Science Fiction (Leftists worry IDers are using Leftist tactics to win 'Intelligent Design fight)

In 1993, the journalist Jonathan Rauch published a book called Kindly Inquisitors, in which he catalogued contemporary threats to the Enlightenment tradition of seeking truth through logical or empirical discourse. One of Rauch's points was that, while this (classical) liberal system for amassing knowledge appeared to be under attack from both the religious right and the multicultural left, in fact the two groups were making a version of the same argument: Mainstream science didn't accord their beliefs the respect they deserved, whether it was creation science on the one hand or feminist or Afro-centric science on the other.

Rauch's book has held up remarkably well in the twelve years since it was published. This is particularly so in light of the current debate over intelligent design (ID)--the idea, popular on the right, that life is too complex to have resulted from random variation. Even President Bush has suggested, as the creation scientists (and multiculturalists) of the 1980s and 1990s did before him, that both sides of the supposed debate be treated as legitimate in public school curricula.

But there was one thing Rauch didn't anticipate. At the time, he suggested that, even though creationists had adopted the tactics of the academic left--the demand for equal time--they still believed in objective truths. They just didn't think all of these truths were discoverable by science. By contrast, today's IDers have gone further and adopted the epistemology of the left--the idea that ostensibly scientific truths may be relative.

The animating principle of the postmodern left is the notion that truth follows from power and not from its intrinsic rightness. It's a conceit that began in the humanities but eventually spread to hard sciences like physics. "The point is that neither logic nor mathematics escapes the contamination of the social," as postmodern pooh-bah Stanley Aronowitz has put it. What makes this approach so radical is its implication that the way to win intellectually is to win politically.

In making their arguments, the postmodernists rely heavily on the work of historians of science like Thomas Kuhn. It was Kuhn who famously argued that scientific knowledge proceeds as a sequence of "paradigm shifts"--revolutions in the way we understand the world--and that the shifts occur not simply when the evidence in favor of the new paradigm becomes overwhelming, but when the people invested in the old paradigm are in some sense defeated (which may not occur until long after they're proved wrong). Mainstream science has taken from Kuhn the belief that evidence and logic are necessary, if not quite sufficient, conditions for a paradigm shift and that, in the long run, successive shifts bring society closer to objective truth. Where the postmodernists go awry is in their emphasis on Kuhn's relativism.

Unfortunately, these postmodernist ideas have become a staple of the ID movement. As laid out in a strategic memo produced by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, the leading backer of intelligent design, "Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces." There was nothing particularly objective about this view, according to the IDers. Instead, applying the same reading of Kuhn that the postmodernists embrace, they argue that it was simply the result of a political struggle between insurgents and the establishment. (In fact, the IDers frequently cite Kuhn to this effect.) Probably the clearest example of this comes courtesy of Bruce K. Chapman, the Discovery Institute's president. "All ideas that achieve a sort of uniform acceptance ultimately fall apart, whether it's in the sciences or philosophy or politics, after a few people keep knocking away at it," he recently told The New York Times. But that's nuts. Germ theory, relativity, the idea that the earth is round--with apologies to Tom Friedman, the fact that all have withstood the occasional challenge suggests that truth counts for something.

Chapman might protest that he's simply proposing a more accurate alternative to evolution, the same way Darwin proposed a more accurate alternative to creationism. But ID isn't a new theory, just a new attempt to advance an old one, with some new empirical claims thrown in for good measure. As Jerry Coyne has pointed out ("The Faith that Dare Not Speak Its Name," August 22 & 29), scientists can discredit ID using the exact same evidence they used to debunk creationism. Once you realize this, it's no longer possible to interpret Chapman as echoing the belief in a steady progression toward truth.

