As a card carrying creationist, I’ve sometimes wanted to post about my reservations regarding the search for evidence of Intelligent Design (ID) and some of the rottenness in the search for evidence in young earth creation. I’ve refrained from speaking my mind on these matters too frequently lest I ruffle the feathers of the few friends I have left in the world (the ID community and the creationist community). But I must speak out and express criticism of my own side of the aisle on occasion.
Before proceeding, I’d like to thank Elizabeth for her hospitality in letting me post here. She invited me to post some things regarding my views of Natural Selection and Genetic Algorithms, but in the spirit of skepticism I want to offer criticism of some of my own ideas.So this essay will sketch what I consider valid criticism of ID, creationism in general and Young Earth Creationism (YEC) in particular.
Take any of the accepted laws of physics, like say the classic one, F=ma in classical mechanics. The physical behavior requires no Intelligent Designer. This is true of every physical law. I recall a professor of physics saying, “after Newton there was no need of witches or of God”. What she meant, it seems to me, is God was irrelevant to understanding physical law. Invoking God doesn’t give further insight to understanding physics.
Only in some controversial interpretations of Quantum Mechanics will some physicists even dare to argue God exists. Such arguments have been put forward by Richard Conn Henry, John Barrow, Frank Tipler, FJ Belinfante etc. See:
But that is the crux of the problem. If the Intelligent Designer is not the focus of physics, and physics underlies all the sciences, then how can ID then be incorporated into science? In that regard, I’m mostly ambivalent to arguing whether ID is science or not.
Like the play “Waiting for Godot”, we are “Waiting for the Intelligent Designer”. I reject the notion that one can apply stone henge as evidence of intelligent design and then make an equally believable case that one can look at the intricacies of the cell and conclude the Intelligent Designer exists. When I was an engineering student, I would be subject to examination to demonstrate that I could make designs. Human made designs are thus subject to independent verification. We can subject those sort of intelligent designers to field laboratory testing, we cannot do so regarding the supposed Intelligent Designer of the universe and life. This lack of direct testability will always leave quite a bit of room for skepticism, if not some inclination for outright rejection, no matter how powerful the arguments are against chemical and biological evolution.
If God were continually making miracles like he did in the time of Moses, we might not be having these debates, but as for now He has chosen to remain hidden from observation and experiment which are the foundations of science.
These criticism of ID will apply to creationism and particularly young earth creationism. Even supposing miracles are real, by their very nature, miracles will elude repeatability (that’s why they are miracles!). The most we can hope for is to use science to demonstrate that an unusual mechanism had to be responsible for certain phenomena. You can pretty much forget being able to create experiments that will require the Intellgent Designer to appear in the laboratory or in the field. Not even creationists will argue for that possibility.
But that is not my worst complaint about the enterprise of YECism. The community appeals to Biblical authority to “prove” its case. But that is no proof whatsoever, and I’d argue that even the Bible doesn’t teach this as a method of proof. Is there biblical thermodynamics, calculus, electromagnetism, classical mechanics, linear algebra, or any major field of research that can be resolved by theology? No.
For example, some YECs will come around and preach that if you don’t believe the Earth is Young, then you’re compromising the word of God. To which I respond, well what does the book of Genesis have to say about what the right form of Maxwell’s Equations should be or how do your resolve the conflict of YEC with the Einstein-Planck equation that is related to the photo electric effect and thus all of Quantum Mechanics. At that point, the preachers have little to say. They’ll then proceed to make disparaging comments about my character.
The major problem of YEC (and there are many) is the problem of distant starlight. Some will invoke temporally and spatially varying speeds of light. Some will argue light was created en-route that gives the appearance of age (GAG!). The problem with varying speeds of light is in order to preserve the energy of the Einstein-Planck equation, one has to then invoke a varying Planck’s constant, which would mean the undoing of Quantum Mechanics. So YECism flies in the face of Maxwell’s Equations (electromagnetism), Relativity (which is related to Maxwell’s Equations), and Quantum Mechanics — no small pillars of real science! Though YECism might stand on its own against evolutionism, it collapses under the weight of modern physics.
But that is not even the end of the story. YECists like Ken Ham routinely demonize other Christians who disagree with him. This is personally distasteful because many in the ID community who have even been expelled and suffered career loss for their criticism of Darwin are also demonized by the likes of Ken Ham. Even supposing YEC is true, this is no way to treat fellow Christian who have shown a lot of courage in speaking their conscience.
