Isaac Newton, a Creationist?
In comments here lately I have professed the fathers of modern science as working within a creationist framework. This is in response to the claim that ID is not science, and my making the point that the recent definition of science that bars the supernatural as a potential cause is just that-- recent. The fathers of modern science worked within a creationist's framework, and you can't separate their science from this framework. You just can't-- especially when they went through great pains to prevent us trying.
For instance, I'll be quoting about Newton from "The Soul of Science", pg 72, quotes cited in original.
Yet Newton himself was neither a deist nor a rationalist. He saw in the mechanical order of the world evidence for something *beyond* the mechanical world-- a living and intelligent Creator. In *General Scholium*, he argues that "this most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." And in *Optiks*, he writes that the business of science is to "deduce causes from effects, till we come to the very first cause, which certainly is not mechanical." In Newton's eyes, the major benefit of science is religious and moral. It shows us "what is the first cause, what power he has over us, and what benefits we receive from him," so that "our duty towards him, as well as that towards one another will appear to us by the light of nature."
Moreover, the motive for much of Newton's scientific work was apologetical, a fact widely recognized in his own day. Roger Cotes, in his preface to the second edition of Newton's *Principia*, wrote that the book "will be the safest protection against the attacks of atheists, and nowhere more surely than from this quiver can one draw missiles against the band of godless men."
So, was Newton a creationist? Obviously. Can his science be separated from his religion? Not by his own word. Was he a scientist? I'd like to see the modern establishment try to "define" him away...
Technorati Tags: - ‹ previous
- 53 of 57
- next ›
Syndicate
Hypotheses non fingo
A quote from that same book:
Ultimate explanations, Newton said, should be left out of science. This is the context in which he uttered his famous expression hypotheses non fingo--"I feign no hypotheses."
A translation of the passage containing that expression:
I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.
So, of course Newton clearly held Christian beliefs. However, it seems just as clear that he would agree with the exclusion of supernatural causes from formal science.
Get your fingers outta my hypothesis!
Nicely done, dogg. I’m actually glad you brought that up, as the Newtonian translation adds much to the discussion. But before going there, let’s judge ID against the criteria of my quotes and yours, as gathered from "Edge of Science." (Edit: Make that "SOUL of Science", I've been reading both of late so, my bad...)
Newton: “this most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
ID science: “The universe (including life) could only have come from the counsel of an intelligent designer.
Newton: Scientists “deduce causes from effects, till we come to the very first cause, which certainly is not mechanical.”
ID science: “As scientists, we deduce that natural selection is an insufficient cause to produce the vast array of diversified life we see in the world.” (ID's positive induction is considered separately below.)
Newton (as attributed by dogg and the quote): “We should leave ‘ultimate explanations’ out of science.”
ID: (See Behe, 2nd edition “Darwin’s Black Box, chapter “Science, Philosophy, Religion”, p 251, note that he actually speaks to Newton’s choice not to name the cause of gravity):
“How then will science “officially” treat the identity of the designer? Will biochemistry textbooks have to be written with the explicit statements that “God did it”? No. The question of the identity of the designer will simply be ignored. The history of science is replete with examples of basic-but-difficult questions being put on the back burner. For example, Newton declined to explain what caused gravity…”
It’s apparent that ID actually stops shorter than even Newton did, in that they refuse to identify the ultimate cause, while Newton went as far as inferring our responsibility to Him.
One is ill-advised to try to create a separation between Newton’s definition of science and ID’s. Yet, we must still query the translation that dogg provided. Let’s have a closer look…
I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses.
Fair enough.
For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.
A closer examination shows that Newton barred not the supernatural, but that which is not deduced from the evidence. As a matter of fact, he is opening the door to anything that the evidence points to, including that which is “metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities”, for he lumps them all together as equivalent and makes only the judgment as to whether they are deduced from the evidence. He seems to explicitly deal with the “supernatural” in science and far from bars it. He seems to indicate that it is fair game as long as the evidence leads there. Further…
In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.
He proposes finding the specific and inferring to the general. Now, it is evident that inference is not a perfect logical manifestation, but it has precedent in science (see the 2nd law of thermodynamics), and is actually the bedrock of science—i.e. the scientific pursuit depends on an order and inference to the general to define its laws. So, if ID sees known specified complexity as designed and infers design into organic specified complexity, one would conclude from Newton’s quote that he would have viewed this as scientific.
Do you disagree with the results of the inference? Fine. Gnaw on the bone and have it out in discussion. But call it unscientific? Not by the definition in use for the greatest part of the history of science.
In closing…
One should be careful in trying to confine ID as a non-science, because the neo-Darwinian pet axiom may be thrown out with the scientific bathwater. If you disallow ID’s positive claims to a designer, you must then disallow neo-Darwinism’s negative argument against it. Further, you’ve thrown out the naturalist’s positive claim that natural selection occurred via strictly natural processed without the input from a guiding hand. If ID’s voice to such absolutes is pseudo-science, then so is neo-Darwinism’s. But oddly enough, we see such statements in textbooks and journals routinely.
Again, when trying to define ID out of the scientific arena, be careful because neo-Darwinism goes out with it.