Like all conservatives, of course, the IDers claim to decry relativism and to embrace absolutes. But, for them, the claim is logically incoherent in a way it wasn't when it came from their creationist predecessors. When a proposition is empirically false, as both creationism and ID (to the extent that it makes empirical claims) are, you're free to assert its truth; you just can't call it science. The creationists had no problem with this; they just rejected any science that contradicted the Bible. But the IDers aspire to scientific truth. Unfortunately, the only way to claim that something empirically false is scientifically true is to question science's capacity for sorting out truth from falsehood, the same way postmodernists do.

Conservatives were quick to point out the danger of this view in the '80s and '90s. They argued that a science that rejected the idea of truth was vulnerable to the most inane forms of intellectual hucksterism. And they were right. It's not hard to imagine scams like cold fusion or the Scientologist critique of psychiatric drugs gaining ground in a world where science's ability to identify knowledge has been undermined. (Among other monuments to postmodern thought was the idea that E=mc² might be a "sexed equation" that "privileges the speed of light over other speeds," as Belgian-French theorist Luce Irigaray once asserted.)

Americans don't like thinking of themselves as backward. As a result, the risk from science-rejecting creationists hasn't been particularly acute in recent decades. But most people don't have very strong views on the philosophy of science. If, unlike the postmodern left, the ID movement can enlist mainstream conservatives in questioning science's capacity to produce objective truth, then it's by no means clear the effort won't succeed. In that case, it will end up threatening a whole lot more than just evolution.

Let's say you are correct, and it is indeed 'wrong' to think this. So, to continue your 'If God exists...' train of thought ... What if God WERE real, he Does Exist ... would any 'right' way to think about him even exist at all, from your point of view? If God exists, is it possible to think about Him rationally?

Oh, if He's a being with infinite qualities, there would be much about Him that's beyond comprehension. But the ID movement is driven specifically by an assumption about the nature of morality, not God. They deny that the real world provides us with the possibility of discovering any kind of objective way to judge one moral code or moral decision vs. another. I say we can look to the details of human nature to come up with good hypotheses for what the best moral codes are, and we can look to history to see what the actual results of various systems are. This is why, for instance, individual rights & the capitalist system are taking over the world instead of the various forms of collectivism.

But regardless whether God's mind is inscrutable or, um, scrutable, we would still know moral systems by their fruits.

What I can't see is the threat you seem to perceive from folks like myself.

Well, I don't know your posts on this subject well enough to have an impression on you. But for IDers in general, as in the IDers in Kansas who are trying to change the science curriculum standards, I think the threat is to create a bias in science that whenever an explanation isn't obvious in the data, to explain the phenomena by saying "God did it".

The problem with that is that there are now no questions to solve via science. We know everything. We know some natural explanations, and everything else God did. With no questions left to solve, science is dead.

I think this also results in, in my opinion, a warped view of God. It divides up the world into the things that are "natural", and the things done by God. I thought God works through all things? I thought everything that occurs is a result of Gods will? Therefore when we discover something in science, we're viewing Gods work.

I think that faithful people, when they see the evidence of common ancestry between primates and humans in the Vitamin C DNA gene, and the thousands of shared ERV virus insertions that prove we share specific common ancestor individuals with primates, should revel in Gods handiwork. If this means they have to look at a gorilla in the zoo and say "hi cousin", well, then get over it. God did that, even if the gorilla is an ugly cousin. That's what the evidence found in Gods creation tells us.

Evidence found in Gods creation is equally as valid as anything He said in the Bible. Perhaps more so. The creation is the evidence handed directly from Gods hand, with no human intervention. The creation is written in Gods language, not mans.

There are many Christians, who accept evolution, who are inspired by what they read of Gods work found in science. And there are some that are not inspired, and that's a shame.

The statement is self-refuting because it itself is not a statement of science, it is a philosophical statement about science. It is not pure "data". It is a metaphysical proposition that itself is not derived from science and so is inconsistent with its own terms.

These do not belong in science.

To say that some discipline or activity qualifies as non-scientific is to imply the existence of a standard by which the scientific status of an activity can be assessed. Philosophers of science have so far been unable to to come up with consistent and agreed upon demarcation criteria to distinguish what is science and what is not. Have you made some hitherto unknown breakthrough in this area that we should know about?

