I have often stated that intelligent design fails to explain anything. It offers the explanation that things are the way they are because a designer made it that way, but that does not qualify as an explanation. Here I would like to produce a list of the different meanings we give to the word "explanation".
One meaning of explanation is to provide a causal explanation for something. We can explain malaria by saying that a parasite enters the body by a mosquito bite. The parasite then infects the blood cells and liver cells. The body's response to this infection, and the periodic release of parasites, explains the bouts of fever typical of malaria. This explanation tells us how A causes B (how Plasmodium causes malaria). It also explains things like why malaria is found in some parts of the world, and how to prevent it.
A related meaning of explanation is to break something down into its component parts. We can explain how a car engine works by explaining how the fuel injectors and pistons and transmission and cooling system and other components interact. This might also involve the causal relationships between the parts. Science often breaks larger things into their parts--organisms are described as groups of cells, and cells are broken down into organelles and molecules.
What both of these first two explanations have in common is that it helps us to understand one thing in terms of something else. Another kind of explanation is to explain why something is one way rather than another way. This is something that evolution excels at. Why do we have five fingers rather than four? Why do marsupials dominate in Australia rather than placentals? It is common in other fields as well. Why does the United States have a democracy rather than a monarchy? Why is hydrogen more abundant in the universe than helium?, etc.
At first I was thinking this was a complete list of the ways we use the word explanation. Of these meanings, intelligent design clearly fails to deserve the word explanation. If we want to know the mechanism by which organisms were created, we are out of luck. They just formed. Any attempt to make ID proponents explain how comes up empty. ID does not help us understand organisms in terms of other things as well. And ID most certainly fails to explain why it is this way rather than another. The answer is always the same--because the designer wanted it that way. The designer wanted to use a pentadactyl pattern for a limb, for his inscrutable reasons. The designer wanted to put marsupials in Australia.
But then I realized there is another level of explanation, for designed things. After all, someone might ask why the first iPods were all white, and an answer could be "Steve Jobs wanted it that way". Isn't that similar to the answers ID gives for why things are the way they are? Do we mean something else when we explain designed things?
But "Steve Jobs wanted that way" is not explanation, or at least it is an explanation only in the sense that we can understand his motivations. Is white Jobs favorite color? Did market surveys indicate white would be popular? Jobs is well known as a minimalist, and perhaps the white color and simple lines of the iPod are a result of this personality trait. Or perhaps it was pure whimsy or the flip of a coin. No matter what the reason, we still try to understand Jobs motivation in terms of personality or other motivations. We want to know why Jobs wanted it that way.
Intelligent design fails as an explanation in this way as well, although it need not, in theory. If we could claim to understand the motivation of the designer, then it could be used. Perhaps the designer's goals were maximal effeciency, or beauty, or minimalist lines. Of course, ID offers no such explanations, because there are too many exceptions to any such rules. Life can be inefficient and ugly and complicated. If we make any attempt to claim to know the motivations of the designer, we are accused of wandering into theology. ID proponents make it clear that the designer could want anything for any reason and these reasons are inscrutable to our human minds. ID really could be a science and could be considered an explanation if it offered some insights into the mind of the creator. I suspect it would fail when tested, but at least it could be tested, and at least it could be considered an explanation.
Some forms of creationism actually are explanations. Flood geology actually does attempt to explain the distribution of fossils in terms of causal mechanisms, involving the hydrodynamics of a great flood. It fails miserably at it, but at least it attempts an explanation. Intelligent design is reducing creationism down to the parts that aren't even an explanation. The reason to reject ID is simply because it fails to explain anything, by any definition of the word.
When children ask why the sky is blue, we sometimes say "because God wanted it that way". But that is a cop out. Why didn't God want it red? That is not an explanation. It simply says it's blue because it's blue. If we explain that blue is refracted less than other colors by the atmosphere, then we understand why the sky is blue in terms of other things. This also helps us understand why it is red at sunset, and why the sky of mars is not blue.