Take care all…
PS: Note—dogg, by clicking: (http://books.google.com/books?id=6lyoiNuypCUC&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=%22sou...), one can find the quote you offered and read it in context. I am taking for granted that you got it here (or a hard copy, or any other place where you could have read it in context?) and thus realized that the context of Newton’s statement concerning “ultimate expressions” was a response to the Cartesians and their accusations that he was relying on occultic, mystical affinities.
He was arguing that gravity is not a mystic throwback, but based on observable principles. The paragraphs immediately following your quote define the context that Newton’s science worked within—that of an observable order that is imposed by God. Thus, by observing Newton’s quotes within the context that he made them, and from within the mindset that he formed them, we are safely able to escape a schizophrenic account from one of the fathers of our modern scientific process. This last quote safely resided within the larger mindset that science is the pursuit of God. (I mean, gosh... It was only two paragraphs later that started with the sentence, "Gravity thus served an apologetical purpose for Newton". :^) )
I noticed the link has the first chapter in its entirety. That’s a great chapter. It’s packed with great history and philosophy of science, and was the source for much of my passing claims concerning Christianity’s place of esteem in the modern scientific process. I have the book and would be happy to lend it to you if you are interested.
<--peace-->
Good stuff.
Good stuff.
Hey LB!
Thanks.
Great to hear from you. I hope you are well and miss you online input...
Be blessed.
One scientist's religion does not make his religion=science
I’m revisiting this for a couple of reasons. First, traffic has been slow here, so why not? I realize you’re busy, so feel free to ignore me. Second, I don’t recall reading some of the points in your reply the first time through, and thought I had something to add. This might be due to my oversight during original reading or you adding to the post after I read it. I can’t be sure which because the software here doesn’t seem to time stamp edits, and I’m frequently guilty of negligent comprehension.
Newton: “this most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
ID science: “The universe (including life) could only have come from the counsel of an intelligent designer.
My interpretation:
Newton: I've reached the limit of what current science can tell me. Here are some religious statements that I use to provide a comforting explanation (note: no science claimed or implied).
ID pseudoscience: Since science has no detailed explanation for [insert pet biological system here], we must therefore conclude that God... er, scratch that... some intelligent designer (wink, wink) must be responsible, even though there's no positive evidence for that conclusion.
Newton: Scientists “deduce causes from effects, till we come to the very first cause, which certainly is not mechanical.”
ID science: “As scientists, we deduce that natural selection is an insufficient cause to produce the vast array of diversified life we see in the world.” (ID's positive induction is considered separately below.)
Newton: Science has the capacity to tell us about the natural universe. Mechanistic explanations don't apply beyond the natural universe.
ID Pseudoscience: The current scientific explanations of biological diversity are in conflict with our intuitions and/or religious beliefs, therefore we reject those explanations in favor of an unscientific one. (note: your ID statement is completely divorced from Newton's sentiment. Newton's "first cause" has no connection to ID's god-of-the-gaps.)
“How then will science “officially” treat the identity of the designer? Will biochemistry textbooks have to be written with the explicit statements that “God did it”? No. The question of the identity of the designer will simply be ignored. The history of science is replete with examples of basic-but-difficult questions being put on the back burner. For example, Newton declined to explain what caused gravity…”
It’s apparent that ID actually stops shorter than even Newton did, in that they refuse to identify the ultimate cause, while Newton went as far as inferring our responsibility to Him.
One might ask the question, WHY would ID explicitly stop short of examining the designer that they say is so obviously suggested by the evidence? A cursory glance at the history of the ID movement makes it clear that this position was not arrived at by honest delineation of scientific and religious bounds, but it is the direct result of the Edwards v. Aguillard court decision. If you choose to dispute that assertion, please show me a shred of evidence dating this tenet of ID to a time before that case.
As an aside, what makes you think ID's proposed designer is "the ultimate cause"? Why rule out a super-advanced race of beings dropping the seeds of life on the earth? Sure, those beings would have to come from somewhere, so you might argue they had to have a designer of their own, but at that point you're addressing their identity even though the "science" of ID recommends against it. Without knowing anything about these beings (and refusing to investigate their identity) why would you assume they're not eternal? If they are eternal, would they have to be supernatural?
One is ill-advised to try to create a separation between Newton’s definition of science and ID’s.
Well, you just presented an argument for such a separation yourself! Your ID movement excludes (well, publicly at least) from science such explicit religious statements as Newton's, yet you seem eager to include Newton's creationism as part of his science. So, according to your statement above, would you agree that ID "serves an apologetical purpose" for its proponents?
A closer examination shows that Newton barred not the supernatural, but that which is not deduced from the evidence. As a matter of fact, he is opening the door to anything that the evidence points to, including that which is “metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities”, for he lumps them all together as equivalent and makes only the judgment as to whether they are deduced from the evidence.
Actually, he lumps those three together as types of "hypotheses," which have no place in science. He most certainly did NOT say that metaphysical or occult qualities could be deduced from the evidence.
So, if ID sees known specified complexity as designed and infers design into organic specified complexity, one would conclude from Newton’s quote that he would have viewed this as scientific.
By "known specified complexity" I presume you mean items/systems known to be designed (by humans). Applying that knowledge to "organic specified complexity" is not inferring the general from the specific. It is simply misapplication from one specific to another. It's also somewhat confusing, in that human intelligence is cited as the cause in your specific example, but part of the effect in the “general.” Let's see if I have the argument straight: a type of biological complexity (human intelligence) is the only known cause of manufactured complexity, therefore a supernatural intelligent agency must be responsible for biological complexity. It's a non sequitur, as I'd like to think Newton would agree.