Cordially,

They [ID] deny that the real world provides us with the possibility of discovering any kind of objective way to judge one moral code or moral decision vs. another. I say we can look to the details of human nature to come up with good hypotheses for what the best moral codes are, and we can look to history to see what the actual results of various systems are. This is why, for instance, individual rights & the capitalist system are taking over the world instead of the various forms of collectivism.

I do not speak for all ID proponents, but Christians at least do not say that the real world does not provided us with the possibility of discovering any kind of objective way to judge one moral code or moral decision vs. another; it says there has to be a transcendent source and standard for their to be any foundation of morality at all. Mindless Evolution provides no logical basis or accounting or explanation of ethics, rationality or truth. To the extent that atheists engage in rational or moral behavior they owe to the fact that they live in God's universe. But the world-view that denies God is utterly incapable of accounting for the incumbency that one ought to do some things and not others. To say that one can come up with up with good hypotheses for what the best moral codes are presupposes a prior or higher moral standard not in evidence from a non-theistic origin.

But regardless whether God's mind is inscrutable or, um, scrutable, we would still know moral systems by their fruits.

Again, presupposing a prior or higher standard by which to judge the fruits begs the question of that standard and its origin. An impersonal chance or deterministic universe can never account for or explain the origin of moral incumbency.

Cordially,

Their existence can be accommodated equally well by common descent or by non-common descent.

Yes. And it was OJ's identical DNA twin that killed Ron and Nichole.

The statistical odds of identical insertions in identical DNA locations in a pattern that matches the previous morphological assumptions of evolution is too high to contemplate.

ERV DNA shared between primates and humans are the smoking gun of common ancestry and evolution.

Deal with it.

... Mindless Evolution provides no logical basis or accounting or explanation of ethics, rationality or truth. To the extent that atheists engage in rational or moral behavior they owe to the fact that they live in God's universe. But the world-view that denies God is utterly incapable of accounting for the incumbency that one ought to do some things and not others. ...

Sure it can. Actions have real-world consequences. Morality is a tool we use to sustain the type of society that's life-affirming as opposed to destructive. These are real-world effects.

In this world, buying low & selling high leads to more wealth than when you started. This is a true fact about the real world, whether the reason there is such a world is because of some natural process or some supernatural person.

The world is what it is, and acts the way it acts. It won't suddenly become something else if its ultimate cause turns out to be something other than what you currently think it is.

Morality is a tool we use to sustain the type of society that's life-affirming as opposed to destructive.

To explain the source of morality by asserting a prior moral rule, in this case, that one should be "life-affirming", begs the question of where morality came from in the first place. Why is it incumbent upon me to be life-affirming in the future? In the absence of an absolute, transcendent ethic there is no evil or good in the first place, only personal preference; the things that are called call "good" and "evil" are just impersonal, valueless data with no explanation and no meaning.

Cordially,

In the absence of an absolute, transcendent ethic there is no evil or good in the first place, only personal preference;

I've been trying to think of a single instance of a successful religion or moral system that sold itself to its followers by holding out the hope of an eventual reward of poverty, pain, loneliness, degradation, regret, and death.

Can you think of any? Doesn't the question itself seem absurd? I say it's axiomatic that the purpose of morality is to enhance our lives. Any discussion of morality kind of falls apart at the start without that a priori assumption. Any motivation to even worry about such questions in the first place falls apart at the start without it.

The statistical odds of identical insertions in identical DNA locations in a pattern that matches the previous morphological assumptions of evolution is too high to contemplate.

Only given your unproven assumptions that ERVs are (and always have been) 1. nonfunctional products of retroviral infection, and 2. that have inserted randomly into the host organism.

There is no reason, assuming that they are non-functional, other than your world-view, that a Designer could not have had a functional reason to place the same nonfunctional sequences at the same location in different species that is beyond our PRESENT scientific understanding. How do you know that there is not some mechanistic enzymatic process at work that causes the virus to do the same thing in the different species with similar DNA?