I realize this list of the use of the word explanation matches Aristotle's list of the kinds of causes--material, efficient, formal, and teleological. This match gives me confidence that I have a fairly complete list of the ways in which we use the word explanation. However, if there is a way that the word is used that I have not considered, I would appreciate pointing it out.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Darwin's Proof, chapter 8
I am up to chapter 8 in my continuing review of Cornelius Hunter's Darwin's Proof. By this point of the book, it has ceased any pretense of science and has become a religious apologetic. Here Hunter promises to discuss what God really is. There is still the promise that he might produce a positive argument about God or creation, rather than just attacks on the God presumed by Evolutionists. Such hopes would be misplaced.
Hunter again claims that evolution explains evil in the world, but it has failed to explain the wonders of the world. "We can barely believe that evolution's unguided forces somehow produce the most complex things we know of." Says who? This is simply an argument from incredulity at the core of so much evolution denial. His argument is simply that he can't imagine evolution produces complex things. It is not a demonstration why it cannot. A few paragraphs later he states "On the one hand, the brain obviously could not have evolved." He offers no argument for this. He simply expects his readers will see it as obviously true. He doesn't discuss the odd way our mammalian brain is built on top of a reptilian brain, or any other evidence.
He then moves to scripture, for most of the remainder of the chapter. He says that God did tell us how he created the ostrich, in the book of Job:
Hunter then explains all of the evils and imperfections of the world, including death, as a result of the fall. Although it has been unclear until this point whether Hunter was ID, old earth creationist, or young earth creationists, this puts him in the young earth crowd. Hunter says that only after the fall would the ground produce thorns and thistles. Doesn't this mean that God continued to create after the fall? Species with thorns and thistles did not exist prior to the fall. Yet the Bible clearly says creation occurred prior to the fall. Which is it? Every species on earth has hundreds of traits to protect against the evils of the fallen world--protection against predators, disease, etc. Did God only create our immune systems after the fall? Did the gazelle only run fast after the fall? Did predators get sharp teeth after the fall? Every creature on earth was created after the fall, if Hunter is correct on this.
Hunter explains that creation is the Glory of God, so it is good and wonderful. But it is also fallen, so it is bad. There is no need to separate the two. Anything can now be explained.
Hunter poisons the well against reason and evidence. He says that in a fallen world, humanity will produce deceptive philosophies and we won't think clearly. Deceptions will sound like fine-sounding arguments. In other words, he his saying don't trust your reason, and although evolution makes perfect sense, it is the work of the devil and the fall.
As usual, Hunter then does a good job of making points for science. He has two pages of quotes from biologists pointing out that creation cannot be tested. Anything is possible with creation. For example, he quotes John Rennie of Scientific American "when and how did a designer intervene in life's history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones?" Perfect question, in my opinion. How does Hunter respond?
Hunter complains that since we cannot answer these questions, scientists insists we not consider God from science. Instead of complaingin, how about trying to answer them? Make a real theory. It is possible to imagine a creationism that does tell us whether God created once or a few times, whether he created the first cell or the first human, and test it. We aren't saying God must be excluded, just that all non specific vague statements and untestable hypothesis are excluded, whether they involve God or not.
Likewise Hunter quotes Paul Moody: "it is really not an explanation at all; it amounts to saying 'things are this way because they are this way'. Furthermore, it removes the subject from scientific inquiry. One can do no more than speculate as to why the creator chose to follow one pattern in creationing animals rather than to use differing patterns." Again I say right on. What is your answer? But there is no answer. He has two pages of such spot on critiques of creationism but there is no reply at all. I reread the pages several time to see if I am missing anything. As far as I can tell, he just expects his readers to be indignant at these people excluding God, without bothering to explain why we should be.
The closest he comes it to object that this amounts to defining God out of the picture. But he makes no attempt to show how we could do science with the supernatural. He certainly does not understand that excluding God from science does not mean excluding him from reality. It is simply recognizing a limit of science: science can only study the natural. Hunter complains because scientists willingly admit science cannot answer every question. He says that in the guise of neutrality, science rejects God outright. Science no more rejects God than it rejects Picasso because we do not invoke Picasso for explanations.