One should be careful in trying to confine ID as a non-science, because the neo-Darwinian pet axiom may be thrown out with the scientific bathwater. If you disallow ID’s positive claims to a designer, you must then disallow neo-Darwinism’s negative argument against it.
There's that false dualism rearing its ugly head again! Neo-Darwinism does not propose a negative argument against a designer, it simply refuses to address supernatural causes that can't be observed or otherwise verified. BTW, I like how you've turned around the common argument against ID as being simply a negative argument against evolution. Calling ID's claims "positive" does not change the fact that the nature of the claims is: current scientific explanations are insufficient so our supernatural claim wins by default.
Further, you’ve thrown out the naturalist’s positive claim that natural selection occurred via strictly natural processe[s] without the input from a guiding hand.
Current science does not claim that a guiding hand wasn't involved, just that if it existed it left no evidence behind. It's a bit like the old conjecture that maybe we were all created just five minutes ago. Our memories could have been created to make us think that we've lived for years, but we have no way of knowing because our experience is entirely locally temporal. Why waste time wondering if our memories are actual or artificial if we have no evidence to point either way? If our memories were faked, something is going out of its way to fool us and it's powerful enough to make our thoughts useless to us. Same goes for biological evolution: if ID is correct, the designer went out of its way to try to fool us to think otherwise.
If ID’s voice to such absolutes is pseudo-science, then so is neo-Darwinism’s. But oddly enough, we see such statements in textbooks and journals routinely.
Neo-Darwinism gives voice to these absolutes? Please show me where a journal or textbook says that god does not exist, or absolutely did not have had a hand in biological development. The absence of mentioning a supernatural possibility is not the same as claiming an absence of the supernatural.
He was arguing that gravity is not a mystic throwback, but based on observable principles. The paragraphs immediately following your quote define the context that Newton’s science worked within—that of an observable order that is imposed by God. Thus, by observing Newton’s quotes within the context that he made them, and from within the mindset that he formed them, we are safely able to escape a schizophrenic account from one of the fathers of our modern scientific process. This last quote safely resided within the larger mindset that science is the pursuit of God. (I mean, gosh... It was only two paragraphs later that started with the sentence, "Gravity thus served an apologetical purpose for Newton". :^) )
I’ve got no problem with someone using science to promote (or criticize) a particular religion, provided that it’s good science. The object is still religion, which by definition rests firmly on faith. One should not, however, reverse this course of argument and employ religion to promote (or criticize) a particular science.
Newton, in his famous quote, was saying his scientific presentation of gravity did not have a supernatural component, even though he believed the cause was ultimately supernatural. He didn't think the supernatural had a place in science, though he wasn't reluctant to place god as the gatekeeper of the boundaries of his scientific understanding. Instead of making god part of his view of science, he viewed science as part of his god. No schizophrenia involved—just one man's choice of faith.
It's interesting to note that by placing god right at the limits of contemporary knowledge, he risked disproof of some of his religious ideas when, for example, the irregular motions of heavenly bodies were found to be part of a quite stable mechanistic system and not, as Newton proposed, in need of constant supervision by god. I don't point that out to ridicule his beliefs, nor to claim that his religion was false, just to warn against placing god actively and directly responsible for anything that one can't currently explain otherwise. Newton's failure is repeated by today's ID creationists. The difference is that Newton’s failed claims were presented as religious opinion, while ID is claimed to be science.
It seems I've made the time. :)
I don’t recall any edits to my original post or subsequent replies. Aside from minor spelling repairs, I try to flag all edits with inline “Update” clarification for just this reason.
My interpretation:
Newton: I've reached the limit of what current science can tell me. Here are some religious statements that I use to provide a comforting explanation (note: no science claimed or implied).
ID pseudoscience: Since science has no detailed explanation for [insert pet biological system here], we must therefore conclude that God... er, scratch that... some intelligent designer (wink, wink) must be responsible, even though there's no positive evidence for that conclusion.
Except for the fact that Newton made such comments in his scientific writings, and outside quotes from his contemporaries show that they understood exactly what his beliefs, methods and purposes were. I’m not asking you to beg the question and squeeze in your current redefinition of science. I’m asking you to recognize the definition of science/scientist in use before Darwinism changed the rules.
Nice job sneaking in the “pseudoscience” reference with the begged question, by the way. You’re making my point. Was Newton a pseudoscientist?
Newton: Science has the capacity to tell us about the natural universe. Mechanistic explanations don't apply beyond the natural universe.
ID Pseudoscience: The current scientific explanations of biological diversity are in conflict with our intuitions and/or religious beliefs, therefore we reject those explanations in favor of an unscientific one. (note: your ID statement is completely divorced from Newton's sentiment. Newton's "first cause" has no connection to ID's god-of-the-gaps.
Wow. Nice job inserting a straw man into the mix with ID. It’s almost offensive how you lump the group, insert desired motive, and dismiss. Seems par for the course. I also find it ironic that you continue to claim ID as a god-of-the gaps, yet accept the neoDarwinian answer to any question that, “natural selection did it.”
