ID proponents often portray ID critics as “materialists”, and recently someone asked whether a force was “material”. Well, if a force isn’t “material” then there are no “materialists”. So yes, is the answer to that question. A force that can move matter is a material force. A force that can’t move matter isn’t a force at all.
And this matters for the Intelligent Design argument, because when we infer that an object has been intelligently designed, we are also inferring that it was fabricated according to that design. And to fabricate an object, or modify it, the fabricator has to accelerate matter, i.e. give its parts some kinetic energy it did not otherwise possess, by applying a force.
While ID proponents are often reluctant to speculate much about the nature of the designer, they rarely even mention the fabrication process. But the ID proposal implicitly postulates that a force was applied to matter by the designer, or her workforce, in order to make it do something other than what it would have done had that force not been applied.
I’d like to ask ID proponents here: what is your preferred hypothesis as to how the putative designer of living things actually made them? What material force accelerated the required molecules into position in the first living cells, converting potential energy into kinetic energy, and since then, guides the nucleotides into the required positions to produce novel proteins and enzymes as required?
What is, in other words, the energy source for the “poof”?
Exactly! At the interface between imagination and reality, where the supernatural exerts a real effect, there should be fingerprints or footprints. Why isn’t somebody who believes in the “Designer” looking for them?
I see the point – indeed the quandary is how could something immaterial, impact something material? However, why couldn’t the material force/s be the mechanism caused by the designer to execute said design?
Welcome to TSZ, Jackson.
Are you suggesting that IDists haven’t gauged the problem?
Who, me? Yes, I guess so.
It lies at the heart of the whole “materialist” thing. Materialists are condemned for not believing that there is anything in the world apart from material causation, and yet cannot explain how you can have “immaterial” causation.
It relates to the free will problem as well. If “mind”, say, is a force, and can move the brain into different physical states, then where is its potential energy stored? And how can it be informed, if it, itself, is not being moved by receipt of information from the physical world?
If the immaterial realm makes a difference to the material realm, and the material realm makes a difference to the immaterial realm, in what sense is the immaterial realm immaterial?
And if it doesn’t, what why should we care about it?
Demski:
“How much energy is required to impart information? We have sensors that can detect quantum events and amplify them to the macroscopic level. What’s more, the energy in quantum events is proportional to frequency or inversely proportional to wavelength. And since there is no upper limit to the wavelength of, for instance, electromagnetic radiation, there is no lower limit to the energy required to impart information. In the limit, a designer could therefore impart information into the universe without inputting any energy at all.”
This is nonsense. The lower limit is set by the matter, or whatever else, that interacts with the EM to generate the information. Does he really think it could be zero? Wouldn’t that imply that info could be had for free?
The high level sparring that many people here ( including Tom English) engage in with Dembski and his ideas suggests to me that his ideas are reasonable but wrong. There are other times when I conclude they’re abysmally bad – isn’t his whole effort irrelevant regarding evolution?
A nebulous claim. While there is no lower limit to the energy of an electromagnetic field, there is a lower limit on the energy required to change a chemical bond. It’s hard to see how information could be imparted into a chemical system like life without changing any bonds.
Richardthughes,
Using infinitely long (zero frequency) waves? Taking an infinitely long time to transmit one bit of information? It doesn’t strike me as a good plan.
**This post seems to be related a comment I made in passing in the previous post, so I’ll pick up on that**
I think this discussion on how the designer of ID would implement his plan illustrates why ID isn’t a viable idea. The most reasonable possibility for a designer would be aliens who seeded earth 4 1/2 billion years ago and then disappeared without a trace, but IDists have pretty much rejected this in favor of the god of the Old Testament. I know that Meyer has cited as support for ID the ‘evidence’ that the universe was created by God. But everything we know suggests that such a God couldn’t do anything within the world. Until IDers describe and show evidence for a mechanism that would allow a ‘timeless, spaceless’ being to do so, ID can be summarily rejected.
The only counterargument I can see IDists coming up with is the evidence of miracles. After all, how could Jesus Christ – one man- roll a stone weighing several tons away from his tomb if there wasn’t some way for supernatural forces to accelerate material objects? If they do this they’ll have to drop all pretense that ID isn’t connected to religion
Exactly. It’s all very well talking about “pure information” as the substance of reality, but unless it can actually move stuff around, I don’t see what use it is. I think, in my meaner moments, that it’s a kind of conjuring trick: “information” is an abstract term; it denotes something undeniably real; abstract things aren’t material; therefore materialism is wrong.
– A more precise version of what I said above. Now I’m wondering about something. Dembski probably said this in anticipation or response to an objection to his ideas on ID and the Designer. So what was the argument against ID that got him backed into a corner with this response?
The energy comes from the same origin as the energy needed to levitate Joseph of Cupertino.
Now was that so hard?