Does his organization spend lots of money on real science? Well relative to the millions they spend on amusement parks which they pass off as the “creation museum”, they don’t do much on behalf of answering scientific questions. I’ve mentioned three major problems which are utterly neglected in favor of building amusement parks of no scientific value.
If YECists consider it sinful to believe in an Old Universe, then they’ll have to come to terms with the work of creationists like Maxwell, who ironically has given the best line of reasoning to argue against YECism. Using intimidation, demonization, and appeals to theology will not make much of a persuasive case, even to card carrying creationists like me. In fact, it only reinforces the view they have no facts to stand on, only blind belief.
Sometimes the way YEC “research” is conducted reminds me of the geocentrists that attempted to influence my denomination, the PCA. [incidentally physicist Dave Snoke is an Elder in the PCA, and Dave Heddle is deeply sympathetic to the PCA]. It was disgusting to try to reason with geocentrists. I know many Christian believers, who are in the aerospace industry. That industry wouldn’t achieve its success if it accepted geocentrism. I even met a Christian creationist astronaut who walked on the moon (Charles Duke). This would not be possible if the biblical geocentrists had their way. But some people are so committed to their own theology, they are unwilling to be reasoned with, nor will they seriously engage reasonable objections to their claims. If you want a taste of geocentrism, go here:
Though YECs one the whole aren’t as bad as the geocentrists, there are pockets of them that are as bad, imho. I don’t want these sort of people on my team, and hence I have chosen to affiliate myself with the ID community because of some of the rotten tomatoes in creationism.
So then, in light of these things, why do I accept ID as true and hold out a smidgen of hope that YEC might be true? That obviously will be the subject of future posts at the Skeptical Zone, but all this to say, one can’t accuse me of not recognizing serious difficulties in some of the ideas I’ve promoted and explored. And that is what I would hope the skeptical zone is about.
William J Murray,
As much as you wish to believe to, you cannot believe that you have reasoned yourself into a paradox.
In other words, you MUST believe that A is not equal to (~A).
I never claimed I wanted such a thing. I never said I existed in such a state, or that such as state was possible.
Doesn’t sound like it to me.
No, I just choose to believe that, too. I can also believe that 4-sided triangles exist, and that 3+5=222, if I wish. My beliefs don’t have to be rational.
William J Murray,
But what I said was, you can’t believe they do…, and they don’t…., at the same time.
You MUST believe A does not equal (~A).
BarryA believes that A does not equal (~A).
What about you?
Are you free to believe otherwise?
Ask Barry.
And so once again, free will means complete licence to Make Stuff Up, while those suffering unfree will are regrettably constrained by the slings and arrows of objective reality. This all clearly undermines the utility of trying to reason with someone so overcome by free will that reason itself is meaningless.
Except, of course, when crossing the street. Somehow the objective reality of traffic suspends all that free will, at least long enough to get across.
So basically free will is useful in situations where deviation from reality has no consequences. Such as believing in faith healing and also seeing a doctor.
How does one “deviate from reality”?
Elizabeth,
Are you going to answer my question about whether or not testimony is evidence, or should I just go ahead and respond to Robin’s perspective?
By believing things which if acted upon, would cause trouble. Such as believing in faith healing, and following it to the conclusion reached by many believers, and rejecting effective treatments.
Uh, by freely willing to believe those oncoming cars are imaginary, and walking across the street with sublime confidence that your free will can handle it?
William J Murray,
Do you have the free will to believe that A equals (~A)?
Flint, Petrushka:
So, the two of you know what reality is?
And, just to be clear here, you are admitting that one can deviate from whatever it is that you two are calling “reality”? If so, where do non-real things take place, if one can deviate from “reality” into “non-reality”? How do they take place?
I have that capacity, yes.
I asked about crossing the street. You evaded this question. I asked again. You continue to evade the question. And I think by now, that answers the question – your “free will” is nothing more than an excuse to believe in ignoring or denying evidence when doing so won’t hurt you.
But hey, don’t just evade, go out and TEST “reality” by ignoring the oncoming traffic. First, though, ask your heirs if they would please post the results of your exercise of the will to believe indiscriminately.