It is completely divorced? Did you even READ Newton’s quotes? He went as far as to infer our responsibility to Him!
As an aside, what makes you think ID's proposed designer is "the ultimate cause"? Why rule out a super-advanced race of beings dropping the seeds of life on the earth?
They don’t. I find it interesting that Dawkins doesn’t either. So, now that Dawkins in an IDer (see his interview at the end of "Expelled..."), is ID science?
” One is ill-advised to try to create a separation between Newton’s definition of science and ID’s.”
Well, you just presented an argument for such a separation yourself! Your ID movement excludes (well, publicly at least) from science such explicit religious statements as Newton's, yet you seem eager to include Newton's creationism as part of his science. So, according to your statement above, would you agree that ID "serves an apologetical purpose" for its proponents?
Did I? Both allow for the possibility of supernatural causation. ID is not dogmatic about who or what that may be. I actually made the point myself when I said, “It’s apparent that ID actually stops shorter than even Newton did, in that they refuse to identify the ultimate cause, while Newton went as far as inferring our responsibility to Him.”
Come now, dear sir. Be true to my points.
He most certainly did NOT say that metaphysical or occult qualities could be deduced from the evidence.
He didn’t? Wow, I’m not sure how you could possible make that assertion. He did say that hypothesis (of whichever variety) has no place in the philosophy of science when not deduced from the evidence. But he made no point about supernatural causation that IS inferred from the evidence. He made no distinction. That’s my point. He just said that what is inferred from the evidence should be rendered as particular.
Now, I find it disconcerting what you’re willing to put in a dead man’s mouth after he obviously made such a particular inference: “what is the first cause, what power he has over us, and what benefits we receive from him," so that "our duty towards him, as well as that towards one another will appear to us by the light of nature.
Let's see if I have the argument straight: a type of biological complexity (human intelligence) is the only known cause of manufactured complexity, therefore a supernatural intelligent agency must be responsible for biological complexity. It's a non sequitur, as I'd like to think Newton would agree.
Wow. That was pretty cool. I have this nagging feeling that I’ve seen it before and answered it, but it’s still cool every time I see it.
No. The idea is that where an effect is known, a sufficient cause is needed. Time and chance are not sufficient causes. Now, as cool as yours was, I have a cool one too.
Darwin wrote: “With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" (Life and Letters 1:315-16).
Mull that one over. For now, I’ll stop there because we’ve already covered this, and I’d like to stay close to our topic at hand. In fairness, I’ll post this topic in its own http://faithwellgrounded.org/apologetics/nother-rational-response-ration... " post so we can give it more attention.
There's that false dualism rearing its ugly head again! Neo-Darwinism does not propose a negative argument against a designer, it simply refuses to address supernatural causes that can't be observed or otherwise verified.
Um… I’s sorry, but that’s just plain untrue. You’ve made that assertion before, and I won’t let you get away with it this time either. You’ve actually defended the Darwinian claim on here before, and now you claim that it’s not made. You can’t have it both ways. If Darwinism can claim that what we have now was the result of an unguided, blind process, then it can’t deny the veracity of ID claiming that it wasn’t such a blind, unguided process.
Current science does not claim that a guiding hand wasn't involved, just that if it existed it left no evidence behind.
So, you’re allowing this neoDarwinian dance while claiming above that ID only superficially denies religious implications? Quite the double-standard you have there. Actually, while some of the official descriptions have been edited, every textbook I’ve seen and every evolutionist I read continues to claim that the processes are blind and unguided. In their actual writings, they don’t seem to spli this hair that you continue to try to split. I’m sorry, but it’s wearing a bit thin. If you are so sold out on evolution, then trust it and present it as it is commonly posed.
Neo-Darwinism gives voice to these absolutes? Please show me where a journal or textbook says that god does not exist, or absolutely did not have had a hand in biological development. The absence of mentioning a supernatural possibility is not the same as claiming an absence of the supernatural.
Oh, please stop being coy. You are the one that has been on here defining “blind” for us. As a matter of fact, you’re the one that spent an entire thread educating me on what was meant by evolution being “undirected”. I’ll refresh your memory:
“But the directions you cite are predetermined, and your travel is directed towards a compass point as a goal. Evolution has no predetermined goal, just survival. That can take a population in many directions, depending on the conditions.”
That was you, dogg. I’m sorry, but you’re in severe danger of losing credibility if you insist on playing this as coy as you are.
I’ve got no problem with someone using science to promote (or criticize) a particular religion, provided that it’s good science. The object is still religion, which by definition rests firmly on faith.
I would vehemently disagree with that. The Christian religion is based on faith and historical evidence left by God-become-man, leaving His fingerprint in our history. But that’s not an evolutionary subject, so I won’t digress.
Take care, bro...
Took a little more time myself
I’ve been ruminating on this one for a little while, trying to let your points soak in. Maybe the clarification below will bring us to an understanding, or maybe it’s just a problem of definitions that we’ll never reconcile. Anyway, I’ve quoted you as always, but for readability I’ve included some of my own previous quotes. In such cases, I’ve drawn a line between the two quotations—those above are mine, while yours are below.