Glen Davidson
Elizabeth tries to win the debate by how she defines the terms. That’s always a successful strategy. The same strategy was recently attempted over at UD by Eigenstate and in much the same way.
“If it can interact with matter, it is by definition material.”
Therefore the mind is material.
Q.E.D.
Needless to say, I don’t find such arguments convincing.
Here, try this one.
God is a being that cannot not exist.
God is thereby the most natural entity possible.
Therefore all naturalists are theists.
Then how does something that is supernatural or incorporeal or imaginary or non-material or non-physical interact with the world we can observe? Surely at some point there must be an interface.
Defining terms is essential, Mung.
If you want to define force as immaterial – then for goodness sake stop call us “materialists”! We all believe that forces exist.
And a force is defined (not by me, by Newton in his 2nd Law of Motion) as Mass x Acceleration.
Do you disagree with this definition?
Assuming that were true, why is being clear about the meaning a word or phrase not a very sensible way to advance a dialogue?
Ooh, spooky! See the time stamps,
Let’s start with the first material act of The Designer, who we shall call The Creator, and to reduce the amount of typing we shall henceforth refer to as God.
[Trying to keep Gregory happy, so bear with me.]
Most theists believe that God:
1. Brought the universe into existence [Space, Time, Energy, Matter]
2. Continually sustains the universe [STEM] in existence.
In this light, questions such as those raised in the OP are simply juvenile. And this is why you get labelled “materialist” over at UD.
Seriously, why is that so difficult to grasp?
There’s a rather hilarious exchange going on over there right now where one poster in order to maintain his objections to semiosis in the cell claims that only the physical layer in the OSI model is actually physical, and above that it’s all immaterial. In order to maintain his objection to ID he’s become a dualist.
And that, my friends, is funny.
I think Mung suspects equivocation. But there is none.
I’m using “force” according to the canonical definition. If Mung’s argument is that forces are immaterial, then the whole argument against “materialism” falls apart, because nobody disputes the existence of forces.
Why not all and how do you know? These are untestable philosophical questions and harmless.
So when God changed the
wine into water[water into wine] at the wedding at Cana, had we some testing equipment, what should we have been able to observe? Was mass and energy conserved?Well, regard me as juvenile, then,and answer them. When God accelerates matter, do you call that a force? And, if so, is a material or an immaterial force?
I don’t mind being labelled a “materialist” as long as you don’t mean, by that label, that I deny the existence of forces.
I have no problem with the idea that God is the ground of being and sustains the world in existence.
As I keep quoting from Herbert McCabe:
It’s the idea that we can infer God from the apparent suspension of the laws of the universe I am taking issue with. If God is supposed to reach in from time to time and tinker with DNA molecules so that they reorder themselves, that implies that extra, specifically divine, forces, operate in the world, in addition to the regular set.
And a) I don’t see anyone looking for such forces, or even postulating that we should observe them and b) it seems a very odd way to try to find an omniscient and omnipotent God. Like trying to find a perfect car manufacturer by looking for evidence of repairs being necessary.
Alan, I already explained that God is not supernatural, but the most natural being that can possibly exist. By His own nature, He cannot not exist. God is a necessary being.
You, on the other hand, are a contingent being. You, and I, are what are unnatural.
Interestingly, the Bible does not try to tell provide the fabrication process. God merely spoke, and it came to pass.
Mung,
Fair enough. You sound like Ed Feser talking. 🙂
OK. That theology works, and gets along OK with science. But it doesn’t help ID.
ok, and it’s rather silly to think that God is exerting some force in doing so. Agreed?
But how did God create the material world without coming into contact with it and how does He sustain it without touching it? Isn’t some interface required?
You don’t need to answer if you don’t want to, the questions are mostly rhetorical.
No one believes that because God created the universe or that because God sustains the universe that this makes God, by definition, material.
How do you know? (Don’t bother to answer. The question’s rhetorical). On the other hand how are you defining material? By the evidence of my own senses, reinforced by shared experience and enhanced by all our scientific instrumentation, I judge that some phenomena are real, in the sense of being observable, detectable and measurable. We must therefore mean different things by “material”.
And the ID camp know the difference between science and theology. (Or some do anyways, lol.)
Science cannot tell us, for example, whether goddidit.
I had a similar conversation with Larry Moran over at UD (well, it seemed a bit one-sided, in the end). He has his minimalist definition of evolution and expected us to respect that, but when given the minimalist definition of ID he didn’t seem to care to reciprocate. Perhaps he’s rethinking things.
For the most part I don’t think it matters to most ID’ists whether ID’ists can provide the details of the fabrication process used by a designer or not. It’s not relevant to the inference to design
The fact that you keep trying to make it relevant only indicates that you are not willing to respect how ID has chosen to define itself.
Do definitions matter?
You tell me.
