Flame wars between Darwinists and fans of Intelligent Design seem to be one way God teaches America science. So with Steve Meyer's new book, Darwin's Doubt, now off the presses, it is the season in which the kings go to war. Bombast rises like a smoke screen over the field of battle, lame and wounded arguments limp slowly to the rear, and explosions of high-octane vitriol are beginning to split the evening air. It is hard to tell, under the fog of war, who is advancing, and who retreating.
Especially since I haven't pressed the "Proceed to Checkout" button, yet.
But here are a few of my prejudices, since you can't find those anywhere else on the Internet (heh):
(1) Why are so many people reviewing the book without reading it, on both sides? And why are people on both sides pointing out that the other guys are doing this, without admitting sin on their side of the trench? Do people who do that really think they're going to convince anyone? Is integrity really so cheap a commodity? I do understand the desire the jump into the fray, obviously.
(2) I'm inclined to be skeptical of Meyer's thesis. Five hundred million years ago, we are supposed to believe that after watching life squirm around for billions of years and taking a "hands-off" attitude, suddenly God started testing a few dozen new varieties of life, which took him several million years. But most of them died off after a while, and the phyla we have now are what survived.
Does that make sense to anyone?
(3) I wrote the lead four-star review on Amazon of Meyer's last book, Signature in the Cell. In retrospect, I'd probably give it three stars, now. It rambles too much, and spends too much time playing footsie with the reader, taking it for granted he is a scientific ignoramus, rather than debating the science with Meyer's qualified opponents . When he does get to the science, the book seems pretty good, but more thorough interaction might persuade me more thoroughly. (A few of the negative Amazon reviews seem to make good rebuttal points.)
(4) Despite (2), I don't mind if God messes with the history of life in odd ways. Miracles appear to happen in human history. If God does miracles when we're around, as He seems to, why should we object if he cooked up some critters 400 million years ago?
(5) Still, I don't see that the ID story of life makes sense, right now. That's a theological objection. Nor am I sure that life really can create itself, as materialists suppose. That's a scientific objection. So theology pushes me away from ID, roughly, while science pushes me -- somewhat -- towards it. Yes, I do recognize the irony. (6) All that leaves me not knowing what so many other people seem to know and be quite sure of --
what happened to get us where we are on this planet. Having followed the debate for decades, including fascinating recent discoveries about so-called "junk DNA," I still don't really claim to know how life arose, or whether or not it provides strong evidence for design. I'm inclined to think our recognition of design is inchoate, as in EO Wilson's spontaneous praise a post or two ago. And beyond that, I'm not sure that anyone really knows what is ultimately going on.
Aside from the fact that clouds of bombast are being chased by the winds of time across the field of battle, where the snarks continue to snarl and rage.
7 comments:
(2) I'm inclined to be skeptical of Meyer's thesis. Five hundred million years ago, we are supposed to believe that after watching life squirm around for billions of years and taking a "hands-off" attitude, suddenly God started testing a few dozen new varieties of life, which took him several million years. But most of them died off after a while, and the phyla we have now are what survived.
Does that make sense to anyone?
I don't see what doesn't make sense about it, actually. I'm far more sympathetic to classical theism, complete with the theological objections to ID that come along with it (and a few of my own unrelated to classical theism.) But still, I don't see what's nonsensical about that example.
Maybe it's the testing part? Tests imply not knowing outcomes.
Just to add in a couple more comments...
Why are so many people reviewing the book without reading it, on both sides? And why are people on both sides pointing out that the other guys are doing this, without admitting sin on their side of the trench? Do people who do that really think they're going to convince anyone? Is integrity really so cheap a commodity? I do understand the desire the jump into the fray, obviously.
Part of the problem may be that Meyer's last book was, supposedly, famously reviewed by a major party (A biologost writing for Biologos whose name escapes me - famous ex-priest) and they turned out not to have read the book. That may have happened this time too if you believe the DI's charge, and they rally evidence to that claim. Fake reviews of hostile/politically important books are one thing, but it's a bit more prevalent here.
I'm sure some ID proponents feel like they need to balance out the fake reviews of angry atheists with fake reviews of their own.
(6) All that leaves me not knowing what so many other people seem to know and be quite sure of -- what happened to get us where we are on this planet.
I don't think they do know - but it's important they act like they do. Sadly, that includes some scientists. Back to the political aspect: admit there are unknown factors and people may think they can believe whatever seems reasonable to them. They may even believe in ID, of all things!
Crude: What are your "unrelated" objections to ID?
Yeah, one would expect God to have His act together a little more than that. Maybe he subbed some of this work out to angels, who presumably lack a good scientific data base? I suppose it's possible that God had some other goals in mind, that we just don't know about. Still, as a story, it doesn't seem terribly convincing.
Crude: What are your "unrelated" objections to ID?
They have to do with how science is defined / the fact that ID as offered by its proponents centers around calling it science, the difference between a classical theist God and a personality God, and a few other issues. I don't think ID is science, because I think 'science' is vastly more limited than most people tend to think. I think some of the arguments and insights can be reasonable, even valid, but not every valid argument or form of knowledge is scientific.
Yeah, one would expect God to have His act together a little more than that.
What act? What were His goals? I think if you explicitly spell out the assumptions you're making (and you have to make some, whatever they're informed by) to judge the ID case, you're going to see the problems before I even point them out.
Still, as a story, it doesn't seem terribly convincing.
One problem is this: your objections to ID are theological, explicitly. But ID's proponents point out that - while they're theistic - the theological objections are irrelevant, because they have nothing to do with the actual ID arguments deployed. This is where everyone says 'Well, everyone knows that the ID proponents are, if not all Christian, all typically religious (save for perhaps men like Berlinski)'. But like it or not, they have a point about their arguments - they don't stand or fall on the theological objections, because ID inferences don't deal with theology. Behe will openly say that the best his argument can do is infer a very general designer - beyond that, you're dealing with another topic.
Which, I think, is one of the reasons why some people (I'm thinking of atheists here) get driven up the wall by ID. They want, desperately, for ID proponents to be making an explicit argument about God. The most well-known ID proponents (as opposed to their online fans, who are a different story) explicitly avoid this. And that takes a lot of wind out of the criticism sails. So instead they tend to argue against the argument they wish ID proponents were making, not what's actually made.
With origins, as with the Resurrection, a man is permitted to bring background knowledge to the table, and include prior probabilities in his calculations. For those of us who don't worship science as the One True Epistemology, that goes double. In the end, I don't really care whether you define science so as to include or exclude ID. If I had to pin myself down to one way of knowing, I'd call myself an historian with pretensions of philosophy and an amateur's interest in science. So I don't really care what line Behe wants to stop at, and he didn't seem to mind when I stepped over it talking with him, either.
I'm not sure what that's in response to. If it's my disputes with ID, I think ID proponents aren't hostile to people who are ID sympathetic while nevertheless not thinking ID is science. But still, that seems to be a major component to the DI's perspective.
With "us" I was including you -- sorry if that sounded like I was criticizing. Didn't intend to.
Post a Comment