Stephen Barr, in the entry below, expresses a frustration that some of us have faced, and continue to face, with ID advocates, many of whom are our friends.
Take, for example, John West’s interpretation of Romans 1:20. Paul writes: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” (NIV). West comments: “Taken on its own terms, Paul is clearly offering a general statement of principle that applies to all sorts of created things, not just those in the heavens.” Setting aside the question of how one moves from the bacterial flagellum to God’s eternal power and divine nature, what precisely is the principle that West thinks Paul is suggesting by which we are left without excuse when we encounter the created order? Is it William A. Dembski’s explanatory filter, Michael Behe’s irreducible complexity, William Paley’s argument from analogy, Alvin Palntinga’s case for the proper basicality of theistic belief and why one may have a disposition to see God’s handiwork in the starry heavens, or Etienne Gilson’s defense of final and formal causes in nature? What is it? Paul does not tell us. I do think, however, it is safe to say that Paul was not suggesting that his principle could only be licitly applied by means of a small set of sophisticated philosophical and scientific arguments coming out of America’s Pacific Northwest. Granted, these arguments are not contrary to Paul’s principle. But neither would it be contrary to Paul’s principle for one to express skepticism, doubt, or caution about these arguments. Furthermore, Paul is not suggesting that those who express these sentiments are denying that one cannot see God’s invisible qualities (i.e., His attributes) in the created order. In fact, Paul does not even say that an argument is required for one to see the divine nature in the natural world.
It seems to me that my friend John West thinks that if one is not totally convinced by, or harbors doubts about, the leading ID arguments in biology, then one holds to a view to contrary to Paul’s. But, as we have seen, that is not true. It follows, then, that it is not even true that one is denying that the human intellect, unaided by special revelation, has the power to know that the existence and order of the natural world is created and sustained by a divine being with a particular nature and qualities. That is all that one is required to believe if one accepts Romans 1:20. And that is what Stephen Barr believes as well.
June 27th, 2009 | 1:24 pm
Thanks, Francis. Indeed I was getting frustrated.
The ironic thing is that I am quite open to the kinds of arguments the ID people want to make. I too am not at all convinced that natural selection is up to the job of producing all the intricate structure one sees in biology. And the sheer beauty of living things seems more than science can explain. Someone has called it the “surplus beauty” of creation.
I am put off, however, by the cocksureness of both the hyper-darwinists and some (not all) of the ID people. We are in the presence of mystery. God does not always show his hand. He is the “deus absconditus”, the God who hides. The splendor of creation indeed proclaims the greatness and power of God. But I certainly don’t know how God does everything He does, and neither do the ID people.
You said it much better than I could. Recognizing God’s handiwork is one thing; fashioning compelling philosophical or scientific proofs is another. Everyone, as St. Paul observes can do the former, few can do the latter.
I try to be sympathetic to the ID movement, in spite of the fact that I think that several aspects of their approach are misguided and seriously counterproductive. I try to be sympathetic because they are courageous and because so much injustice is done to them by their opponents. But I cannot sympathize at all with those ID people (fortunately, a small minority) who target anyone, no matter how traditional his theological stance, who isn’t willing to join their anti-Darwin movement. Why West feels he has to call my integrity into question by talking about “peace at any price” I cannot imagine. But what disturbs me much more is the targeting of Francis Collins. Collins is, without any question, the most effective voice coming from the the ranks of scientists in favor of traditional Christian belief that we have seen in a very long time.
June 27th, 2009 | 5:52 pm
Francis Beckwith: Granted, these arguments are not contrary to Paul’s principle. But neither would it be contrary to Paul’s principle for one to express skepticism, doubt, or caution about these arguments.
Stephen Barr: The ironic thing is that I am quite open to the kinds of arguments the ID people want to make.
Francis says that its ok to express skepticism, doubt, or caution about certain arguments. But he doesn’t specify exactly what raises his skepticism about exactly what arguments.
Stephen says he is open to the kinds of arguments that ID people want to make, but again, does not mention which arguments, exactly, he is open to, and why.
I, too, am frustrated — because of the amazing lack of specificity. Perhaps if specific arguments were engaged with specific counter-arguments, we would make some progress.
I would sincerely like to know which ID arguments Stephen is open to, and why. And which he is not open to, and why.