Flint said:
I don’t see where you asked such a question. The only place where you say anything about it in question form was apparently an answer to my question about what would be a deviation from reality, as if asking me that question was an answer to my question. I don’t see where you asked me a question about it prior to that.
What is the question you are asking me about crossing a street that I am supposedly evading?
Flint,
BTW, should I take that as a “yes”, that you know what reality is?
If so, can you tell me where “non-real” things that deviate from reality take place, and how they occur?
William J Murray,
Is that something that someone who wishes to retain free will, is NOT free to believe?
Ah, so now you are evading the question once again.
I’m not saying I know what reality is. I’m saying that if your “free will” somehow coincidentally fails to be exercised when willing in contradiction to evidence is dangerous, it sounds suspiciously like a ratinalization.
So once again, if you see cars coming, does your “free will” permit you to believe your eyes are deceiving you, and that you’d survive walking in front of them? Are you willing to test? Or would you rather gaze into your navel when the time comes to put up or shut up?
Well, this has been fun, but I freely will myself to come back down to Earth for a moment.
The annoying thing about these Free Will discussions, even those not hurled into la-la land by William J. Murray, is that they are also context free. Few people retaining a hint of sanity believe that Free Will is absolute — not even Gandalf could will himself to resist for long the corrupting influence of the One Ring, and his creator Tolkein was a pretty conventional believer in the traditional Catholic concept of Free Will.
So when we mention Free Will, we should really be specific as to “free with respect to what?” It’s not Free with respect to gravity — you cannot will yourself to float in the air, at least not without technological assistance.
The impression I get, and since I’ve never seen anyone really be specific about it, it remains just an impression, is that the concept of Free Will as normally used in practice refers to freedom with respect to the codes and expectations of the surrounding society. You are expected to have unique knowledge and experiences which make you resistant to behaving in certain ways simply because your peers are doing it. It’s really just another way of phrasing the “just because all your friends are jumping off a bridge doesn’t mean you have to” remark.
Now, using it in that sense takes most of the mystery and intrigue out of it, and makes the debate a lot less entertaining. And shorter. But that seems to me the only meaningful sense that you can broadly apply. The mundane trumps the imaginative all too often.
I would add to that the rather mundane concept that people are accountable for their behavior in ways that we don’t apply to cats and dogs.
But I think William is after something different. He actually believes that believing something will happen will cause it to happen.
We again see the difference between the scientific method (hypothesize, test, repeat) and the religious method (say something is true using the right words, and repeat) of attaining knowledge.
I don’t think William is saying that believing something will happen makes it happen, so much as SAYING something is true makes it true. Genuine magical thinking. And I notice that the whole “semiotic theory” thread is based on this same premise – that reality is subject to word games, which are required for the magical “information transfer” necessary for ID to operate. In the beginning was the Word, you know.
Which is why the chants and incantations need to be just so…
And in Latin.
My free will allows me to believe any sort of thing I wish to believe, including that I am immune to harm from oncoming traffic. I don’t know what you mean by “putting it to test”. I don’t claim that my beliefs are factual accounts of reality, or are true, so what “test” would I be putting them to? If you are asking me to prove that I “really” believe them, I suggest you read over how I have explained and contextualized what I mean by the term “belief”. You appear to be applying a definition other than what I have said “beliefs” are under my free will paradigm.
I have certainly been in situations where I was faced with great physical harm, perhaps even death, and I chose to believe I and those I loved would get through unharmed. We did. However, I don’t go seeking such situations out to “prove” or “test” anything. Why would I? What am I proving or testing, when I don’t even claim such beliefs to be true? If by “rationalizing” you mean that I adopt beliefs where it is useful and convenient to do so, I’ve already flatly described the beliefs as conceptualizations that I only hold as useful conveniences. I certainly don’t hold them to deliberately and needlessly put myself in apparent danger just to “test” something that I don’t even claim (that they are true representations of reality.) I could if I wanted, but William don’t wanna.
There are situations I’ve been in where such beliefs were useful, and I got out of some very dangerous situations unharmed or relatively unharmed (and even gained benefit from them), but since I don’t hold such beliefs to be true, why on Earth would I deliberately, for no good reason, hold and test such beliefs?
I don’t see any reason to willy-nilly make up any belief. I only adopt beliefs that are useful to me, whether they are mainstream, scientific, or not. I am something of a belief minimalist. The ones I do have are all conditional, provisional, and I only hold for usefulness or convenience.