Then there is one paragraph in which Hunter is right. He says that
The last two pages of the chapter tells that we are all sinners and God saves us. I have no idea what any of this has to do with the topic of the book or the chapter. It is simply a pure Sunday sermon, with no relevance to creation. Perhaps it means something to people who are sure that evolution leads to damnation, and that is why it is here. Certainly these pages make it clear that this book does not even pretend to be a scientific treatise and it not intended for anything other than the true believer in creationism.
Hunter again claims that evolution explains evil in the world, but it has failed to explain the wonders of the world. "We can barely believe that evolution's unguided forces somehow produce the most complex things we know of." Says who? This is simply an argument from incredulity at the core of so much evolution denial. His argument is simply that he can't imagine evolution produces complex things. It is not a demonstration why it cannot. A few paragraphs later he states "On the one hand, the brain obviously could not have evolved." He offers no argument for this. He simply expects his readers will see it as obviously true. He doesn't discuss the odd way our mammalian brain is built on top of a reptilian brain, or any other evidence.
He then moves to scripture, for most of the remainder of the chapter. He says that God did tell us how he created the ostrich, in the book of Job:
The wings of the ostrich flap joyfully,This is not a description of how the ostrich was created, or why it has these traits. It is simply a description of an ostrich. This is supposed to show us the intentions of the true God, as opposed to the evolutionists non scriptural God. But all this says is the ostrich is the way it is. Hunter repeatedly explains that scripture shows a God who creates "according to his good pleasure" (twice) or "as he wishes". In other words, anything goes.
but they cannot compare with the pinions and feathers of the stork.
She lays her eggs on the gournd
and lets them warm in the sand,
unmindful that a foot may crush them...
Hunter then explains all of the evils and imperfections of the world, including death, as a result of the fall. Although it has been unclear until this point whether Hunter was ID, old earth creationist, or young earth creationists, this puts him in the young earth crowd. Hunter says that only after the fall would the ground produce thorns and thistles. Doesn't this mean that God continued to create after the fall? Species with thorns and thistles did not exist prior to the fall. Yet the Bible clearly says creation occurred prior to the fall. Which is it? Every species on earth has hundreds of traits to protect against the evils of the fallen world--protection against predators, disease, etc. Did God only create our immune systems after the fall? Did the gazelle only run fast after the fall? Did predators get sharp teeth after the fall? Every creature on earth was created after the fall, if Hunter is correct on this.
Hunter explains that creation is the Glory of God, so it is good and wonderful. But it is also fallen, so it is bad. There is no need to separate the two. Anything can now be explained.
Hunter poisons the well against reason and evidence. He says that in a fallen world, humanity will produce deceptive philosophies and we won't think clearly. Deceptions will sound like fine-sounding arguments. In other words, he his saying don't trust your reason, and although evolution makes perfect sense, it is the work of the devil and the fall.
As usual, Hunter then does a good job of making points for science. He has two pages of quotes from biologists pointing out that creation cannot be tested. Anything is possible with creation. For example, he quotes John Rennie of Scientific American "when and how did a designer intervene in life's history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones?" Perfect question, in my opinion. How does Hunter respond?
Hunter complains that since we cannot answer these questions, scientists insists we not consider God from science. Instead of complaingin, how about trying to answer them? Make a real theory. It is possible to imagine a creationism that does tell us whether God created once or a few times, whether he created the first cell or the first human, and test it. We aren't saying God must be excluded, just that all non specific vague statements and untestable hypothesis are excluded, whether they involve God or not.
Likewise Hunter quotes Paul Moody: "it is really not an explanation at all; it amounts to saying 'things are this way because they are this way'. Furthermore, it removes the subject from scientific inquiry. One can do no more than speculate as to why the creator chose to follow one pattern in creationing animals rather than to use differing patterns." Again I say right on. What is your answer? But there is no answer. He has two pages of such spot on critiques of creationism but there is no reply at all. I reread the pages several time to see if I am missing anything. As far as I can tell, he just expects his readers to be indignant at these people excluding God, without bothering to explain why we should be.
The closest he comes it to object that this amounts to defining God out of the picture. But he makes no attempt to show how we could do science with the supernatural. He certainly does not understand that excluding God from science does not mean excluding him from reality. It is simply recognizing a limit of science: science can only study the natural. Hunter complains because scientists willingly admit science cannot answer every question. He says that in the guise of neutrality, science rejects God outright. Science no more rejects God than it rejects Picasso because we do not invoke Picasso for explanations.