Except for the fact that Newton made such comments in his scientific writings, and outside quotes from his contemporaries show that they understood exactly what his beliefs, methods and purposes were. I’m not asking you to beg the question and squeeze in your current redefinition of science. I’m asking you to recognize the definition of science/scientist in use before Darwinism changed the rules.
So, if I’m understanding you correctly, you’re saying that because Newton added what we today would consider unscientific statements into his writings on science, that he would (and we SHOULD) consider those statements to be PART OF his science? I don’t think the facts support that view. I don’t dispute the writings, but there is a clear divide between the experimental science (“natural philosophy”) and the religious philosophy (“moral philosophy”) within the same document.
Keep in mind that Newton was writing in a time when church and state were yet still intertwined. Academic pursuits were greatly supported by the powerful church organization, which obviously would not have taken offense to a bit of their philosophy sprinkled into the conclusions (and indeed were known to encourage such).
Darwinism changed the rules? When exactly did this happen? Why do you attribute the change solely to Darwinism?
Nice job sneaking in the “pseudoscience” reference with the begged question, by the way. You’re making my point. Was Newton a pseudoscientist?
What an odd question. Newton practiced experimental science, which makes him a scientist. He also promoted Christian philosophy (among other things). That makes him a Christian. As with any man, one can hang many labels on him. His distinction from contemporary ID lies in the fact that he did not promote religious ideas AS science, even when they were offered among his writings of “experimental philosophy.”
Wow. Nice job inserting a straw man into the mix with ID. It’s almost offensive how you lump the group, insert desired motive, and dismiss.
While I’ll admit that it’s a sweeping generalization, there’s plenty of evidence to support my description of IDers as a group. The Dover trial transcript is a good place to start. If you dispute that, all you need to provide is convincing evidence to the contrary.
I also find it ironic that you continue to claim ID as a god-of-the gaps, yet accept the neoDarwinian answer to any question that, “natural selection did it.”
I apologize if I gave you the impression that I accept natural selection as the answer to every biological question. While it is powerful, there are other forces at work in the world too. That’s really just a distraction from my god-of-the-gaps quip, which still stands. Wherever they can find a gap in the current explanation of origins of a biological system, and IDer will be there to say, “God… er, um, The Designer was here!”
It is completely divorced? Did you even READ Newton’s quotes? He went as far as to infer our responsibility to Him!
D-i-v-o-r-c-e. (With apologies to Tammy Wynette.) I’ve read the quotes. They are not science (or “experimental philosophy”) nor are they claimed to be. Read some of Newton’s work directly and you’ll see a very distinct difference between his evangelism and his mathematics. The two are easily separable by the reader, even though Newton put them in the same books, which wasn’t against the custom.
They don’t. I find it interesting that Dawkins doesn’t either. So, now that Dawkins in an IDer (see his interview at the end of "Expelled..."), is ID science?
Was Dawkins making a scientific argument for ID? If not, why on earth would you call him an IDer? This gets to the root of our discussion: Just because he’s a scientist doesn’t mean everything he says is scientific. Same goes for Newton.
Oh, and my question wasn’t about IDers in general; it was specifically directed to you. I’m aware that some IDers publicly claim to be open to the possibility of a non-deity designer, but curiously this claim didn’t appear before 1987. Just as curious, no ID proponent has given an ounce of effort towards investigating a non-deity designer. If the designer might be non-supernatural, then it should be subject to observation and experiment, no?
”Well, you just presented an argument for such a separation yourself!”
--------------------------------------
Did I? Both allow for the possibility of supernatural causation.
One is explicit about that causation, and the other isn’t (lately). By arguing that Newton’s statements are a form of ID science, and that the modern form of ID cannot be separated from Newton, you’ve actually made the religious connection for me! Lucky for you, I’m trying to break that connection by showing that Newton’s evangelism wasn’t intended as science.
”He most certainly did NOT say that metaphysical or occult qualities could be deduced from the evidence.”
--------------------------------------
He didn’t? Wow, I’m not sure how you could possible make that assertion.
Easy, I read what the man wrote. I didn’t find anything about metaphysical or occult qualities being deduced from evidence, though there’s plenty of opinion about them. Don’t agree? Just show me where he does say we can deduce metaphysical and/or occult qualities from evidence (notice I didn’t write “lack of evidence”).
A few of his statements to chew on:
“Physics, beware of metaphysics!”
“Such occult qualities put a stop to the improvement of natural philosophy, and therefore of late years have been rejected. To tell us that every species of things is endowed with an occult specific quality by which it acts and produces manifest effects, is to tell us nothing.”
That pretty much sums up anti-ID sentiment, and he did it 200 years before ID existed.
But he made no point about supernatural causation that IS inferred from the evidence.
Good. We are in agreement, then.
Now, I find it disconcerting what you’re willing to put in a dead man’s mouth after he obviously made such a particular inference: “what is the first cause, what power he has over us, and what benefits we receive from him," so that "our duty towards him, as well as that towards one another will appear to us by the light of nature.
Are you claiming that’s a scientific inference from the evidence? I’d call it one scientist’s philosophical inference. Put that quote in context and you’ll see that he’s speculating about the effect of a perfected “Natural Philosophy” upon “Moral Philosophy”.
The idea is that where an effect is known, a sufficient cause is needed. Time and chance are not sufficient causes.
