barbour intellegentdesign

77
INTELLIGENT DESIGN: A SCIENTIFIC AND RELIGIOUS CRITIQUE I. The Intelligent Design Movement II. Evolutionary Biology III. Evolutionary Theism

Upload: jose-segovia

Post on 03-Dec-2015

226 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

DESCRIPTION

methods prest

TRANSCRIPT

INTELLIGENT DESIGN:A SCIENTIFIC AND RELIGIOUS

CRITIQUE

I. The Intelligent Design Movement

II. Evolutionary Biology

III. Evolutionary Theism

I. The Intelligent Design Movement

• 1925. Scopes trial in Tennessee upheld anti-evolution law defended by biblical literalists.

• 1987. U.S. Supreme Court ruled that creation science (claims of scientific evidence for a recent special creation) is not acceptable science but a religious belief, violating separation of church and state (First Amendment).

• 2005. U.S. District Court: parents in Dover, PA, challenge local school board requirement that students hear a statement about intelligent design along with the teaching of evolution.

Nov. 2005. Dover citizens replace school board members sympathetic to Intelligent Design with opponents of ID.

Dec. 2005. Federal district judge in Harrisburg rules that ID is not a scientific theory but a religious belief. Several school board members had acknowledged their religious motivations before the hearings had started.

The Dover case has been settled but ID remains an issue in Kansas and many other states, either in local school boards or state boards that set educational standards.

ID Claims

•Proponents of ID differ from both biblical literalism and creation science which were the subjects of previous court rulings.

•They make no reference to the Bible and they accept a long history of life on earth.

•But they insist that some organic structures are so complex that they could not have evolved by gradual stages.

•Systematic coordination of many parts (e.g. of the eye) must be the product of supernatural intervention by an Intelligent Designer.

•The overwhelming majority of biologists reject these claims.

•For example, the human eye could have evolved by gradual steps from simpler visual systems like those in some other species today. •ID does not lead to hypotheses that can be tested experimentally, a key feature of science.

•ID does not lead to research papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals. This cannot be attributed simply to the biases of the dominant scientific elite that controls journals.

“Intelligent Design”

• “Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on.”

Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, p. 39

• A mouse trap would not work if one part were missing.

• Similarly, “irreducibly complex systems” only work as a unit.

• An intelligent designer must have introduced the coordinated information, either latently in very early cells, or later in their subsequent history.

• Reply: The idea of a preconceived order neglects the role of mutations and the organism’s continuing response to a changing environment.

• Components serving other functions can be combined in new ways to serve new functions ( see Kenneth Miller, Finding Darwin’s God).

Biochemical Machine:Individual Parts:

Function Favored by Natural Selection

No function. Therefore, natural selection cannot shape components.

BiochemicalMachine:

Individual Parts:

Components Originate with

different functions.

New Functions Emerge from Combinations of Components

Biochemical Machine:Individual Parts:

Function Favored byNatural Selection

No function. Therefore, naturalselection cannot shape components.

BiochemicalMachine:

Individual Parts:

ComponentsOriginate with

different functions.

New Functions Emergefrom Combinations ofComponents

The Biochemical Argument from Design Depends upon a lack of Selectable Function in Machine Components

The Darwinian Explanation Depends upon the presence of Selectable Function in Machine Components.

ID proponents rightly object that some biologists such as Richard Dawkins defend atheism, naturalism or materialism as if they were scientifically proven claims.

These are indeed philosophical interpretations brought to the data rather than experimentally testable hypotheses.

We can accept methodological naturalism,which says that science is limited to studying natural causes, without accepting philosophical naturalism, which says that nature is all there is and science is the only path to understanding (“scientism”).

Explanatory pluralism suggests that there are a variety of types of explanation answering differing types of question in human life.

Richard Dawkins:“The universe has precisely the properties we would expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”

River of Eden, p. 133

ID proponents rightly say that evolutionary theory has led todubious ethical practices.

“The survival of the fittest” has been used to justify unrestr-ained capitalism, colonial domination of “inferior races,” andeugenics programs in Nazi Germany (Social Darwinism).

Some sociobiologists claim that human behaviors can beexplained and justified by their contribution to the survival of our Paleolithic ancestors.

