outer space.
Maybe the “mind” is a better term than “brain.” Don’t confuse the two “worlds”: the world of matter-energy-etc. and the world of subjective experience. The machine is an aspect of the ghost, so to speak.
> Again, all the antecedent circumstances lead to potential. I don’t see the mystery in all this.
You don’t see any mystery in human thinking, willing, personal identity, etc.? Are you serious? These are the most difficult mysteries to unlock. Even philosophy does not deal with them adequately, let alone science. They may be ultimate givens.
> I don’t see where the evidence is to support Dembski’s implication that creativity is somehow disconnected from natural processes.
He does not imply that at all. Anyway, give an example of a natural process that results in my thinking “2 + 2 = 4″ right now.
> When will ID give a specific example of a “creative innovation first emerging”?
It’s part of its research program. Give it time.
May 14th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
“Nobody doubts that biological system are at the very least super-advanced technological wonders.”
I do. Since they replicate it seems more likely that they are self organizing systems capable of increased complexity. The analogy to human based technology still doesn’t hold. Where is the evidence of advanced technology?
“ID defines intelligence as the ability to create information that is contingent, specified, and complex. Both human and biological technology exhibit specified complexity, so our first definition works well enough.”
Then intelligence is dependent on the definitions of information, specificity, contingency (which I thought referred to natural “laws” ala Dembski), and complexity. My reading of it is that Dembski’s probability calculations to detect specified complexity are based on known (or what he knows, anyway) natural mechanisms. As knowlege of these mechanisms is fleshed out the probabilities of a structure occuring naturally increases. So it’s on to the next one. Where is the utility in this? Not to mention the fact that the number of potential functional proteins is unknown and small changes in regulatory genes can have large phenotype changes leave the assigning of some sort of global information metric pretty iffy. Then his filter requires working back from what occurred with the assumption that it had to occur in the manner it did. The whole idea confuses me and, more importantly, I can find no independent confirmation (even a substantial minority view) of Dembski’s ideas on complexity and information.
“You don’t see any mystery in human thinking, willing, personal identity, etc.? Are you serious? These are the most difficult mysteries to unlock. Even philosophy does not deal with them adequately, let alone science. They may be ultimate givens.
I didn’t say I had a clue. I said there is no reason to believe that these concepts are not locked up in the physical architecture of the brain. Why would I think differently, given that I’m not even sure our conceptions of these concepts are the same?
“He does not imply that at all. Anyway, give an example of a natural process that results in my thinking “2 + 2 = 4″ right now”.
I can’t.
“It’s part of its research program. Give it time.”
Is that the super-secret research program?
May 15th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
> Where is the evidence of advanced technology?
Just look at ‘em! (E.g., the bacterial cilium: there are “dozens or even hundreds of precisely tailored parts,” Behe writes.)
> My reading of it is that Dembski’s probability calculations to detect specified complexity are based on known (or what he knows, anyway) natural mechanisms.
I think you’re wrong here. ID is not manifested via any mechanistic process. There is no precise algorithm to solve inventive problems or to push creative advance. Creativity is the opposite of following rules.
> Is that the super-secret research program?
Well, it is a persecuted paradigm. It’ll take it a few years to attract younger scientists.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:00 am
“> Where is the evidence of advanced technology?
Just look at ‘em! (E.g., the bacterial cilium: there are “dozens or even hundreds of precisely tailored parts,” Behe writes.)”
I was speaking more of evidence for an advanced technology sometime in the past that would be able to genetically engineer these “design” features.
“I think you’re wrong here. ID is not manifested via any mechanistic process. There is no precise algorithm to solve inventive problems or to push creative advance. Creativity is the opposite of following rules.”
I’m wrong a lot but my understanding is that Dembski uses the elimination of mechanistic processes (chance and contingency) to determine design. I can’t see where this would be satisfying to detect design. Without a defined process or event for design the default should be “don’t know”. And why wouldn’t creativity be constrained by the architecture of the human brain?
“Well, it is a persecuted paradigm. It’ll take it a few years to attract younger scientists.”
More useless than persecuted. There aren’t even any discrete hypotheses to test, let alone a coherent theory.