Personally, I find the whole concept of “supernatural” incoherent. Theologically, I found the whole business of separating the “natural” from the “supernatural” led down a blind alley. That’s why I was an Aquinas follower, of sorts – or a kind of Wittgensteinian Thomist, large by way of McCabe, who made sense to me – the idea that we cannot know what God is, only what God is not.
That’s why I was an ID critic well before I lost my theism – it never made theological sense to me, quite apart from being scientifically indefensible (in my view). If, as McCabe puts it, “to interfere you have to be an alternative to, or alongside, what you are interfering with”, then God cannot be apparent in differences between what is interfered with and what isn’t. God won’t be detectable at all from the nature of the world. Therefore, if there is are forces in nature that makes life more probable than it would seem from the ones we know about, eventually we will find them, and it still won’t tell us anything about the existence of God, any more discovering gravity or the Higgs boson, tells us anything about the existence of God.
Same with Mind – if Mind turns out to be a field, say, that can move stuff around – cool. But it won’t falsify “materialism”. It will just tell us that there is an aspect to the material world (i.e. the world of matter and energy and forces) that we did not previously know about.
And God’s existence, or otherwise, will be entirely unaffected.
Absolutely. As I keep saying. And science doesn’t try. The question is outwith its purview.
What is the minimalist definition of ID?
It certainly is. Absolutely relevant.
If ID chooses to define itself as not interested in the implications of its own methodology, fine. But then ID proponents shouldn’t be surprised when their output is rejected as science.
Scientific methods can only study what is observable. So long as “goddidit” claims avoid specifics or entailments, they cannot be refuted .
Do you have a link?
What was this minimalist definition?
Whether ID has a testable scientific hypothesis yet? What might be taught in an ID “science” class?
Sadly, I think you might be right, here.
It becomes relevant when ID is touted as scientific.
Some proponents are still trying to peddle ID as having a genuine scientific element that better explains what we observe with regard to the diversity of life on Earth.
For anyone interested in a constructive exchange of views and information, they do.
If this is the case though…wouldn’t it be true then that no matter what God did, that impacted the “material,” that action/observed force would become a “field of study.” So how would God go about showing himself, except through a physical event, which then would become as you noted, “an aspect of the physical world” that we hadn’t known about?
Well, that’s a problem for God! When I was a Christian, I thought that’s what the Incarnation was all about. But I have to say, miracles always bothered me a bit. I was reassured that they also bothered Jesus though. He got a bit fed up with people asking for Signs the whole time.
Then join my “God is all natural” movement! 🙂
[Not to be confused with the au natural movement. Sorry]
But let me see if I can help you (and others).
For most people, “the natural world” is probably synonymous with “the creation.”
The correct antonym for natural is not “supernatural,” but “not created.”
Superman is a man, but a very special kind of man. A superlative man.
But God is not a very special kind of anything. God is not a superlative kind of created being. God is in an entirely different category from created. It is a category error to refer to God as a supernatural being.
Even if we think of “natural” as beings with their own nature, God is not one among many. God is the only being who has existence by His very nature.
A one and only does not stand in a hierarchy with others.
Hope that helps.
Indeed. Materialism will just redefine what it means to be material. It can’t be falsified. Just what you’ve attempted to do in the OP, in case you haven’t noticed.
I wouldn’t want to be a materialist either given those terms.
No, I don’t suspect equivocation. 🙂 That was my point.
You can define force as material. But then to ask “how does God force something to happen” or “what force does God use” become nonsense questions.
Define your terms as you will, but then don’t ask questions that make no sense given the way you’ve defined your terms. Fair enough?
Based on this very description of God, theists like Feser reject Paley’s view of nature and ID theory. Because God described this way does not design things the way ID theory assumes.
So, it helps, but doesn’t help ID theory.
Who do you think “most people” refers to?
Most christians? Most theists? Most of the human population which is currently alive, be they theists, atheists, or something else? Most of the human population which has ever lived or ever will live?
I have never assumed that “natural world” is synonymous with “the creation”. I have a hard time imagining that “most people” throughout history have NOT been just like me. I assume that the current (last few millennia in the western world) godbothering era is a more or less temporary aberration in the consciousness of average humans.
Well, nevermind, correctness of opinion about “the creation” is not up for a popular vote anyways, so as long as we understand that you see the terms “natural world” and “the creation” as synonymous, that’s okay. So go on …
Nope, sorry, that’s incoherent. “Not created” and “natural” are synonyms. For you to claim they’re antonyms means they would have to simultaneously be synonyms and antonyms. You’re violating the law of non-contradiction (in folk terms, at least, if not in formal logic). No good, Mung.
Who says it’s a category error to refer to god as a “supernatural being”… you? Well, yeah, obviously, you do say that. What I mean is, what basis do you have for making that flat statement?
