Judge Jones III, may I approach the bench?
In my recent defense of Dr. Michael J. Behe, I revisited the court transcripts of the Dover trial and it struck me that there was a lot of philosophy being doled out in the name of the law. Now, please bear in mind that this post isn't written to answer whether it's right for the bench to be used to choose between philosophies. This post is written to point out that Judge Jones' philosophy was just bad.
After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. (p. 64)
ID is not science. Now, first, I appreciate the fact that the judge tried to add new reason that ID is not science, because the old one (that is unfortunately still peddled in full public view, i.e. the judge's point # 1) has proven a resounding problem for evolution as science.
I'd like to just make a few points of my own about the judge's points:
(1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation;
Centuries old? That seems odd, since the mandate is recently formed, around the time of Darwin as a matter of fact. The judge is not a very good historian, since he doesn't seem aware of the philosophic leanings of the fathers of modern science-- from Copernicus to Newton, between and beyond...
The question was similarly framed in a letter to the House of Representatives by neo-Darwinian scientists at Baylor and replied to by the Indiana representative, and I'll quote his response in part:
Nevertheless, many of us continue to be concerned about the unreasoning viewpoint discrimination in science. This letter dismisses those who do not share the philosophy of science favored by the authors as frauds. It is ironic, however, that the authors do not ever actually get around to answering the substantive arguments put forward by people at the Discovery Institute. The authors support a philosophy of science they call materialistic science. The key phrase in the letter is that we cannot consider God's role in the natural phenomenon we observe. Yet this assumption is merely asserted without any argument.
...
In addition, the philosophy of science the authors talk about is just that, a philosophy. It is not itself science, even according to the definition of science put forward by the authors themselves. They state, for example, that all observations must be explained through empirical observations. I am not sure what that means but I do know this: This statement itself is not verifiable by observation or by methods of scientific inquiry. It is rather a philosophical statement.
(as relayed at Bill Dembski's: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2007.12.MPC_Rise_and_Fall.htm)
On to point 2...
(2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and
This point denies a "dualism" between ID and naturalistic evolution. This is important, because the judge contradicts himself in his own findings, per:
(3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.
Here, he describes the dualism that he just claimed doesn't exist. So, basically what we have here is that point one chose one philosophical view over another (possible in part due to a huge misunderstanding of science history?) In any event, point one chooses one philosophy over another. Point (2) denies a dualism between the two philosophies. Point (3) reaffirms the choice between the two because the chosen philosophy doesn't accept the philosophy in question (i.e. a definition of the duialism that point 2 denied).
Maybe in later posts I'll have the time to jot a few more lines about the "refutation" that the judge erroneously concluded against ID. Maybe I'll post about the unmistakable peer review of Dembski's "Design Inference"...
Technorati Tags: - ‹ previous
- 52 of 56
- next ›
Syndicate
Overruled!
Centuries old? That seems odd, since the mandate is recently formed, around the time of Darwin as a matter of fact.
Well, Ibn al-Haytham, who lived during the 10th and 11th centuries, is known to some as the "first scientist" for his formulation of the scientific method. That method has no mention of the supernatural in the experimental process.
The judge is not a very good historian, since he doesn't seem aware of the philosophic leanings of the fathers of modern science-- from Copernicus to Newton, between and beyond...
He never said that scientists couldn't or shouldn't be theists, did he?
This point denies a "dualism" between ID and naturalistic evolution.
He is saying that the dualism promoted by ID is "contrived." Basically, ID says that since evolution can't explain X, then ID is the only other answer.
Here, he describes the dualism that he just claimed doesn't exist.
Actually, he's saying that even if the dualism did exist, the negative arguments have been shown to be wrong anyway. So, even if it were true that if evolution can't explain X, then ID wins by default, evolution has been shown to adequately explain X.
So, basically what we have here is that point one chose one philosophical view over another (possible in part due to a huge misunderstanding of science history?) In any event, point one chooses one philosophy over another.
Point (1) just lays down the widely accepted definition of science. If one chooses your other definition, it's no longer science.
Point (2) denies a dualism between the two philosophies.
Correct. Disproving evolution does not prove ID.
Point (3) reaffirms the choice between the two because the chosen philosophy doesn't accept the philosophy in question (i.e. a definition of the duialism that point 2 denied).
No, it says even if you take out point (2) and assume a dualism, ID still loses. The part about acceptance within the scientific community is only loosely related to point (3). It is making the point that if ID's arguments against evolution were valid, then one would expect the scientific community to at least begin to embrace them. I realize you might take issue with this expectation, but that's beyond the substance of point (3).
Sorry, you're overreaching your authority...
Well, Ibn al-Haytham, who lived during the 10th and 11th centuries, is known to some as the "first scientist" for his formulation of the scientific method. That method has no mention of the supernatural in the experimental process.