On the other hand, they may not be non-functional. They are not entirely random. They demonstrate an insertion bias in some cases. Some are transcriptionally active. There is ERV protein expression in humans. The fact of the matter is that we simply don't know how important these are in genome functioning. It is an equally possible and plausible expansion that this phenomena is a corruption or deterioration of a system that was created with a function in mind. The fact that Evolutionary theory can accommodate the observation is not the conclusive proof you wish it were of common ancestry because Evolutionary theory can also accommodates the absence of ERV's. I wonder what you would say if the same ERV at the same location were discovered in two species that are not believed to have shared a recent common ancestor? Would that falsify the notion of common ancestry in your mind? I think not.

Cordially,

Morality = Success?

"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me."

Nihlism is kind of hard to sell, you're right about that. People just don't like it, even if it is the logical conclustion that flows from their premises. Morality does help enhance our lives, but that's not what morality is, and it does not explain some of its core elements or account for its existence.

I say it's axiomatic that the purpose of morality is to enhance our lives. Any discussion of morality kind of falls apart at the start without that a priori assumption. Any motivation to even worry about such questions in the first place falls apart at the start without it.

What command of the universe creates a moral obligation to enhance our lives? (whatever "enhancing life" means - what if it suits one caveman's purpose to kill another caveman in cold blood if that will "enhance the former's life"? Is there anything radically wrong with that?) How can Mindless, impersonal Evolution produce something "wrong"? Are there "good" and "bad" atoms and molecules? You cannot derive an "ought" from an "is" without a transcendent ethic, which begs the question of where the transcendent binding ethic comes from.

Cordially,

Morality = Success?
"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me."

"...13but he who stands firm to the end will be saved." Everyone comes to understand that rewards don't always come immediately. But Jesus was promising eternal bliss in Heaven to those who stood firm.

What command of the universe creates a moral obligation to enhance our lives?

Just before this question you agreed with me that the idea of not striving to enhance our lives (or rather the idea of striving to not enhance our lives) was silly. So you've answered your own question.

(whatever "enhancing life" means - what if it suits one caveman's purpose to kill another caveman in cold blood if that will "enhance the former's life"? Is there anything radically wrong with that?)

Morality deals in principles. Self-serving "principles" geared for a person's immediate gratification don't make the cut. A moral code by its very nature must be something the person would be willing to apply universally. And a caveman may not understand the long-term implications of such a moral code applied universally, but we can instantly see that "kill your neighbor & steal his venison" would lead to everyone on earth remaining a caveman, forever. We 21st century citizens have much higher standards because we have much higher expectations out of life.

How can Mindless, impersonal Evolution produce something "wrong"? Are there "good" and "bad" atoms and molecules? You cannot derive an "ought" from an "is" without a transcendent ethic, which begs the question of where the transcendent binding ethic comes from.

No, you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is" if you limit yourself to purely deductive logic. But thriving in the real world requires a combination of deduction and induction. Since the goal of enhancing our lives is a real-world "is" which drives the necessity for morality in the first place, there is no problem here.

Thank you for your thoughtful responses.

Morality deals in principles.

Why should anyone feel obligated to obey an impersonal principle? If I'm driving on I-70 and I happen to see a random pile of rocks that I think spells out "YOU ARE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD!" should I get on the 'right' side of the road, and would it make any sense to praise myself for doing so or to blame anyone who doesn't? Someone (I can't remember who) has said that it would seem kind of odd if moral principles were just part of the "furniture of the universe".

Self-serving "principles" geared for a person's immediate gratification don't make the cut.

I'm thinking of Bill Kwrinton here; a very successful man who became President of the United States. What's "wrong" with that picture? Is there anything wrong with it?

A moral code by its very nature must be something the person would be willing to apply universally.