June 28th, 2009 | 6:14 am
When I read Stephen Barr I am not sure what he believes in. Does he believe in theistic evolution? does he believe in Darwinian evolution? Does he believe in a mixture of both?
I would like to know what he believes in and why.
My own opinion is that the Genesis account is the one that best fits the scientific facts and Darwinian evolution is a load of rubbish. The literal interpretation of the book of Genesis was the accepted doctrine of the church until recently and I have no idea why we should make any accomodations with the Darwinists at all.
June 28th, 2009 | 1:25 pm
Mark:
Evolution is not the same as Darwinism
Darwinism is not the same as neo-Darwinism
One can hold to evolution and not be a naturalist.
One can be a naturalist and not hold to Darwinism.
However, if one is a neo-Darwinian, one is a naturalist (e.g., R. Dawkins)
Nevertheless, one can be a naturalist without holding to neo-Darwinism (e.g., S. J. Gould).
For a nice overview of these distinctions, see James D. Madden’s article here: http://tinyurl.com/l4h3lk
June 28th, 2009 | 3:06 pm
Dr. Beckwith, I don’t understand what the conceivable relevant distinction between Darwinism and neo-Darwinism is, neo-Darwinism and “the modern synthesis” being synonymous. There is no metaphysical or philosophical distinction between Darwinism and neo-Darwinism, and it’s hardly the population genetics, etc., concepts that are hot-button issues [which isn't to say that population genetics is "good" science].
Dawkins is, it seems to me, the contemporary, straightforward answer to Darwin; his “Darwinism” is quite faithful to Darwin’s own.
June 28th, 2009 | 8:00 pm
Francis:
Yes, these people are hard to pin down and it is impossible to debate them unless they state what they believe in.
By Darwinian evolution I mean random mutations operated on by natural selection leading to increases in information in the genome and eventually to new species.
By theistic evolution I mean hand of god has replaced the randomness of the mutations and then natural selection operates gradually over millions of years to produce new forms from molescules to man.
The former has no evidence for it in the fossil record, and is mathematically, physically and chemically impossible.
The latter, theistic evolution, as well as suffering from the above problems is also completely in conflict with the Old and New Testament scriptures.
You can have many theories but only one will be correct.
(By the way I can’t think of a better example of distorted logic than Gould’s punctuated equilibrium.)
June 28th, 2009 | 8:37 pm
To clarify my last post, I should have said Theistic evolution is not born out by the fossil record (of course the laws of physics and chemistry have no relevance here)
June 28th, 2009 | 10:17 pm
I might disagree with one thing Francis says here, which is probably a merely terminological difference. As I understand it, Darwinism means the theory that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random heritable variations. Neo-Darwinism is simply the synthesis of Darwinism with modern genetics (This is the standard dictionary definition of “neo-Darwinism” and what it means to biologists.) i.e. neo-Darwinism merely adds that the variations are genetic variations — which was crucial for making a coherent picture out of Darwinism.
So, all Darwinists today are neo-Darwinists, since neo-Darwinism is just the modern form of Darwinism.
In answer to Mark Hobart: I believe the following: (a) evolution happened and happens and all extant terrestrial species are descended from some single original form of life (“common descent”). For this the evidence is overwhelming. (b) The neo-Darwinian idea that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random genetic variations is essentially correct, but may not be the whole story. It is a simple, beautiful, and compelling idea that explains an enormous amount. But it may not explain everything. Very likely there are other natural mechanisms involved in evolution that have not yet been discovered. It is also possible that some divine intervention was needed at crucial points in the history of life (e.g. the origin of the first living thing), but this cannot be proven at the moment. (c) It is both futile and very harmful to Christianity for Christians to keep waging war against evolution and “Darwinism”. This will not have any effect whatsoever on the field of biology. Contrary to what many people naively imagine, there is zero chance that the idea of evolution will be overthrown in biology. There is zero chance that Darwin’s idea of natural selection will be completely overthrown. It is likely to be modified and refined by new discoveries and insights, but not overthrown. Darwin’s ideas are important pillars of modern biology and will always remain so. So attacking Darwin will do no damage to Darwin. It does, however, do enormous damage to religion. (d) The enemy of religion is not Darwinism (which is merely a scientific theory). The real enemy is what I think should be called “hyper-darwinism”, a materialist and reductionist ideology that bases itself on Darwinian science, but goes far beyond science. (e) The central point for Christians to keep in view is that human beings have spiritual souls. Whereas physically speaking we are the result of an evolutionary process, we are not merely physical beings, but beings with both a physical and spiritual dimension, and the spiritual in us cannot be explained by biology. The real theological danger comes from the belief that we are nothing but physical beings, and therefore can be completely explained by physics, chemistry, and biology.