Then there is one paragraph in which Hunter is right. He says that
Science says that we need not invoke God. Science can make good progreess and describe the world accurately without reference to God. If God created the world, he could have done so only via natural laws. There must be no direct divine intervention.He is right. Science asks how much of the world can be explained with natural laws, and so far it has found no place where natural laws are inadequate. It still might in the future, but there is no need now. If science is a problem for religion, it is not because science actively contradicts God, but simply that God doesn't seem to be necessary. However, Hunter has no problem with the fact that we can explain the weather without reference to God, or chemical reactions without reference to God, or explain the motions of the planets without reference to God. I have never understood why this indignation arises only against evolution, instead of all of science.
The last two pages of the chapter tells that we are all sinners and God saves us. I have no idea what any of this has to do with the topic of the book or the chapter. It is simply a pure Sunday sermon, with no relevance to creation. Perhaps it means something to people who are sure that evolution leads to damnation, and that is why it is here. Certainly these pages make it clear that this book does not even pretend to be a scientific treatise and it not intended for anything other than the true believer in creationism.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
When logic and truth are not the same thing
I recently gave an assignment to students in which they must come up with any explanations they can think of for various biogeographic patterns. I tell them to consider evolutionary and non evolutionary explanations. Inevitably, the only explanations people can come up with involve evolution in one form or another, or just that God wanted it that way for obscure reasons (occasionally other explanations are offered but can be eliminated by closer examination of the patterns).
Recently a student offered a variety of evolutionary explanations, but then added a paragraph at the end, making it clear she did not accept evolutionary explanations. First, she concedes that perhaps small changes occur by evolution, allowed by or supervised by a creator (in other words, microevolution is OK). Then she adds the following sentences:
This shows the problem we have in teaching evolution. It is possible to give an airtight case of convincing evidence for evolution, but that is not enough to persuade. No counter argument is even needed, other than "logic and truth are not the same thing", whatever that means. I suppose it means that something completely illogical can be true.
This is an argument used for many other fringe beliefs, even those that do not depend on God. One of the most overused quotes is from Hamlet, "There is more on heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." People feel they have Shakespeare's approval to dismiss an overwhelming consensus, because there is much that we don't know. We can show that UFO's could not possibly change direction that rapidly, could not travel those distances, could not pass without leaving a trace, etc. However, the aliens know much more than is dreamt of in our philosophy, and they can do anything. We don't need to actually explain how. The known physical laws of the universe just show the limits of our knowledge.
Perhaps a point worth making to someone who admits the evidence supports a view yet still thinks it is not true, is to point out that even if they are right, the view is still useful. Whether evolution is true or not, there is no doubt it is very good at making predictions about everything from the fossil record to similarities of genomes. If in fact it was a creator that made these patterns in the rocks and DNA for his mysterious purposes, evolution manages to be a good predictor of the creator's intentions, for whatever reason. So studying and teaching evolution and the patterns it describes is still useful and necessary for understanding life, at least until we get a better predictor of the creator's mind. Perhaps the ultimate reality really is forever beyond human comprehension. But that doesn't mean we should give up entirely and reject whatever tools help us to make at least a little sense of reality.
Recently a student offered a variety of evolutionary explanations, but then added a paragraph at the end, making it clear she did not accept evolutionary explanations. First, she concedes that perhaps small changes occur by evolution, allowed by or supervised by a creator (in other words, microevolution is OK). Then she adds the following sentences:
A creator would be infinitely more wise than any human, and it may be that we cannot always come up with human explanations for everything. Evolution might appear to be the logical explanation for many occurrences, but logic and truth might not always be the same thing.I was struck by such an open argument from ignorance. The student admits that logic and evidence favors evolution. She has no alternative explanations for it, nor do others. But nonetheless, evolution should not be accepted, because you never know what we don't know. There is not even a reason given to suspect it is not true, although presumably it is faith.
This shows the problem we have in teaching evolution. It is possible to give an airtight case of convincing evidence for evolution, but that is not enough to persuade. No counter argument is even needed, other than "logic and truth are not the same thing", whatever that means. I suppose it means that something completely illogical can be true.