OK, so we’re looking for a cause. Check. That’s the essence of scientific inquiry. I’ve got not problem with your second sentence, either, but I’m a bit confused that you feel the need to mention it. Where has anyone said mere “time and chance” is a cause? Are you still feeling offended by straw-man arguments, because I’d swear it’s starting to smell like a barn here.
Now, where’s the rest? Where’s the positive case for attributing a Designer as the cause? Your presentation is nothing more than a gap of understanding. Are you proposing we fill it with something?
”There's that false dualism rearing its ugly head again! Neo-Darwinism does not propose a negative argument against a designer, it simply refuses to address supernatural causes that can't be observed or otherwise verified.”
--------------------------------------
Um… I’s sorry, but that’s just plain untrue. You’ve made that assertion before, and I won’t let you get away with it this time either. You’ve actually defended the Darwinian claim on here before, and now you claim that it’s not made. You can’t have it both ways. If Darwinism can claim that what we have now was the result of an unguided, blind process, then it can’t deny the veracity of ID claiming that it wasn’t such a blind, unguided process.
Huh? I don’t follow you here. Darwinism merely presents an explanation that best fits the facts as we have them. Your Designer isn’t addressed because evidence of Him is absent. How is that an argument against Him? All it says about Him is that if He was here He didn’t leave any footprints. If you’ve got evidence of those footprints, then by all means, let’s have it.
If you’ll check my previous arguments against a Designer, you’ll find them to be against a specific claim of Designer intervention, and NOT against the existence of a Designer. There’s a big difference.
So, you’re allowing this neoDarwinian dance while claiming above that ID only superficially denies religious implications? Quite the double-standard you have there.
The dance is as straight-forward as a mechanistic waltz. “Religious implications” are in the eye of the beholder. True science is silent on those questions. Are you suggesting it shouldn’t be? If scientific conclusions conflict with your religion, you’ll have to decide where you come down. This harkens back to Newton’s ideas about planetary motion. Where do you think he’d land on that one were he alive today?
Actually, while some of the official descriptions have been edited, every textbook I’ve seen and every evolutionist I read continues to claim that the processes are blind and unguided.
That’s because the processes being described have no evidence of oversight or guiding component. That is not the same as saying there couldn’t be one, just that there’s no evidence suggesting one was directly responsible for the thing being explained, and no gaps in the explanation (yet found) that require one (please note that I did not say there aren’t gaps).
In their actual writings, they don’t seem to spli this hair that you continue to try to split. I’m sorry, but it’s wearing a bit thin.
What would you have them do? Should they write, “Here’s an explanation of nature in completely scientific terms. Now, remember kids, science doesn’t deal with the supernatural or unobservable or occult, so don’t forget about the Big Man upstairs. He could’ve done all this with a snap of His fingers and we’d be none the wiser.” Would that help you sleep at night?
If the scientific explanations offend your religious beliefs, that’s a personal dilemma only you can resolve. The scientific method has a clear line of demarcation that it can’t cross. Unfortunately, some personal religious beliefs cross that line the other way, which produces conflict. Newton’s beliefs about planetary motion are an example. Are you just as upset about physics textbooks that describe solar system movements in purely mechanistic terms without allowing for a Designer’s intervention to keep everything in line?
Oh, please stop being coy. You are the one that has been on here defining “blind” for us. As a matter of fact, you’re the one that spent an entire thread educating me on what was meant by evolution being “undirected”.
You used the word “absolutes.” Nothing about scientific explanations is absolute. My description you quote is about currently accepted scientific concepts. It wasn’t that long ago when they weren’t even considered. In the future they may be discarded. If you can’t grasp that, you need to revisit your concept of science.
Alright, we’ve slogged through a bunch of stuff here. I’ve offended with straw men and been questioned on reading comprehension. I’ve desecrated the dead and been called a liar. I’m a sell-out for evolution and losing credibility through deliberate coyness. You know what? I’m fine with all that. I’m trying (though sometimes failing) to keep my discourse on the issue at hand.
I’ve been accused of “begging the question” multiple times, but what I really would like are some answers. Here are just a few I’m still waiting for:
- Why would ID explicitly stop short of examining the designer that they say is so obviously suggested by the evidence? Please show me just a shred of evidence dating this tenet of ID to a time before the Edwards v. Aguillard case.
- Do YOU think it’s a scientific conclusion to equate ID's proposed designer and "the ultimate cause"?
- Would you agree that ID "serves an apologetical purpose" for its proponents?
- Can you show me where a science journal or textbook explicitly says that god does not exist, or ABSOLUTELY did not have had a hand in any biological development?
Dogg, I'd like to just reply
Dogg, I'd like to just reply to a few of your points.
As to Newton... You're actually getting to my main point in this discussion with your comments to the "customs" at Newton's time. The custom was that science was allowed as science and good science would be separated from the bad science by whether it held up. It was not a Nazi-ish regime trying to keep people such as Newton, who practiced his science from the perspective of a designer and gave that designer preeminence in his scientific practice, from practicing science. The cultural change has been to establish a "true Scottsman" approach that is unhealthy for the process.
As to:
"Huh? I don’t follow you here. Darwinism merely presents an explanation that best fits the facts as we have them. Your Designer isn’t addressed because evidence of Him is absent. How is that an argument against Him? All it says about Him is that if He was here He didn’t leave any footprints. If you’ve got evidence of those footprints, then by all means, let’s have it."