June 29th, 2009 | 2:01 am
Stephen, thank you for your reply.
As you would have gathered I am a Biblical Creationist and so of course I strongly dispute the points you make, specifically:
(a)” evolution happened and happens…….. For this the evidence is overwhelming.”
Far from being overwhelming, there is no direct evidence for this at all. If you have any, please show me.
(b)”The neo-Darwinian idea….. is essentially correct,….. It is a simple, beautiful, and compelling idea that explains an enormous amount.”
The neo-Darwinian idea cannot be correct. It means that the information in the genome has spontaneously generated, like a book that writes itself or a computer that programs itself. Of course if the idea were true it would explain EVERYTHING. However it is not.
(c) Basically you are saying do not question Darwinism, it unquestionable and it cannot be disputed. You tell others not to question it too because it may be “harmful”. In otherwords for you Darwinism has become dogma.
(d) Yes, I agree, Darwinism leads to racism, eugenics and social engineering which has caused the loss of hundreds of millions of lives in the last century.
(e)”The central point for Christians to keep in view is that human beings have spiritual souls. Whereas physically speaking we are the result of an evolutionary process…..”
Do you believe in resurrection of the body?
If so will there be humans at different stages of evolution in heaven?
That concept makes no sense to me what so ever.
June 30th, 2009 | 8:52 am
Let me introduce a new wrinkle into this whole debate.
Begin with a simple question – Did God intend me to exist? I would maintain the Christian answer is ‘yes.’ For example, when Christians have children, we view the birth as a precious gift from God. That birth, like our birth, was not only intended, but part of God’s plan.
Or put it this way. There are three possibilities.
A. There is no God, therefore my existence was not intended.
B. There is a God, yet my existence was not intended.
C. There is a God and my existence was intended.
I adopt position C and I also think this is the mainstream Christian position.
So we need only take the next step and ask a second question.
How did I come into existence? How did we come into existence? We were born. And how did that happen? On one particular day/night, our parents chose to have sexual intercourse and it happened during a time when our mothers’ ovulated one of thousands of possible eggs that, in turn, was fertilized by one of our father’s millions of sperm. We were brought into existence because one particular sperm fertilized one particular egg and it cannot be otherwise. If any other sperm or any other egg was used, we would not exist as who we are. Our existence is dependent on that one sperm and that one egg, each of which underwent its own particular pattern of chromosome recombination during the process of making that one sperm and one egg.
I’m not sure how anyone can escape the fact that chance plays a prominent role in our individual origin, as it was the chance fusion of a particular sperm and particular egg that brought us into existence (for example, we all know there is a 50/50 chance a pregnant woman will have either a boy or girl and whether we are male or female is an intrinsic part of our created identity). The existence of our brothers and sisters testifies to the importance of that particular egg and sperm that brought us into existence.
Once we recognize the central role chance plays, in accord with the divine will of God, in the origin of each and every human being born, I don’t see why suddenly the role of chance, in accord with the divine will of God, is a problem when it comes to the origin of the first humans. Why is one origin issue endlessly debated while a more important origin issue is completely ignored?
June 30th, 2009 | 10:29 am
First, I want to point out that the debate is much bigger than Dr. West, so it shouldn’t be personal. I think John West has raised many good questions and many of them have not been satisfactorily answered.
Of course, if God is the designer, surely He can do whatever He wants, even using chance as His intention. Therefore chance is not a problem for theists. Purpose can also be defended. The issue is why “design” cannot be accepted in science after Darwin. This is the main debatable point. If some form of “design” is acceptable, then why it cannot be acceptable as a scientific program? Why is it that “chance” as a scientific program must win out now and into the future? Why the current dominant theory based on “chance” should be given a pass? That is the main issue.