However all these claims should be seen, not as part of evolu-tionary theory, but as questionable extrapolations that ignorethe differences between biological and cultural evolution.

Gaps in the Evolutionary Account

Creationists once pointed to gaps in the fossil record, but many of these have been filled in by transitional forms.

To be sure, we do not understand the origins of life or of consciousness, much less self-consciousness.

But invoking supernatural intervention would cut short further scientific inquiry concerning such questions.

In the past, the “God of the gaps” has retreated with the advance of science, so ID is dubious religion as well as dubious science.

“Evolution is a theory, not a fact”

1. Evidence for a long history of descent with modification from common ancestors is so overwhelming that it should be considered a fact, even though the past cannot be observed directly.

2. The theory that mutations and natural selection play a central role in evolution is very strongly supported by a wide range of disciplines: paleontology, physiology, genetics, embryology, molecular biology, and immunology (e.g. evolution of antibiotic-resistant pathogens and new forms of avian flu). The power of the theory is its relevance to so many independent fields of inquiry.

3. There are indeed debates among biologists about the role of other factors, such as historical contingencies, social structures, or developmental constraints on possible embryonic forms, but these debates yield hypotheses that can be tested before they are accepted as theories.

4. No theory can be verified with certainty, but a theory can be falsified by an accumulation of data that conflicts with it or (more rarely) it can be modified in a paradigm shift based on alternative presuppositions (e.g. Newtonian mechanics replaced by quantum theory and relativity in very small or very large structures).

Support for the ID Movement

Local support has come primarily from evangelical Christians whose motivations are clearly religious rather than scientific.

Financial support has come mainly from the religious right through the Discovery Institute in Seattle, with which most of the witnesses supporting ID at recent trials and hearings are affiliated.

ID is seen as an opening wedge for the inclusion of Christian beliefs in public education.

The Social Context of Fundamentalism

Secularism, religious pluralism, and alternative lifestyles and gender roles are seen as threats to traditional “family values”.

Search for security in a changing world. Absolutism of truth claims and moral values in response to what is seen as all-encompassing relativism.

The power of emotion in religious life has been lost in the formality and intellectualism of main-line churches.

Compare the growth of fundamentalism in Islam,fueled not only by nationalism and the legacy of colonialism but also by confrontation with modernization and secularization which threaten traditional values.

School Board Issues

Local control of school boards. “Parents should decide what they want taught to their children.” “Federal courts are out of touch with local sentiments.”

Reply: promulgation of particular religious beliefs violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

Science teachers must draw from and accept the standards of the wider community of scientists.

National Academy of Sciences (1998): “Science is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.”

Media CoverageThe media has presented the two extremes -- people who believe in God but not evolution, and people who believe in evolution but not God -- as if conflict were inevitable and one had to choose between science and religion.

They have tended to leave out those who affirm both God and evolution,or who hold that evolution is God’s way of creating.

Let us look at evolutionary theory more carefully and then at alternative ways of relating science and religion.

II. EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY

The Argument from Design before Darwin:If you find a watch on a heath, you know it was the product of intelligent design and not chance. Similarly, the coordination of complex structures in fulfilling useful functions in nature must be the product of intelligence. Example: the many parts of the eye work together to achieve vision. See William Paley, Natural Theology (1802).

Darwin: The adaptation of complex structures to useful functions is the result of the gradual natural selection of such useful structures in the past, not the result of any past anticipation of future functions.

The Challenge of Evolution:• To Biblical Literalism. Reply: Many theologians since St.

Augustine have interpreted scriptural passages metaphor-ically rather than literally. Since the 19th century, historical scholars have said that the Bible expressed enduring theological insights in terms of the prescientific cosmology of the Middle East. Fundamentalism and “creation science” are more recent views, mainly in the U.S.

• To Human Uniqueness. Reply: Humans are descendants of nonhuman ancestors and share many characteristics with them. But they have distinctive capacities such as symbolic thought and language and forms of culture.

The Challenge To Design. Alternative views of design: 1) Design of laws only (Darwin) 2) Design of initial conditions (Hawking)3) Control of quantum uncertainties (Russell)4) Evolutionary convergence (Conway Morris) 5) Emergent levels (Kauffman).