I’m sure there are at least a few theologians who agree with you (and there are at least some theologians somewhere who would agree with any proposition, no matter how illogical or downright crazy). But you’re pretty much out on a limb there all by yourself, disagreeing with every christian I’ve ever met who states the opposite of you, that of course god is a supernatural being. What else could it be? It’s not natural, that’s for sure, not either by your definition nor by mine. It might not be exactly the same flavor of “supernatural” as supposed ghosts, angels, demons, or Superman, but it’s clearly some flavor of supernatural. Supernatural by definition, of everyone except (maybe) you.
Again, who says? Why would anyone believe that “god has existence by its very nature”? What on Earth does that mean? It’s just gobbledegook to anyone who doesn’t already believe it. Yeah, yeah, I know that sophistimacated philosophers seriously argue that it’s true, but that doesn’t make them right. It makes them just like the sophisticated courtiers who discuss at great length the fineness of the Emperor’s New Clothes.
hotshoe_: Who do you think “most people” refers to?
Most people
hotshoe_: I have never assumed that “natural world” is synonymous with “the creation”.
You’re special. Never let anyone tell you otherwise.
hotshoe_: Nope, sorry, that’s incoherent. “Not created” and “natural” are synonyms.
Nope, sorry, since you’re accepting my definitions, the synonyms would be natural and created. The antonym would be not created or uncreated.
You:
So it’s ok but it’s not okay. You’re contradicting yourself. 😉
I’ll pause here to let you catch up. I understand that your material minds cannot operate faster than the speed of light, but mine can.
I have a great deal of respect for Edward Feser, he has opened my eyes to completely new vistas.
But to say that God does not fabricate things like humans do is not to say that humans do not design things like God does.
ID theory does not assert that design is mechanistic.
Good, this removes Paley’s watch from the theory (the watch that KF just recently made yet another post about). So what’s still left? What does the theory assert?
Thank you, I’m sure.
No of course I’m not contradicting myself – I never do – but perhaps a combination of your attempt to speed read and speed respond, with my attempt to make my comment as unwordy as possible, have met up to give you a misunderstanding.
When I said “that’s okay” I figured it would be clear I meant “that’s okay for you to believe; doesn’t mean you’re right, but let’s see where your belief leads” and indeed I did make it clear by adding “So go on …”
I already use so many words that I bore myself; I do hate to be required to spell out everything at such length. Ah, well, it’s a perfect example of what Elizabeth was already talking about in the Models thread. that you should not be so quick to jump to your conclusion that the other person has contradicted themselves, merely because you didn’t understand at first glance.
Then, it was “okay” right up until the very next sentence, when your belief about the identity of “natural” and “created” smacks head on into contradiction with what everyone else on the planet agrees is the identity of “natural” and “non-created”. I mean, it can be interesting enough discussing with you that I’m willing to extend you great leeway in how you define terms, but I do feel obliged to point out incoherence when you start talking about The Giant Who Lives in Your Pocket. (Umm, that’s a metaphor, Mung, I”m not claiming that you have ever used the specific words Pocket Giant.) Of course it’s still okay that you believe it, but you should know that “accepting” your definition for the purpose of discussion doesn’t mean I’m actually obliged to believe it, nor swallow my disbelief silently. Which I don’t. 🙂
Sure thing, sweetie. Feel free to let us poor Earth-bound sapsuckers know when you’ve finished circling the galaxy and are back in low orbit. Or are grounded, for a change.
Catch ya on the flip side!
Here’s what you said:
So when you say it’s ok what you really mean is it’s not ok.
That’s a contradiction.
You then say:
That’s a contradiction.
Mung: ID theory does not assert that design is mechanistic.
You’ve neglected to show your reasoning.
It can be found at Uncommon Descent. You’ve been there, right?
Are you always this chained up by literalism? Are you never ever able to read the spaces between the words, the hints, the corrections, the exchanges, the flow that lets meaning appear from flat black and white?
You must have a hell of a time trying to get the point of hymns and music.
Mung, the world is not all flat. It’s almost exactly flat, but that little bit of a curve that throws you for a loss every time, that curve is what makes all the difference.
Trust me, there’s an art to understanding, just like there’s an art to dancing. It’s not just flat-footed stomping and throwing your weight around. It’s an art you can learn, but you do have to want to learn.
Univocal predication.
No, you are neglecting to show any reasoning. You are all over the place just contradicting others, not making any sense yourself. Theories assert things. ID theory, as a minimum, says something about that it explains something. It is still unclear what it explains, because it has demonstrably not explained anything yet, and extracting a sensible answer from you is like pulling teeth, and I am not even a dentist.
Nope. I reject a consistently literal interpretation of the Bible. But molecules bouncing around can’t explain my rejection of Biblical literalism. Something else must be involved. I’m still awaiting a materialistic alternative.
How does materialism allow for or provide an explanation for anything but literalism? Semiosis, perhaps?