You've negated ID science from speaking of the designer while allowing Darwinian science to speak to his absence. I was pointing out the double standard. Why is it a valid subject matter for evolution (to deny) and not a valid subject for ID claims/study? You actually started answering this point immediately following this quote with:
That’s because the processes being described have no evidence of oversight or guiding component....
and ended with...
Can you show me where a science journal or textbook explicitly says that god does not exist, or ABSOLUTELY did not have had a hand in any biological development?
And as to your ending... Wow. Now you're changing the criteria aren't you. Let's be fair. Elsewhere you wrote:
That’s because the processes being described have no evidence of oversight or guiding component. That is not the same as saying there couldn’t be one, just that there’s no evidence suggesting one was directly responsible for the thing being explained, and no gaps in the explanation (yet found) that require one (please note that I did not say there aren’t gaps).
(see below. There's a BIG difference between not talking on the subject and making positive claims)
and
What would you have them do? Should they write, “Here’s an explanation of nature in completely scientific terms. Now, remember kids, science doesn’t deal with the supernatural or unobservable or occult, so don’t forget about the Big Man upstairs. He could’ve done all this with a snap of His fingers and we’d be none the wiser.” Would that help you sleep at night?
Instead of giving you assurances that I sleep fine at night, let me just give you examples of Evolutionary textbooks making positive statements on subjects that they claim ID should not speak on. How's that?
“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products.M Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed.. D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)
Hmmm... I'd love to see their evidence that philosophical materialism is true, that matter is all that exists, that evolution is positively purposeless, heartless, that the human mind is a mass of evolving neurons and nothing more... Lot's of positive claims there, huh? Now, why was that allowed in a scientific textbook when the opposing viewpoint is not?
“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.) (from the cover, "...Evolutionary Biology is the most comprehensive textbook in its field")
“Of course, no species has chosen a strategy. Rather, its ancestors little by little, generation after generation merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. [J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)
“Nothing consciously chooses what is selected. Nature is not a conscious agent who chooses what will be selected. There is no long term goal, for nothing is involved that could conceive of a goal.”
(Evolution: An Introduction by Stephen C. Stearns & Rolf F. Hoeckstra, pg. 30 (2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2005).)
So, ID is negated the ability to claim a consciousness, but evolution is allowed the ability to deny it? If the subject is off-limits...?
As to your specific questions:
- Why would ID explicitly stop short of examining the designer that they say is so obviously suggested by the evidence? Please show me just a shred of evidence dating this tenet of ID to a time before the Edwards v. Aguillard case.
Perhaps they feel that the evidence doesn't infer the "who". I guess you'll have to write Mr. Behe, et al and ask them. As a matter of fact, that was the answer he gave in Black Box, 10 year edition, as I mentioned above.
I'm not interested in dating ID. I'm sorry. I don't find this a very compelling subject matter. Whether you attribute motives or not, ID is refusing to attribute a name to the designer, as well I feel they should refuse to do so. Now, back on topic... Did you read the textbook quotes? Why is it that ID is scientifically banned from speaking on these matters and evolutionary textbooks aren't?
Do YOU think it’s a scientific conclusion to equate ID's proposed designer and "the ultimate cause"?
I believe that it is a perfectly valid philosophical inference based on what we know scientifically of the reality around us. Thus, I believe that scientific pursuits based on that inference are valid science.
Would you agree that ID "serves an apologetical purpose" for its proponents?
I believe that it could be used for that purpose. I also believe that you're in a danger zone if you seek to ascribe that purpose to all ID scientists against their "will" if they make assurances otherwise. I'm positive Dawkins' motives as a scientist don't carry over to every evolutionist. It seems appropriate to extend the same respect to both camps.
Can you show me where a science journal or textbook explicitly says that god does not exist, or ABSOLUTELY did not have had a hand in any biological development?
See above.
And, again, you're skirting my point. My point is that evolutionary science is making positive claims on subjects they claim ID has no scientific basis to make their own claims about.
I would also invite you to read my newest post. I find it interesting that in Darwinian Evolution, we have a scientific theory that introduces the philosophical necessity that the scientific process is untrustworthy.
As always, I appreciate your input.
Germ Theory, Lamarckism, and Shakespeare
The custom was that science was allowed as science and good science would be separated from the bad science by whether it held up.
As it is today. Nothing ID has yet provided has “held up.”
It was not a Nazi-ish regime trying to keep people such as Newton, who practiced his science from the perspective of a designer and gave that designer preeminence in his scientific practice, from practicing science.
[emphasis added]
I dispute the part in bold. Your “Nazi” comment betrays excessive viewings of Stein and/or readings of Coulter. I’ll refrain from invoking Godwin’s Law, however. It is absurd to think Newton would be prevented from practicing science today. He would be expected to remove the (easily separated) “moral philosophy” from academic science publications, though he might choose to include it as part of popular works, or submissions on theology or philosophy. Quite a chilling Final Solution, huh?
You've negated ID science from speaking of the designer
No I haven’t, nor has anyone else. ID isn’t excluded because it speaks of a Designer, it’s excluded because it promotes an idea without any evidence. Anything that does not rest on empirical evidence is excluded from science.
Why is it a valid subject matter for evolution (to deny) and not a valid subject for ID claims/study?