Actually I was reading a lot about him a few weeks ago, about the time I made the comments about Christianity's influence on modern science. And, the fact that he made no mention of the supernatural is a pretty good indication that he made no mention of excluding it as a potential causal force-- especially considering that he was a Muslim with a creation framework for beliefs. I think you'll need to dig around elsewhere to validate your philosophical boundaries on science.
He never said that scientists couldn't or shouldn't be theists, did he?
No. He said basically that the allowance of supernatural causation wasn't science. Every accepted founder of our modern scientific discipline worked within this framework (of supernatural causal allowance), spoke of this causation in their scientific writings, and many even used their scientific writings as a platform for Christian apologetics.
You'll have to dig elsewhere...
He is saying that the dualism promoted by ID is "contrived." Basically, ID says that since evolution can't explain X, then ID is the only other answer.
Then he should revisit ID's claims. I have the books from almost all of them. Their contention is that natural selection is incapable of producing the awesome variety of life we see today. neo-Darwinism says that it is. That is a dualism. If ID proves itself correct, it will have disproved neo-Darwinism. If it doesn't then it hasn't. But to claim that there is no dualism is asinine.
(Further, at the very least, Dembski is offering a testable mathematical model for positive ID claims. Is it valid? I don't know. I start reading his first book today and plan to continue through to his most recent stuff. But it is a positive model that should be testable. So, your point is at least slightly misdirected.)
Actually, he's saying that even if the dualism did exist, the negative arguments have been shown to be wrong anyway. So, even if it were true that if evolution can't explain X, then ID wins by default, evolution has been shown to adequately explain X.
i.e. he described a dualism after claiming it doesn't exist. Then he claims that ID is refuted after claiming that it is not refutable (thus isn't science). I'm amazed. ID critics seem to love cake, because they want to keep it and eat it too.
Point (1) just lays down the widely accepted definition of science. If one chooses your other definition, it's no longer science.
Because it is widely accepted does not mean that it isn't one philosophical acceptance over another. It isn't scientific. It isn't empirical. It is just an argument to the masses/authority and is a non-point. I remind you again that science got along very well for centuries before the definition was changed to protect the "new" blood of academia. As a matter of fact, my understanding is that science was defined as trying to refute and continually test itself. That doesn't happen with today's pet axiom. It is protected at all costs. And THAT is what is unscientific.
Correct. Disproving evolution does not prove ID.
I wish you would quit equivocating and make sure that we stay honest when dealing with ID's claims. They are not trying to disprove "evolution". (If you take the time to read the body of their work, you'll see that they accept "evolution".) They are claiming that natural selection is incapable of producing the incredible variety of life that we see today. Disproving that natural selection (the blind, non-rational process) is capable of such production of variation either proves design or sends neo-Darwinists back to the drawing board for a new blind, non-rational process, sans rational intent. Either is appropriate if natural selection is disproved. The question is whether it is disprovable under the current paradigm when science is defined in such a way that the tautology is protected.
And, again... ID is proposing a mathematical model for testing design. Please stop claiming that it is nothing but negative argumentation. (Behe only asks that they prove a positive when they actually require that he prove a negative. Who is being more sensible?)
No, it says even if you take out point (2) and assume a dualism, ID still loses. The part about acceptance within the scientific community is only loosely related to point (3). It is making the point that if ID's arguments against evolution were valid, then one would expect the scientific community to at least begin to embrace them. I realize you might take issue with this expectation, but that's beyond the substance of point (3).
Is that what it says? I won't beat what you will surely figure is yet another dead horse, since I covered most of this above. I will recap, though...
The redefinition of science is very recent, as science goes, so the current assertion of the definition is nothing more than an a priori philosophical acceptance that is neither empirical nor scientific. It is a... preference.
The judge claimed a positive lack of duality between ID and the neo-Darwin establishment. But ID's claims, if true, would disprove neo-Darwinian establishment. It is a true duality.
After claiming the lack of duality, the judge described the duality. You are free to read in an "even if it was" clause if you desire. I found none. In any case, it is irrelevant since the duality exists. Further in the point, the judge claimed that ID is refuted after insinuating that it is irrefutable. You too claimed it refuted after claiming it irrefutable (untestable, non-science). Further, after claiming that "evolution" (let's properly call it "natural selection" that is in question, and not "evolution"-- anyway...) After claiming that proving evolution is a too much to ask, you have stated that evolution (i.e. natural selection as the mechanism of creating the vast varieties of life on Earth) is proven and thus disproves ID claims (again... after claiming it wasn't a duality?).
There is a duality. Defining science against supernatural causation isn't science. (For the record, ID is careful to not specify who the designer is. Just that it was a designer. It may be alien, supernatural...? ID doesn't try to say.) ID is not refuted. And you (and the judge) have done noting more than argue to authority.