This is an argument used for many other fringe beliefs, even those that do not depend on God. One of the most overused quotes is from Hamlet, "There is more on heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." People feel they have Shakespeare's approval to dismiss an overwhelming consensus, because there is much that we don't know. We can show that UFO's could not possibly change direction that rapidly, could not travel those distances, could not pass without leaving a trace, etc. However, the aliens know much more than is dreamt of in our philosophy, and they can do anything. We don't need to actually explain how. The known physical laws of the universe just show the limits of our knowledge.
Perhaps a point worth making to someone who admits the evidence supports a view yet still thinks it is not true, is to point out that even if they are right, the view is still useful. Whether evolution is true or not, there is no doubt it is very good at making predictions about everything from the fossil record to similarities of genomes. If in fact it was a creator that made these patterns in the rocks and DNA for his mysterious purposes, evolution manages to be a good predictor of the creator's intentions, for whatever reason. So studying and teaching evolution and the patterns it describes is still useful and necessary for understanding life, at least until we get a better predictor of the creator's mind. Perhaps the ultimate reality really is forever beyond human comprehension. But that doesn't mean we should give up entirely and reject whatever tools help us to make at least a little sense of reality.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Darwin's proof, chapter 7
It's been a long time since I've posted. I've been busy with work and other things. I hope to be able to post more often in a few weeks. For now, I will continue my review of Darwin's Proof, by Cornelius Hunter. Most of the posts before this deal with Hunter's book, if you would like to review them.
The review of Chapter 7 will be much shorter than the previous. Usually I have copious notes over each page, but I have almost none in this chapter. This chapter is theology. In Chapter 6, Hunter objected to the religious assumptions of evolutionary biologists. Although he criticized the view of God behind biologists view of design, he never replaced it with an alternative view. Even with theology, creationists seem to rely on negative argumentation rather than a positive case. However, I thought that in this chapter, he would finally present a view of God that can explain all of the observed facts. He seems to think biologists create a straw man God, so I was interested in the proper view of God. He did not supply it in this chapter.
The chapter is simply a review of how God has been viewed over the centuries. As far as I know, it is accurate, although I am not an expert on the history of theological views. He points out that by the 19th century, God had become a more rational God, and less based on faith or revelation. He seems to find this objectionable. He objects to applying reason to God. It is this rational God that Darwin and the evidence for evolution argued against.
He gives reasons for the change in theological views. For example, people tried to use reason to explain evil. It all makes sense to me and seems like an improved God, but it is clear I am supposed to object to it. As usual, Hunter does a good job of convincing me of the evidence against his views. He presents Hume's argument against design and anthropomorphizing God very well. He never explains any errors in Hume, other than it is too rational. By the 19th century, God became more distant and science and religion became separate. This seems to have been for good philosophical reasons, but again, Hunter objects.
In the whole chapter, he never presents his alternative God. I keep waiting for it, but it never arrives. I have only to presume he is doing the usual smoke and mirrors of creationists. When the evidence doesn't fit with a rational God, retreat to a mysterious God. I assume Hunter's God is a God whose purpose is beyond our comprehension, who is so inscrutable that we cannot possibly make sense of his creation. In other words, he is an untestable, any thing goes God. Although Hunter never explicitly states this, I will work under that assumption.
Hunter doesn't seem to realize that the rational God to which he objects follows directly from intelligent design. The whole basis of ID is that God is a rational designer: That we can use reason to see the works of God; That we can infer God from his handiwork. The ID God is the god of Paley and the 19th century. Hunter objects to the view of God that follows directly from his views on evolution. If we retreat to Hunter's God of mystery, there is no positive case left for ID. None of the arguments about designers or irreducible complexity or information hold up. So in Hunter's hand, ID consists of negative arguments against evolution and negative arguments against a rational God, but has absolutely no positive content, scientific or theological.