As I have said, I’m not trying to prove anything. I’m just doing my best to experience a good, enjoyable life. “Knowing what reality is”, or “proving my ideas true to myself or others” isn’t even on my list of things to do.
Then why are you making comments and asking apparently rhetorical questions as if you do? If you don’t know what reality is, who are you to comment about my beliefs and ideas as if they factually refer to something outside of the constraints of reality? By what authority do you judge what is real, and what is not?
You see, I admit that I do not know what reality is, or is not, which is why I don’t offer judgements about whether or not what others believe is “real” or “true” or not in terms of what is real. That’s one of the reasons I keep my arguments almost entirely philosophical and hypothetical in nature. I’m hardly going to argue about what is “real” or “true” in the experience of other people when I can’t even claim to know what reality is.
If by “actually” you mean that I consider it to be a true aspect of reality, then you haven’t been paying attention.
You are confusing free will with free action. I can will/intend to float away and fly in defiance of gravity, whether I can physically accomplish such a thing or not.
Actually, I’ve said exactly the opposite, that my philosophy is entirely unconcerned with whether or not any model or claim about reality is true; it is only concerned with apparent experiential (personally empirical) results.
You could say that my view about all physical models I employ is like medicine. Not all medicines work, or work the same, or have the same effects for all patients. What works for large number of patients might kill a handful of others. The way I pick models is much like the way an individual might pick medicines or treatments; when they find something that works for them in particular, with the fewest negative side effects, then of what value is it to point out that most other people do not find that particular treatment effective?
If for some people the placebo effect is much more effective than any other treatment, what is the value in arguing against it? I look at beliefs like they are different medications in this sense, and adopt them or drop them depending on what kind of effect they have on the body of my experience. I don’t demand and insist that one particular medication get the job done. I don’t even insist that traditional treatments get the job done. I don’t care what gets the job done, as long as it gets done.
If I can apply that treatment for good use in the future, I’ll continue using it. If not, I’ll ditch it. I’ve ditched many, many beliefs because they were either useless or counter-productive.
Just so it doesn’t get lost:
Elizabeth, are you saying (like Robin) that testimony is not evidence?
Flint,
You keep making comments that apparently imply that some views or considerations are “not real” or have nothing to do with “reality”, like referring to some train of thought as “magical thinking”.
You didn’t really directly answer the question, so I’ll ask again: Do you know what reality is, and how it operates?
Before, you only said that you “are not saying” that you know what reality is. I took that to mean that you admit you don’t know what reality is, but I find it strange that after admitting you don’t know what reality is, you would make implications about the reality-value of some views. So was I mistaken? Do you know what reality is, and how it operates? Or not?
How about you, llanitedave? I infer from the following comments of yours:
…that you are making such value judgements from an apparent knowledge of what is real and not real. Do you know what reality is, and the limitations and constraints thereof, that would allow judgements of “sanity” and what is an excursion into “la la land” and what is “back to Earth”, as those phrases imply?
Flint- Your position does not use nor care about and scientific methodology.
As for magical thinking, just take a look at the “theory” of evolution.
Are you sure you are not curled up in a ball in a institution, generating this “reality” as you go along?
The best “personally empirical” results would logically flow from disconnecting yourself from external sensory input (reality) and instead recreating the world from the inside out, so to speak. Then you can maximise the results from your point of view with nothing to stop you.
Why have you not done that?
If you have already done that, would there be any way for you to tell that after the event?
Do you?
William J Murray,
Is that something that someone who wishes to retain free will, is NOT free to believe?
Your farts are stinking up the place.
There’s a lot I don’t know about reality, but one thing I do know is that there’s a lot you don’t know about it either. The only way to find out about the intersection of belief and reality is to perform objective tests on definable questions. The more of that you do, the clearer your picture becomes, and the better able you are to connect the dots between the known points through the unknown regions. It’s not infallible, but as its not based on desire or wishful thinking, it’s likely to be a lot more reliable than a product of “will” would be.
And one aspect of reality that I do know with confidence is that by bypassing the method of objective testing of well-defined questions, you are not addressing anything related to reality, and any statement you make with respect to it can be safely disregarded. Your approach may make you feel better, but your pleasant delusions are not portable, so to speak, and it’s probably best if you don’t try to make them bigger than they are.
LoL! There isn’t any way to objectively test materialism, no matter how well-defined the questions are.