Alden Swan dot com

As my faithful readers know, I’ve been lately fascinated by the ID v Evolution debate, such as it is. It’s really not so much a debate, really, it’s more like the Israelites against the Philistines (1 Sam. 17:3): “The Philistines occupied one hill and the Israelites another, with the valley between them.” They lined up like this for 40 days, hurling insults. While a few on either side may consider themselves a Goliath, so far no David has shown up to lay the opposition flat, so the insults continue.

While the issue is indeed fascinating (and at the same time frustrating, as the Goliaths on both sides tend to use embarrassing logic), it seems that the real issue – at least among those of loud voice – is not actually evolution, or even science. If you read the blogs and pay attention to the news and recently published books on the issue, it becomes more clear that the real issue is, in fact, God.

For Creationists, of course, this has always been the issue – but I’m not talking about them. It is obviously an issue with some IDists (ID is not necessarily Creationism although there is some overlap), but not with all. What is interesting is that the issue of God – or rather, the lack of God – has become such a major issue with many evolutionists (obviously this is not an issue with all evolutionists, as many of them are also God-believers).

We could expect some ID people to raise the issue of God – after all, we really only have a couple of options when discussing the identity of the “I”; we have a god of some description, or we have the space alien theory (I guess if we could also propose some type of Star Wars-like midi-chlorian cosmic Force). There are those IDists who believe that the ID hypothesis can prove design (as opposed to simply inferring design), and as such, prove the existence of God. What is interesting is that some in the evolutionist circles have followed these IDists into focusing on the proof – or disproof – of God. Again, it seems that the debate has drifted from science into theology, which is fine; I enjoy theology more than biology anyway.

Consider the recent book by Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, or the one by Victor J. Stenger, God: The Failed Hypothesis. Now, check out some of the blogs: we have Richard Dawkins site, RichardDawkins.net, where he seems more like a champion of atheism than anything else. Or, take a look at the blog by science prof PZ Myers, making sure to look at his religion and anti-ID posts (at times, he’s actually interesting, but he often resorts to Goliath-like name-calling and ranting). There are, of course more – start following links from the sites above and you’ll find them.

All of this makes me wonder: Has God now been drafted into the realm of science, as Stenger appears to propose, or has science moved back (note the word “back”) into the realm of philosophy & theology?

What scientists may be realizing is that there are, of course, deeper issues and larger truths than that of evolution, such as whether there is a God and where science fits in the overall picture. Are there limitations to science? If all that exists is the natural world, then it is perhaps the world that is limited. However, if I am right, then science only shows us part of the picture.

On to deeper issues and bigger truths…

(By the way, I’m only focusing on the ID – Darwinist issue as it’s my current diversion; it’s not an issue of faith or focus for me. I do have other issues in mind to write about very, very soon…)

As I said in my last post, rational minds differ. It’s often frustrating, but it’s true. Two very intelligent, rational, clear-thinking people can look at the same set of facts, but because of their different grids / worldviews / lenses, they form different opinions. I’d like to think that if they sat down and reviewed the same set of facts and drank enough beer, they’d eventually agree; but, I’m not sure that is the case.

Take Francis Collins for example: head of the famous Human Genome Project and author of The Language of God, Collins is a Christian who believes not only in evolution, but also in common ancestry. He makes some good points in support of Darwinism, and against ID. Kenneth Miller, the Roman Catholic biology prof and author of Finding Darwin’s God, is also a totally committed Darwinist. Now, multitudes of scientists (and not just Theists) don’t buy macroevolution, claiming that the facts don’t support it at all; and, they also make very good arguments why scientists, including Miller and Collins, are wrong. Who’s right? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, so the debate goes on.