Sorry, that's where it stands.
This whole court's out of order!
the fact that he made no mention of the supernatural is a pretty good indication that he made no mention of excluding it as a potential causal force-- especially considering that he was a Muslim with a creation framework for beliefs.
So supernatural (by definition, unrepeatable) causes are included *by default* in a process that relies on exprimentation and observation? That's rich!
Every accepted founder of our modern scientific discipline worked within this framework (of supernatural causal allowance), spoke of this causation in their scientific writings, and many even used their scientific writings as a platform for Christian apologetics.
You seem to gloss over the fact that they do not invoke the supernatural as a *scientific* explanation. They don't include the supernatural in the scientific process, they merely supplement the science with philosophical statements to cover the unknown.
Their contention is that natural selection is incapable of producing the awesome variety of life we see today. neo-Darwinism says that it is. That is a dualism. If ID proves itself correct, it will have disproved neo-Darwinism. If it doesn't then it hasn't. But to claim that there is no dualism is asinine.
What does ID say beyond "natural selection is incapable..." and goddidit? Is there anything testable beyond the negative arguments? If the negative arguments prove true, is ID the *only* other answer?
Further, at the very least, Dembski is offering a testable mathematical model for positive ID claims.
From what I've seen, it boils down to: check the probability of all the hypotheses we can think of, and if they're all sufficiently low, we can infer design. I'm pretty sure his filter has been applied to many things and shown to at least sometimes give incorrect results.
Because it is widely accepted does not mean that it isn't one philosophical acceptance over another.
Keep in mind the context here: teaching ID in public school. Your expanded definition of science to allow consideration of supernatural causation runs afoul of standing legislation, whether you like it or not.
the definition was changed to protect the "new" blood of academia.
Your assumption of the motivation for the current definition of science is unsupported.
Disproving that natural selection (the blind, non-rational process) is capable of such production of variation either proves design or sends neo-Darwinists back to the drawing board for a new blind, non-rational process, sans rational intent. Either is appropriate if natural selection is disproved.
There's that contrived dualism again. Natural selection fails, so design wins by default! What? No, we don't have to consider any other possibilities! That's up to the heathen evolutionists to figure out.
ID is proposing a mathematical model for testing design. Please stop claiming that it is nothing but negative argumentation. (Behe only asks that they prove a positive when they actually require that he prove a negative. Who is being more sensible?)
I'll stop the negative argument claim when a testable positive argument is provided.
After claiming that proving evolution is a too much to ask, you have stated that evolution (i.e. natural selection as the mechanism of creating the vast varieties of life on Earth) is proven and thus disproves ID claims (again... after claiming it wasn't a duality?).
Huh? I never said proving evolution is too much to ask. I said Behe's specific burden of proof for certain IC systems is unreasonable.
Please try to keep up on the duality thing: ID folks contrived the duality because the only testable arguments they could muster are negative arguments against evolution. Those have been refuted, but the religious central tenent can never be.
Defining science against supernatural causation isn't science.
When the scientific method deals with empirical evidence, experimentation, and repeatability, where exactly does supernatural causation fit in?
(For the record, ID is careful to not specify who the designer is. Just that it was a designer. It may be alien, supernatural...? ID doesn't try to say.)
They do that for a very good reason: because they got their butt handed to them by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987. ID was born as a direct result of that ruling, something that the Dover trial made very clear.
Creationism - God = ID.
So supernatural (by
So supernatural (by definition, unrepeatable) causes are included *by default* in a process that relies on exprimentation and observation? That's rich!
If that's where the empirical evidence leads. To disallow it a priori and call it the pursuit of truth can also be considered "rich".
You seem to gloss over the fact that they do not invoke the supernatural as a *scientific* explanation. They don't include the supernatural in the scientific process, they merely supplement the science with philosophical statements to cover the unknown.
Did you not read the latest post on Newton (as only one example)? (edit,: here-- http://faithwellgrounded.org/apologetics/isaac-newton-creationist)
You seem to gloss over the fact that they do not invoke the supernatural as a *scientific* explanation. They don't include the supernatural in the scientific process, they merely supplement the science with philosophical statements to cover the unknown.
See my response directly above-- and the post on Newton while you're at it (http://faithwellgrounded.org/apologetics/isaac-newton-creationist). Further, you seem to indicate that ID includes the supernatural as part of the *process*, as if they are wearing wizard robes and consulting Ouija boards. The false association is beneath you.
What does ID say beyond "natural selection is incapable..." and goddidit? Is there anything testable beyond the negative arguments? If the negative arguments prove true, is ID the *only* other answer?
...and (when badly describing the positive evidence offered that you just claimed hasn't been offered)...
From what I've seen, it boils down to: check the probability of all the hypotheses we can think of, and if they're all sufficiently low, we can infer design. I'm pretty sure his filter has been applied to many things and shown to at least sometimes give incorrect results.