Well, applying the "universal" part is another problem, but is there anything radically "wrong" with not applying these impersonal moral principles universally if it suits my purposes and I can get away with it? Again, how can there be something "wrong" with the material universe or anything in it without some standard by which to judge it? And how can you have a standard in the first place if physicalism is true and we are nothing by genetically programed machines, offspring of the Big Machine? How do you get from there to here? Where there is no transcendent standard ethical statements and commands are meaningless, irrational and unintelligible. Brute physical forces that operate by chance or necessity do not have virtue, justice, fairness, dignity, or obligation.

Since the goal of enhancing our lives is a real-world "is" which drives the necessity for morality in the first place, there is no problem here.

Yes, we have agreed that morality enhances our lives, but the problem is that is no foundation under that beautiful moral castle you're building. You cannot account for it or explain it. You say that it is "axiomatic", but Richard Dawkins says that we live in a universe in shich there is "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference". I think his statement is ultimately false and self-refuting, but it is autonomous rationalism without the window dressing. The problem is that you can't have a transcendent standard and not have one at the same time.

Cordially,

Morality deals in principles.
Why should anyone feel obligated to obey an impersonal principle? If I'm driving on I-70 and I happen to see a random pile of rocks that I think spells out "YOU ARE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD!" should I get on the 'right' side of the road, and would it make any sense to praise myself for doing so or to blame anyone who doesn't? Someone (I can't remember who) has said that it would seem kind of odd if moral principles were just part of the "furniture of the universe".

I think a better analogy is that you simply recognize that you're on the side of the road where cars are zooming toward you instead of in the same direction as yourself. Now, a strict believer in the essential dichotomy between is & ought might not feel compelled to take any specific action in this situation, but someone who accepts induction into their thinking and is concerned with thriving in the world "ought" to take a very specific class of actions, given the "is" that's before him.

As for it being odd that moral principles should be intrinsic to the universe, I'd say it's no more odd that mathematics, or "buy low & sell high", or the fact that time only flows in one direction, should be. Some things are just metaphysically given, and it's up to us to live within the world that we find ourselves in. <shrug>

And how can you have a standard in the first place if physicalism is true and we are nothing by genetically programed machines, offspring of the Big Machine? How do you get from there to here? Where there is no transcendent standard ethical statements and commands are meaningless, irrational and unintelligible. Brute physical forces that operate by chance or necessity do not have virtue, justice, fairness, dignity, or obligation.

Here you're falling into the fallacy of composition trap. We're made up of lifeless components, but that's irrelevant because it's the complex entity as a whole (the "person" in this case) that's alive. Likewise, the quality of "wetness" doesn't apply to oxygen or hydrogen, yet water has lots of wetness. Where did the wetness come from when water molecules were formed from their un-wet components? Again, no conundrum to worry about.

While you have given a very good illustration of the composition fallacy, I think I am not committing it here. There are, as you know, various kinds of proffered causal explanations of the very complicated matter of mind and consciousness, i.e., why water is wet. The materialist seeks a causal explanation in the reduction of consciousness to a material property of the brain, an emergent phenomena that appears only at very high levels of complexity. It is presumed to be irreducible to lower levels even though those 'lover levels' alone do cause it. (unlike a liquid which is emergent but which is ontologically reducible in terms of the relationship between more basic elements.) The experience of things like the wetness of water is causally dependent only by the brain with the brain being basically in a new state of matter.

Even if this view were correct in explaining consciousness it is of no help at all with the problem of morality. It is not just an epistemological problem of calculation of the possibility of billions of firing neurons and what causes consciousness. Even if you could hypothetically explain all consciousness in terms of matter, you still are still saying that matter ends up producing real morality; actual, not illusory, right and wrong. Is matter or any of its emergent properties dualistic? Conversely, is morality just a property of human consciousness? If it is then it is entirely subjective, and not worthy of the name. How is it that even a "new state of matter" (still governed by chance or necessity) produces authoritative moral commands worthy of praise when "obeyed" and blame when "disobeyed"?

Cordially,

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.