The problem of getting to a common understanding – and even of getting to a common agreement as to the issue – is made more difficult when people on either side side of an issue won’t look at the issues raised by the other side, choosing instead to throw out red herrings or resort to ad hominem or other obviously fallacious arguments. It doesn’t help resolve the issues, or even help those of us who rely on the expert assessments of others, if no one actually talks about the issues. As someone who has observed a number of civil trials on a number of issues, I can tell you that you can never make a conclusion by listening only to one side’s spin of the issues. By the time the Plaintiff is done presenting their case, you are sure there’s no hope at all for the defendant (even with cross-examination of witnesses). However, when the defense presents their case, you see how the defense has to be correct. It’s only in the reconciliation of both sides that you can even make anywhere near a good decision on what might be “truth.”

In a move of complete and utter silliness, a group of Darwinism supporters have started a smear campaign on an M.D. (Dr. Michael Egnor, who has expressed support of Intelligent Design) which includes creating hundreds, if not thousands, of links to articles discrediting him, so that by googling Egnor, that’s all you see. Obviously, there’s no attempt to even address the issues, which I would think would be simple enough to do, if he’s that out to lunch. It’s ridiculous, it’s reactionary, and it’s certainly not science. Egnor might have completely irrational arguments (I haven’t examined them, myself) but we’ll never know if this is the only treatment he gets. We need a rational discussion of the issues.

An example of how tricky parsing the arguments can be can be found on the Uncommon Descent blog (admittedly a blatant pro-ID site). Here, William Dembski points out the bad logic that Kenneth Miller (mentioned above) used to discredit an argument of Dembski’s. It’s more subtle, but it’s no less helpful. Dembski outlines Miller’s logic as follows:

• Design theorist argues for X.
• Design theorist takes pains to make clear that X is not Y.
• Darwinist nonetheless attributes Y to design theorist.
• Darwinist shows that Y is ridiculous.
• Darwinist concludes ID is a failed intellectual project.

I haven’t examined Miller’s logic myself, so I won’t say for sure Dembski is right; however, this is often the logic I see used by some Darwinists in response to various ID arguments. And, I don’t doubt that anti-Darwinist folks use similar bad logic as well; however, much of the ID arguments are not anti-someone as much as putting forth their own arguments.

The point is not to say one side is better than the other; just to complain that the continued bickering and game-playing – no matter who is playing them – does not help to advance the cause of science or of religion.

In my ongoing quest to discover truth wherever it may be found, specifically relating to the ID vs. Darwin debate and more specifically related to Michael Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity, I have discovered more information than I can either take in or understand. But, I am becoming more educated and hopefully a better thinker in the process.

So, for your consideration, here is a critique of irreducible complexity by someone who writes under the pseudonym Mike Gene (clever, eh?) titled Irreducible Complexity ReVisited . Mike reveals the flaws of IC, but points out what IC does in fact give us. Here is his conclusion, which sums his thoughts up nicely:

Hordes of IC critics have appeared since Behe published his book. A few books, many review papers, dozens of web pages and thousands of forum messages have dissected Behe’s concept in every way imaginable. Yet despite all this effort, the non-teleological payoff has been meager. They have successfully prevented IC from being used as a proof of the impossibility of evolution. But that’s about as far as they have gotten. Because of IC, they have lost the most powerful Darwinian mechanism (change along a single axis) and must appeal to indirect explanations, two of which likewise fail to explain the origin of IC, leaving only one mechanism which turns out to be an appeal to raw chance. For example, because of IC analyses, we now know that the bacterial flagellum is a sophisticated molecular machine without any fingerprint of it having a Darwinian origin. Those who still insist on Darwinian explanations for the origin of such a system are drawing upon their expectations that all biotic features have a Darwinian origin. They are free to expect this, but they err in demanding others to think as they do.

In my reading, the one thing that is the most clear is that reasonable minds can disagree.

And, speaking of reasonable minds, Steve Petermann recently posted in Telic Thoughts this piece about Kurt Gödel and the rationality of faith.

Finally, in The ID Report, Denyse O’Leary has a post, Non-materialist neuroscience: “Mind does really matter,” which is worth perusing.

Enjoy!