Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Methodological Religion
Heh!
Jerry Coyne has an amusing post at his notblog.
First of all, Jerry reports on Darwin's Doubt, the latest "Game-Changing New Book" on Intelligent Design Creationism by Stephen C. Meyer, that will be "a paradigm shift" in the evolution "debate."
Jerry notes that it is being published by HarperOne, which describes itself as publishing "[t]he most important books across the full spectrum of religion, spirituality, and personal growth."
Wait a minute! Doesn't the Discoveryless Institute keep telling us that ID has nothing to do with religion?
Opps!
But that's not all!
Jerry goes on to say:
If Meyer can't adduce positive evidence that a designer created the Cambrian explosion—and I can't imagine how he could possibly do this—his argument would rest only on our current ignorance of why it happened (Emphasis added).You know, I've mentioned once or twice, that Jerry may just not understand the concept of Methodological Naturalism.
But maybe he is getting a glimmer. After all, if he cannot "imagine" how science could confirm the action of a "designer," how could science discomfirm the action of a "designer"?
However, I suspect his own words will fail to sink in.
Labels: Designer As God, ID Not Religious, Methodological Naturalism
Comments:
<< Home
Well, I disagree with Jerry and with you. There's no reason why, in principle, one could not find positive evidence of a designer. For example, finding a crashed spaceship with engineering plans explaining how the first replicator was constructed and the Earth seeded, would be such evidence. It's just that vague silliness like "specified complexity" is not evidence.
Sure, a natural designer is subject to investigation by Methodological Naturalism. Which is why the IDers assiduously avoid proposing the motives, means and methods, much less the identity, of the "designer." Jerry and I were simply ignoring the ID bafflegab and recognizing that the "designer" they are talking about is a supernatural god.
In that sense, "specified complexity" is not a silly bug, it is a feature of the ID program.
In that sense, "specified complexity" is not a silly bug, it is a feature of the ID program.
I wonder whether this is an implicit concession that everything after the Cambrian is OK, and that the common descent of chordates is established beyond a creationist's quibble. (In particular, that humans really are primates.)
TomS
TomS
# posted by 
: 8:14 AM
: 8:14 AM
I wonder whether this is an implicit concession that everything after the Cambrian is OK.
I doubt it. It's more a recognition that, as far as life's history goes, the Cambrian is among the least known eras and, therefore, provides one of the biggest gaps into which to stuff their god. They'll go on disputing common descent (as Casey Lumpkin often does), especially when it comes to humans.
I doubt it. It's more a recognition that, as far as life's history goes, the Cambrian is among the least known eras and, therefore, provides one of the biggest gaps into which to stuff their god. They'll go on disputing common descent (as Casey Lumpkin often does), especially when it comes to humans.
I have no doubt that they have not explicitly conceded that.
But if the best that they can do is to raise creationist quibbles about the origins of phyla 500 million years ago, it looks to me like an implicit concession about the scope of evolution.
TomS
But if the best that they can do is to raise creationist quibbles about the origins of phyla 500 million years ago, it looks to me like an implicit concession about the scope of evolution.
TomS
# posted by : 12:34 PM
: 12:34 PM
I'm not sure you can read that interpretation into that quote. He might just be saying that he can't imagine how he could get evidence for that (since there is none), not that such evidence can't logically exist.
I'm not sure you can read that interpretation into that quote. He might just be saying that he can't imagine how he could get evidence for that (since there is none), not that such evidence can't logically exist.
I'm not sure you can read that interpretation into that quote. He might just be saying that he can't imagine how he could get evidence for that (since there is none) ...
Do scientists, faced with a lack of evidence, normally "imagine" that none can be found?
Do scientists, faced with a lack of evidence, normally "imagine" that none can be found?
The existenceof a (presumably) non-divine designer of our universe was hinted at in Carl Sagan's "Contact," by the observation that there were hidden messages in the numerical value of pi, expressed in base 11, IIRC.
Bob Carroll
Post a Comment
Bob Carroll
# posted by : 9:03 PM
: 9:03 PM << Home