Wow, you answered you own question! You don't even need me. As an aside, I'm reading it first hand to judge it on its own and in its own words. (I'm not trying to be rude. I promise, but...) I've gotten the impression through our discussions here that you seem to read the evolutionists' refutation without reading the author's actual works or responses to defend their work. If that is the case, then I can understand why you would consider ID "refuted."
I've just started Dembski's "Design Inference", but (as was the case of Stanford's work that you considered refuted without reading), he is building on the accepted work of pioneers in the field. (Also note that another example that makes me think that you aren't actually reading what you consider refuted is your repeated treatments of Behe, where his [updated] book actually deals specifically with many of the details you argue to.)
Dembski deals with the supposed incorrect results in his articles of response to his critics, if memory serves.
Your assumption of the motivation for the current definition of science is unsupported.
Maybe... But I'll hold it until a better option is given than the philosophical assumptions and arguments to authority so far. As it stands, science is defined so as to disallow anything that could disprove naturalistic assumptions. I guess we can each judge for ourselves.
There's that contrived dualism again. Natural selection fails, so design wins by default! What? No, we don't have to consider any other possibilities! That's up to the heathen evolutionists to figure out.
First, you have already admitted that positive arguments have been given. Have you read the positive arguments, or just the supposed refutations?
Secondly, natural selection is the only mechanism offered to deny the **apparent** (even as admitted by such polemics as Dawkins) design in nature. So, if naturalists lose their only holy cow, it's up to them to propose another holy cow to discount what is **apparent** in nature. Sorry... That's how it works.
Now, if you're so all-fired ready to prove the dualism is contrived, take me up on my offer and provide that third alternative.
I'll stop the negative argument claim when a testable positive argument is provided.
See above. Do your due diligence before writing an argument off as no good. Also note in the other thread that you've admitted evolution evidence as just fine when it is "just-so" explanation that is untestable. As a matter of fact, you took umbrage that Behe expected testable evidence of the unobservable. Per:
Huh? I never said proving evolution is too much to ask. I said Behe's specific burden of proof for certain IC systems is unreasonable.
Please try to keep up on the duality thing: ID folks contrived the duality because the only testable arguments they could muster are negative arguments against evolution.
Behe asks for specific, scientific accounts for the process of evolved IC systems. What we've gotten is "just-so" explanation that ignore most of the specific points that Behe points out makes them IC. You even presented one today as acceptable response.
So, again... Behe asks for specifics and you are incredulous. But you are also incredulous when you accuse ID. And, I'm sorry, but if you consider Behe refuted, then you haven't read Behe's original work OR his defenses to the proposed refutations.
You also continue to ignore proposed positive evidence after admitting above that it exists. I think you all but admitted that you haven't actually read the proposed positive evidence, but you are considering it refuted? Is this another of your appeals to authority? Is it a "true Scotsman" fallacy?
When the scientific method deals with empirical evidence, experimentation, and repeatability, where exactly does supernatural causation fit in?
When the empirical evidence and experimentation points to it?
And, if you are requiring repeatability as a criteria for causation, then go ahead and remove as scientific disciplines:
Forensics-- Let's just make the murderer kill again before we can piece together the crime.
Archeology-- We can never know anything about history since those dead cultures will never form and thrive again.
neo-Darwinism-- You've admitted on here that the proposed macroevolution works much too slowly to be observed. You're piecing together the unobserved as best you can.
There are several kinds of science, and it takes the right kind for each question.
They do that for a very good reason: because they got their butt handed to them by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987. ID was born as a direct result of that ruling, something that the Dover trial made very clear.
Creationism - God = ID.
I thought you said there were central religious tenents; now they're left out? See:
Those have been refuted, but the religious central tenent can never be.
The above statement clinches for me that you have not read either Behe or Dembski any deeper than a superficial read. Behe has a chapter called "Science, Philosophy, Religion" that deals **specifically** with this point, and you won't even make it through the first chapter of Dembski's "Design Inference" before his sections dealing explicitly with it.
On the note of "refutation", I must say again that I look a bit sideways at your repeated claims of refutation. Behe's "10 years later" appendix in his 10th anniversary edition of "...Black Box" deals specifically with most (or all?) of the refutation that I think you refer to against his work. He responds fully in multiple articles on his author pages. He holds up well, even if you don't appreciate his criteria. As a matter of fact, I would contend that he's well defended both his assertions and his criteria for refutation.
Even before starting in on Dembski's books, I've trudged through dozens of his responses to his critics, and he seems to have a grasp on his work and its applicability. Though, not having read him as fully as I have Behe, I can't attest yet to such an high assurance. What I can say, dogg, is that I am giving them a full reading, along with the claims of the neo-Darwinian establishment.