June 30th, 2009 | 12:14 pm
Dave,
Jacques Monod shared a Nobel Prize for his work on the lac operon. This work played a crucial role in the development of molecular biology and ultimately led to the birth of evo-devo. In 1971, Monod wrote a classic book entitled, Chance and Necessity that made a crucial point:
“Hence it is through reference to our own activity, conscious and projective, intentional and purposive-it is as makers of artifacts-that we judge of a given object’s “naturalness” or “artificialness.””
I think this point is spot on and highlights the fact that a design inference is necessarily subjective. Thus, science cannot accommodate a design inference for, in essence, it is an inquiry that is too big for science. I explain more of this here:
http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/design-and-science/
July 1st, 2009 | 12:02 am
Mike Gene:
Monod was obviously a clever molecular biologist but his views were classically Darwinian and he believed chance and necessity ruled God out of the equation, as his quotation shows. He felt that the scientific method demanded that no questions for which the answer would have to be God are permitted.
Why should one should accept this arbitrary viewpoint? The founders of the scientific revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries did not. I have much more respect for the mind of the one who formulated Newtonian physics than the one who discovered the lac operon.
Another quote from Monod:
In my opinion this attitude is bigotry.
July 1st, 2009 | 5:44 pm
What may be “chance” and/or “random” from a scientific standpoint need not be from a divine standpoint. See my “First Things” review of John Haught’s “Is Nature Enough? Truth and Meaning in an Age of Science.”
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/natural-religion-48
July 1st, 2009 | 11:37 pm
Mike Gene,
My question is actually quite simple. “Design in science” does not require a design inference. It only requires a commitment to “design”. Indeed, as a scientific program, all it requires is a “possibility of design”. Subjectivity is not a criterion to rule out its fruitfulness in science. There are obviously many scientific activities that require subjectivity, things like hunches, design of a hypothesis, judgement in interpretation etc. My question still is, since purpose and some form of “design” is acceptable, why “design in science” is unacceptable? I am questioning the logical link here. Has Darwin ruled out “design”, now and forever? It deserves some answer.
July 2nd, 2009 | 4:55 pm
“My question still is, since purpose and some form of “design” is acceptable, why “design in science” is unacceptable?”
I don’t think the above question is phrased accurately.
“Design” is not unacceptable to science. Limiting the discussion to biology for the moment, there is no evidence for “design.” Every biological feature or process is capable of being explained by natural phenomena operating according to fairly well understood natural laws. Randomness plays some role in the operation of those laws. There is a paucity of evidence that biological systems and features have been designed.
Some quite clearly are designed. Examples include bird’s nests, spider webs, beaver dams and attack submarines. All of these exhibit signs of manipulation of natural objects. There is no evidence of such manipulaiton in either biological systems or solar systems.
But that can change tomorrow. “Design” per se is not excluded. It just hasn’t been observed so far.
July 3rd, 2009 | 5:47 am
Thanks. At least we agree that “design” should be in principle acceptable to biology. Let’s consider if certain features in biology were possibly design, can we learn more about the nature of nature? My thinking is that possibly many can teach us something more. The well known examples are:
origin of life, information in the cell, the machinery of the flagella, the stasis of the fossil record, the photonics of the eyes
The point is, we have not considered this before, and perhaps we should.
July 3rd, 2009 | 1:42 pm
I respectfully disagree with you point then.
Design has been considered before and, as I said above, there is no evidence of manipulation in biological organisms.
That doesn’t mean you can’t look for it. The key is to design a scientific method for doing so.
To begin such a process, terms must be very specifically defined. “Information” in the cell is meaningless as a concept, for example, unless you can quantify the units of “information.” Otherwise “information” is an abstract quality just as “beauty” is to art or “robustness” is to a bottle of wine.
The other issues you have raised have all been exhaustively studied in detail and no evidence of design has yet been found.
To get an idea of the vast quantity of research into those areas, it’s helpful to “Google Scholar”
topics such as “Evolution of flagella” “Evolution of sight” amd “origins of life.”
The Google Scholar results demostrate vast amounts of research into these areas. It is not fair to say that some pre-disposition limits the scope of scientific study or that particular areas have been overlooked.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact