Nagel and Tabborak on Intelligent Design and Evolution

[Gordon B]

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/ma...-evolutio.html

Nagel and Tabborak make serious arguments here. Perhaps the reason why belief in God became so popular is because there was no reasonable scientific explanation for how human beings came about prior to Darwin.

[Vince Kargatis]

The thing I don't like about that argument is that it posits that (assuming a god) that the intelligence of the design is scrutable. But the fact is that as workable those "intelligent" designs are, they are incredibly polluted with stupid, limited, and compromised "design decisions" too. Logically, if one holds the smart part is scrutable, then the dumbass part must be too, and those just don't mesh well with an omnipotent, omniscient designer. Evolutionary theory, otoh, explains both aspects handily.

[Tom Storer]

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/ma...-evolutio.html

Nagel and Tabborak make serious arguments here. Perhaps the reason why belief in God became so popular is because there was no reasonable scientific explanation for how human beings came about prior to Darwin.

It looks to me like all they are saying is, "Unprovable supernatural explanations are believable if you already believe in the supernatural." But sure, it's long been hypothesized that religion is an attempt to find answers to otherwise unanswerable questions. I'm not sure that's all there is to it, though. Science has been awfully reliable for a while now and there's still an awful lot of religious believers.

[Gordon B]

The thing I don't like about that argument is that it posits that (assuming a god) that the intelligence of the design is scrutable. But the fact is that as workable those "intelligent" designs are, they are incredibly polluted with stupid, limited, and compromised "design decisions" too. Logically, if one holds the smart part is scrutable, then the dumbass part must be too, and those just don't mesh well with an omnipotent, omniscient designer. Evolutionary theory, otoh, explains both aspects handily.

Does acceptance of evolutionary theory make it difficult to logically believe in a God other than a non-powerful one?

[Gordon B]

But sure, it's long been hypothesized that religion is an attempt to find answers to otherwise unanswerable questions.

So why isn't the argument turned on its head. Science has answered previously unanswerable questions. Others will likely be answered by science in the futures. Let's relegate religion to the dustbin of history.

[Pete C]

I'm inclined to believe that if there is a god he's a dumbass.

[Vince Kargatis]

Does acceptance of evolutionary theory make it difficult to logically believe in a God other than a non-powerful one?

If the god interferes, then yes. I'm even befuddled by pure evolutionist "non-interference" Christians, like Kenneth Miller, for reasons like what I've noted before:

Most assuredly, other animals having souls is not a mainstream Christian tradition, which treats humans as special and the only ones believed to have souls. (I'm sure you wouldn't disagree that most Christians would deny a suggestion that fleas or worms have souls.) And given acceptance of the history of human evolution, those mainstreamers must accept the "fact" that at some point in the past, human ancestors did not have souls, and now (presumably?) all (most?) humans have them. Such a believer can't discover the history of that "transition", but they must admit that one existed, and should at least be able to hypothesize the nature of it, if they accept that it happened (they accept souled and non-souled beings now, so must accept the reality of a past time when human ancestors bridged that gap, and that it happened objectively).

This issue was actually one of the nails in the coffin of my indoctrinated theism (my family is Eastern Orthodox) when I was a teenager.

[Tom Storer]

So why isn't the argument turned on its head. Science has answered previously unanswerable questions. Others will likely be answered by science in the futures. Let's relegate religion to the dustbin of history.

I'm all for doing that.

[Dr Dave]

I'm inclined to believe that if there is a god he's a dumbass.

An Omnipotent Being who is also Incompetent might have trouble developing a following, if you know what I mean. On the other hand, consider the fans of Sarah Palin...

[Gordon B]

An Omnipotent Being who is also Incompetent might have trouble developing a following, if you know what I mean. On the other hand, consider the fans of Sarah Palin...

What about the fans of Murder She Wrote, The Carpenters, Jackie Collins or pork rinds?

[larrycohen]

I have a problem with the notion that we have to decide between God (or Intelligent Design) and evolution. They not in competition. I sincerely believe in both. I think there is a God, and I think evolution is how life develops. Why is that a contradiction?
Intelligent Design tells us WHO did it, or it tells us that somebody did it. That's not a concern for scientists, that's a matter for the police.
Science tells us WHAT happened and HOW it happened. Scientists believe their eyes and ears. There's no place for faith in science, and that's fine, because science requires proof, not belief. How do you prove that God created the universe. And even if you could prove it, so what? What does that have to do with science?
The problem occurs because of people who believe that scriptures tell us literal, scientific truth. I think that's wrong. I think of scriptures more like poetry that can teach us. The Bible (or any other scripture on earth) is not a technical manual or a lab report. When God created the universe, He/She/It didn't leave behind design specs.
That's why I believe in God, but don't have much use for religion. Religion is a bunch of arbitrary rules made up by people who think they know better than me. The problem with that is they often get things wrong.

[Vince Kargatis]

Larry, ID is involved with explaining WHAT and HOW - it is not a consistent model with contemporary evolutionary theory. In fact, ID is presented as a scientific matter, and not a religious one - it claims that the designer is deduced from evidence, and that faith and religion need not enter the picture at all. (I think proponents fail utterly with those claims, but those claims do exist.)

Do you have any personal response to my posts 2 or 7 above?

[Pedantic Wretch]

Let's relegate religion to the dustbin of history.

On one thread you're recommending books about how the (largely Christian) electorate are irrational sheep, and here you seem to be advancing the naive Richard Dawkins-style argument that religious belief can be dispelled through scientific counter-explanations.

In fact, the atomisation of advanced industrial/post-industrial societies continues to make religion an attractive consolation for many, especially in America, where the evangelical tradition seems stronger than ever. Ironically, this tendency would probably be intensified in the hypothetical libertarian society you favour (for instance, without state regulation of public education, there would be nothing to stop billionaire televangelists setting up networks of free creationist schools).

If the much-trumpeted LHC research at CERN actually proves what it claims to be seeking to, the Big Bang explanation of creation will become increasingly unassailable. But it won't prevent the Christians from explaining it away as usual.

[Gary Sisco]

The basic premise of intelligent design requires faith and cannot therefore be considered science. It can't be anything but belief.

For example, that the universe is ordered in no way requires an orderer. That it is ordered in such a way that humans can understand it says nothing either but the simple fact that they have a nervous system capable of understanding it.

Matter organizes itself.

No creator, no creation.
No beginning, no end.

Life has the meaning we give it. That's all.

It's meaningless to ask why something exists or what it exists "for." There is no essential reason to accept that there is any "why" to it at all, never mind a "for." Both would require volition.

[Gary Sisco]

This morning I saw an article that said dinosaurs long survival was a matter of "luck." But luck is entirely a human concept; it's necessarily anthropocentric.

Dinosaurs didn't have "luck." What they had was chance. No good chance, no bad chance. Chance.

[Vince Kargatis]

The basic premise of intelligent design requires faith and cannot therefore be considered science.

Simplistically viewed, this isn't actually the case. The premise behind ID, as far as I understand it, is "irreducible complexity" - the argument that the observed state of life deductively requires an intelligent designer. Technically speaking, it could be a controlling alien superintelligence (whose own origins might remain unexplained). Essentially, though, it's argument by incredulity, pretty much bogus from the start. And practically, yes, it's religious smokescreen.

Still, it's worth noting that the logical arguments against ID's claims are not anti-religious ones. Also worth noting we've covered this elsewhere.

[Gary Sisco]

I understand that Vince, but the requirement of an intelligent designer can only be based on faith. There's no other way to "go there."

I find my (not mine alone, obviously) concept to be much more mysterious and awe-inspiring.

No creator, no creation. No beginning, no end.

The most mysterious of all, to me, is that the more micro they go analyzing matter, the less there is.

[patricia]

I think that it is even simpler than evolution vs. intelligent design.
WE DO NOT KNOW.
Evolution is probably the most logical, especially compared to the 6 days and a day-of-rest SHAZAM!! explanation for the origins of life.
But, to say that the world was created by a spiritual being because we do not know is not that much different than praying for rain during the Democratic convention.
Faith is a private, personal thing and has nothing to do, IMO, with what should be taught in schools.
Science is an ongoing process that encourages looking beyond what is accepted as fact, quite often leading in a completely different direction.
Teaching curiosity is certainly, IMO, more useful than is accepting explanations of anything strictly on faith.
Faith is not science, so teach it, if you must, in theology studies.

[Gary Sisco]

Evolution has been observed. It also stands, like any other scientific theory, until someone disproves it. Science is based on disbelief. We don't "know" anything to the degree that your statement implies. A replacement scientific theory would have to account for all of the known facts more completely than evolution does. This word theory, in this context, is not a synonym for "opinion." Science has very strict rules about what it accepts as a valid theory.

The simple fact is we do know in a scientific way about evolution. The existence of a Creator cannot be proven or disproven and is therefore and can't be otherwise subjective belief based on faith alone.

"Irreducible complexity" also has no necessary logic that leads to a Creator or even to a creation. All it would show is irreducible complexity. Nothing else.

I find it hysterical that the more they look into subatomic matter and reality, the less there is, like the layers of an onion. When they get down far enough there will be ... nothing.

Now that's a fucking awe inspirer.

Buddhists came to this conclusion, evidently correctly, thousands of years ago.

[Noj]

I have a problem with the notion that we have to decide between God (or Intelligent Design) and evolution. They not in competition. I sincerely believe in both. I think there is a God, and I think evolution is how life develops. Why is that a contradiction?
Intelligent Design tells us WHO did it, or it tells us that somebody did it. That's not a concern for scientists, that's a matter for the police.
Science tells us WHAT happened and HOW it happened. Scientists believe their eyes and ears. There's no place for faith in science, and that's fine, because science requires proof, not belief. How do you prove that God created the universe. And even if you could prove it, so what? What does that have to do with science?
The problem occurs because of people who believe that scriptures tell us literal, scientific truth. I think that's wrong. I think of scriptures more like poetry that can teach us. The Bible (or any other scripture on earth) is not a technical manual or a lab report. When God created the universe, He/She/It didn't leave behind design specs.
That's why I believe in God, but don't have much use for religion. Religion is a bunch of arbitrary rules made up by people who think they know better than me. The problem with that is they often get things wrong.

Right on, Larry. I don't believe in God, but I believe its existence is possible. And, if there is a God, then science is merely the documenting of God's creation in great detail. Religion has no valid argument with science.

[Vince Kargatis]

I don't believe in God, but I believe its existence is possible.

With this, it seems like there would be nothing you label impossible. Which is the same as having zero criteria to meet to earn the label "possible". Very useful term.

[walto]

That's why I believe in God

You didn't actually give any reason in that post.

[larrycohen]

The thing I don't like about that argument is that it posits that (assuming a god) that the intelligence of the design is scrutable. But the fact is that as workable those "intelligent" designs are, they are incredibly polluted with stupid, limited, and compromised "design decisions" too. Logically, if one holds the smart part is scrutable, then the dumbass part must be too, and those just don't mesh well with an omnipotent, omniscient designer. Evolutionary theory, otoh, explains both aspects handily.
Does acceptance of evolutionary theory make it difficult to logically believe in a God other than a non-powerful one?

Does acceptance of evolutionary theory make it difficult to logically believe in a God other than a non-powerful one?

Of course ID is inscrutable. ID says that there must have been a designer. This is completely unprovable, and therefore unscientific. If you say, as they suggest in the article, I believe in God, therefore ID makes sense, then that's just circular reasoning. You're assuming the truth of your theory before you bothered to come up with evidence.
This doesn't mean I don't believe in ID. I agree with it, which simply means I believe in God. I just think that ID has absolutely no place in science.

Whether God is "powerful" or not is not really relevant. First you would have to define what God is, and how He works. As I understand it, most westerners think of God as some guy hanging around somewhere, in other words, a separate being. Eastern thought doesn't treat God as a separate entity. It's just the essence of the universe. In that case, how could God not be involved in everything?
I don't know, but maybe God is powerful, but allows us to do our own thing once in a while. What fun would He have if he maintained complete control of everything? Maybe sometimes He wants to watch and just have a laugh.

[Uli]

What does Nagel have to do with all of this and who the hey is Tabborat?

[Vince Kargatis]

Of course ID is inscrutable. ID says that there must have been a designer. This is completely unprovable, and therefore unscientific. If you say, as they suggest in the article, I believe in God, therefore ID makes sense, then that's just circular reasoning. You're assuming the truth of your theory before you bothered to come up with evidence.
This doesn't mean I don't believe in ID. I agree with it, which simply means I believe in God. I just think that ID has absolutely no place in science.

Larry, I don't think you understand what ID is. You should look it up.

ID contradicts contemporary evolutionary theory. One can, like well-known evolutionist Kenneth Miller, believe in a Christian god and accept evolutionary theory, but that doesn't mean they accept ID. It's a separate, opposing claim (a very poor one) about the best deductions to make from available evidence.

What I meant about scrutability is this: IDers claim that the observable "good" designs are the result of intelligence. But if we can identify "good" design, we can also identify "bad" design (and you can see plenty of that in nature). You can't consistently say that "good" is the result of intelligence, but say the "bad" is inscrutable, i.e. just part of the "ineffable mystery" of the nature of creation. If the "good" came from a designer, then so did the "bad", and that doesn't mesh with the common monotheist's conception of God.

[walto]

It's just the essence of the universe. In that case, how could God not be involved in everything?

If God is "the essence of the universe" and if everything has an essence then of course God exists. But that's like saying "Let's call my next sneeze 'God'" and then sneezing.

First you would have to define what God is, and how He works.

Right, (though you could leave the "how He works" part until later). Then it would be nice to have some reason for believing that any such thing exists. You've given neither the definition nor any reason. But you like ID anyhow. Naturally, science and religion will indeed be independent of one another if religion doesn't assert anything more definite than stuff like "God is the essence of the universe."

[Noj]

With this, it seems like there would be nothing you label impossible. Which is the same as having zero criteria to meet to earn the label "possible". Very useful term.

To me that sounds like "poisoning the well" or a "hasty generalization" of some sort. As an agnostic, I must leave open the possibility that what I know or what humans are capable of observing isn't sufficient to rule out otherworldly forces, in order to be intellectually honest. While I don't think that God if it exists is anything which humans have described accurately in the psychological phenomenon known as religion, it seems to me that the possibility of an omnipotence or something somewhat fitting the concept of God might just exist. I don't think that disproving scripture or the lack of scientific validity in "ID" necessarily disproves that possibility, it only disproves the people putting forth such pseudoscience. And, I do not think that leaving open such a possibility destroys my ability to properly utilize the term "possible" or "impossible" or to distinguish between different levels of likelihood. A chance, however slim, is a chance.

[rollhead]

You didn't actually give any reason in that post.

because belief in god is, ipso facto, unreasonable.

[walto]

Could be, but Anselm, Aquinas, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Paley, Bradley, Alston, Plantinga, and many others would disagree.

[Vince Kargatis]

As an agnostic, I must leave open the possibility that what I know or what humans are capable of observing isn't sufficient to rule out otherworldly forces... I do not think that leaving open such a possibility destroys my ability to properly utilize the term "possible" or "impossible" or to distinguish between different levels of likelihood. A chance, however slim, is a chance.

Ok, then. Can you characterize some concept or description that you would term "impossible", given you consider an omnipotent god "possible"? If not, then I don't see what problem you would have with my point.