Hunter again objects to Darwin when Darwin, discussing the nested hierarchies of classification, said "if species had been independently created, no explanation would have been possible of this kind of classification." Hunter objects to Darwin claiming to know the inscrutable ways of the creator and telling him how he should have created. But even if we move to Hunter's God, Darwin is correct. Hunter's God does not explain this classification. All Hunter can say is that God did it that way for his mysterious reasons. That is not an explanation. An explanation has to consist of more than "it is that way because it is that way." Hunter, and ID in general, fails to even deserve being called an explanation. In two chapters on the theology of evolution, Hunter has yet to have a single sentence that actually explains why any of the patterns we see exist, or why things are this way rather than another way.
Ultimately, what Hunter objects to is that evolutionary biologists give ID the benefit of the doubt. They assume it makes testable explanations that follow from a designer, and then point out the tests fail. Hunter loudly objects to such crude theology. A proper understanding of God does not lead to any conclusions or any testable claims. It is especially ironic that his greatest objection to evolution is that it explains too much.
The review of Chapter 7 will be much shorter than the previous. Usually I have copious notes over each page, but I have almost none in this chapter. This chapter is theology. In Chapter 6, Hunter objected to the religious assumptions of evolutionary biologists. Although he criticized the view of God behind biologists view of design, he never replaced it with an alternative view. Even with theology, creationists seem to rely on negative argumentation rather than a positive case. However, I thought that in this chapter, he would finally present a view of God that can explain all of the observed facts. He seems to think biologists create a straw man God, so I was interested in the proper view of God. He did not supply it in this chapter.
The chapter is simply a review of how God has been viewed over the centuries. As far as I know, it is accurate, although I am not an expert on the history of theological views. He points out that by the 19th century, God had become a more rational God, and less based on faith or revelation. He seems to find this objectionable. He objects to applying reason to God. It is this rational God that Darwin and the evidence for evolution argued against.
He gives reasons for the change in theological views. For example, people tried to use reason to explain evil. It all makes sense to me and seems like an improved God, but it is clear I am supposed to object to it. As usual, Hunter does a good job of convincing me of the evidence against his views. He presents Hume's argument against design and anthropomorphizing God very well. He never explains any errors in Hume, other than it is too rational. By the 19th century, God became more distant and science and religion became separate. This seems to have been for good philosophical reasons, but again, Hunter objects.
In the whole chapter, he never presents his alternative God. I keep waiting for it, but it never arrives. I have only to presume he is doing the usual smoke and mirrors of creationists. When the evidence doesn't fit with a rational God, retreat to a mysterious God. I assume Hunter's God is a God whose purpose is beyond our comprehension, who is so inscrutable that we cannot possibly make sense of his creation. In other words, he is an untestable, any thing goes God. Although Hunter never explicitly states this, I will work under that assumption.
Hunter doesn't seem to realize that the rational God to which he objects follows directly from intelligent design. The whole basis of ID is that God is a rational designer: That we can use reason to see the works of God; That we can infer God from his handiwork. The ID God is the god of Paley and the 19th century. Hunter objects to the view of God that follows directly from his views on evolution. If we retreat to Hunter's God of mystery, there is no positive case left for ID. None of the arguments about designers or irreducible complexity or information hold up. So in Hunter's hand, ID consists of negative arguments against evolution and negative arguments against a rational God, but has absolutely no positive content, scientific or theological.
Hunter again objects to Darwin when Darwin, discussing the nested hierarchies of classification, said "if species had been independently created, no explanation would have been possible of this kind of classification." Hunter objects to Darwin claiming to know the inscrutable ways of the creator and telling him how he should have created. But even if we move to Hunter's God, Darwin is correct. Hunter's God does not explain this classification. All Hunter can say is that God did it that way for his mysterious reasons. That is not an explanation. An explanation has to consist of more than "it is that way because it is that way." Hunter, and ID in general, fails to even deserve being called an explanation. In two chapters on the theology of evolution, Hunter has yet to have a single sentence that actually explains why any of the patterns we see exist, or why things are this way rather than another way.
Ultimately, what Hunter objects to is that evolutionary biologists give ID the benefit of the doubt. They assume it makes testable explanations that follow from a designer, and then point out the tests fail. Hunter loudly objects to such crude theology. A proper understanding of God does not lead to any conclusions or any testable claims. It is especially ironic that his greatest objection to evolution is that it explains too much.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