Is it valid for medical science to describe the causes of disease without allowing equal time to those that claim spirits are responsible? Is it valid for physics to describe planetary motion without staying open to the possibility of Newton’s ideas of Creator intervention? Are these examples a denial of the supernatural? I think you’re confusing the removal of God from a known and observed process with the absolute removal of God.
Wow. Now you're changing the criteria aren't you. Let's be fair.
??? What criteria have I changed?
Hmmm... I'd love to see their evidence that philosophical materialism is true, that matter is all that exists,
I will agree that the passage quoted is poorly written (at best) and somewhat out of place in a scientific textbook. I will also point out that the context of these statements is historical and in a section titled “Philosophical ramifications.” I don’t believe the intent is to say that philosophical materialism is a prerequisite for accepting evolution, but rather that people in Darwin’s day would’ve taken that view. The statements as written are also directly contradicted by the last paragraph in that same section:
Darwin remained to the end a devout, if somewhat unorthodox, Christian. “I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of anyone,” he wrote.
Now, why was that allowed in a scientific textbook when the opposing viewpoint is not?
I would say neither have a place there, as did the co-author, Miller. He has stated clear objections to this and a few other of Levine’s ill-formed contributions, resulting in their removal from later editions.
“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
In other words, he provided a scientific explanation of the development of life’s variety that doesn’t require an occult component. The same could be said for the discoveries of planetary motion since Newton’s day, or the germ theory of disease. That does not equate to saying, “God does not exist,” or “God absolutely did not intervene.” I don’t have the context of the above, but it’s obviously history-of-science stuff. You may find the words “undirected”, “purposeless”, and “uncaring” to be loaded, but I would expect that these were intentionally chosen to contrast with the prevailing viewpoints of the day.
“Of course, no species has chosen a strategy. Rather, its ancestors little by little, generation after generation merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. [J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
This is a description of the process of evolution. It’s not a denial of god. The intent is to break students of the common misconceptions that evolution always moves in a linear fashion, from simple to complex, from primitive to advanced, in a direction towards a goal. I suspect context would bear this out, but I cannot provide it at this time.
“Nothing consciously chooses what is selected. Nature is not a conscious agent who chooses what will be selected. There is no long term goal, for nothing is involved that could conceive of a goal.”
Again, a description of the process to go against the intuition of a goal-directed movement. This is used to contrast evolution with Lamarckism and orthogenesis.
So, ID is negated the ability to claim a consciousness, but evolution is allowed the ability to deny it? If the subject is off-limits...?
The quotes above (with the exception of the first) are all descriptions processes that are elsewhere supported by evidence. Why should such descriptions include a consciousness component absent of evidence? Why aren’t you complaining about the current descriptions of planetary motion that lack the consciousness component endorsed by Newton, or germ theory?
I presume your quote list was selected from the somewhat longer list compiled by Casey Luskin and widely disseminated around the ‘net. You’ll have to pardon my suspicion of the context-free content. Mr. Luskin has a long track record of unabashed quote misrepresentation.
Perhaps they feel that the evidence doesn't infer the "who"…I'm not interested in dating ID. I'm sorry. I don't find this a very compelling subject matter. Whether you attribute motives or not, ID is refusing to attribute a name to the designer, as well I feel they should refuse to do so.
Not compelling? Judge Jones found it VERY compelling. Do you honestly dispute the motivations I’m purporting? Ignoring the question won’t make the implications go away.
I believe that it is a perfectly valid philosophical inference based on what we know scientifically of the reality around us. Thus, I believe that scientific pursuits based on that inference are valid science.
I’m having a bit of trouble reconciling that statement with: “as well I feel they should refuse [to attribute a name to the designer].” Your “ultimate cause” is OK science as long as it’s unnamed? A rose by any other name (or none at all)…
I also believe that you're in a danger zone if you seek to ascribe that purpose to all ID scientists against their "will" if they make assurances otherwise.
I’ll stay out of the danger zone and just claim that the vast majority of ID proponents approach their “science” by beginning with their conclusion and working backwards from there. I’m sure you might claim the same of evolutionary biologists, but that just isn’t the case. Their conclusions are based on the available evidence. No evidence of a Designer means no Designer in the scientific conclusion. Keep in mind that evolution was proposed during a time when most scientists were creationists, and yet the evidence was convincing enough to change many of their minds.
Just in the effort to bring
Just in the effort to bring this to a bit of a close...
Ir sounds to me as though you claim ID speaks on the subject of purpose with no evidence, thus must refrain, yet these scientific textbooks speak on the subject of purpose with evidence?
It sounds as though this is your argument. (Note, stop confusing the matter with absolute claims about God's existence. We're talking about purpose.)
Now, ID says, "Hey, there's no way this happened by chance."
You say, Give me the evidence."
Evolution says, "It was unguided. It had no purpose."
Now, I'd sure love to see the evidence you must be relying on to support that claim. Because it's the same subject they're both speaking on, and you're defending one's right to speak on it while claiming the other has no basis. You sure have gone a long way from the claim that they just don't speak on the subjects where they have no evidence to speak on.
PS: We covered the negative evidence argument.
I'll leave the last word here for you. This subject is becoming exhausted, and I unfortunately truly am constrained by other matters.
Thanks.