Charles Darwin:“I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working of what we may call chance. . . . I cannot think that the world as we see it is the result of chance; yet I cannot look at each separate thing as the result of Design.”

Letters to Asa Gray, 22 May and 26 November, 1860

The Big BangWhat happened at the beginning? A singularity at t=0, a point of zero size and infinite energy where the laws of physics break down.

Similarities to the biblical account: A beginning of time (rather than a beginning in time). Creation from nothing (or from a quantum vacuum)? Initiation of an ordered irreversible sequence.

“Fine-tuning” of the physical constants Each of the constants of the early universe must be within a very very narrow range for life and consciousness to be possible (the Anthropic Principle). Is this a new argument from design?

Stephen Hawking:“If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang hadbeen smaller by even one part in a hundred thousandmillion million, it would have recollapsed before itreached its present size. . . . The odds against a universelike ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang areenormous. I think there are clearly religious implications.”

Quoted in John Barlow, Stephen Hawking’s Universe, p. 121

Three Interpretations of Uncertainty

1. As Temporary Human Ignorance (Einstein)Future exact laws will allow precise predictions. Theuniverse is rational, orderly, and deterministic.

2. As Fundamental Human Limitation (Bohr)Observations disturb what is observed.Human concepts (e.g. wave or particle) are limited andcomplementary (the “Copenhagen interpretation”).Agnostic about determinism or indeterminacy.

3. As Indeterminacy in Nature (Heisenberg) Observation is the actualization of one in a range ofpotentialities in the world. Indeterminacy.

God as Determiner of Indeterminacies

• God determines quantum events (Robert Russell).

• Not intervention to alter an existing state, but actualizing one ofthe range of potentialities present.

• God could make the final determination among states of identicalenergy (no energy input needed).

• Scientifically undetectable if statistically lawful.

• Small differences at the quantum level are sometimes amplified togive large-scale effects (chaos theory, mutations, perhapsneural systems).

• God might determine all events, or only some events. some.

Problem: If God determines all events, it isdifficult to reconcile divine sovereignty withsuffering, evil, and human freedom -- even ifGod’s control is subtle and does not violatescientific laws.

An Alternative: Chance and law are both partof the design of nature.

Evolutionary Convergence Simon Conway Morris, Life’s Solutions (2003)

• Very different lineages converge on similar solutions• Camera-like eyes evolved independently at least 6 times• Many physiological and behavioral parallels between

marsupial and placental mammals• Similarities in brain structure, communication, and social

structure in dolphins and chimps• Chance is less significant in the outcome when there are

only a limited number of effective solutions• “The constraints of evolution and the ubiquity

of convergence make the emergence of some- thing like ourselves a near inevitability.”

An Emergent Hierarchy of LevelsSee Ian Barbour, When Science Meets Religion, Chap. 4.

Epistemological Reductionism: theories and laws at higher levels can be derived from those at lower levels.

Ontological Reductionism: lower-level components are more causally effective than higher-level systems. Causality acts from the bottom up.

Emergence: novel forms of order at higher levels are unpredictable from theories and laws governing lower-levels.

Top-down Causality: systems at higher-levels influence the boundary conditions of systems at lower levels without violating lower-level laws.

Trends in Evolutionary History• No Simple Directionality: blind alleys, retrogression,

extinctions, many directions. Opportunism: adaptation to the immediate local environment, not to future needs. More like a sprawling bush than a neatly organized tree (Stephen Jay Gould).

• Overall Trends: greater diversity, responsiveness and complexity (number of significant connections and levels of organization). Increase in capacity to gather, store, and process information (amoeba, invertebrates, vertebrates, mammals, apes, humans, cultures).

• Causality: biologists object when formal or final causes are substituted for the search for efficient causes.

Concepts of Chance• The intersection of two independent causal

chains each governed by deterministic laws (e.g., the orbit of an asteroid and the history of dinosaurs). The future is determined but unpredictable in practice.

• The randomness of some events (e.g., quantum events amplified through mutations). The future is open and in principle unpredictable.

• In both cases, scientific evidence can contribute to the narrative of evolutionary history but not to predicting it from laws.

Concepts of Design

• Design as preexistent blueprint, a detailed plan. . This view is threatened by any element of chance.

• Reply: death, suffering, and human freedom are then problematic.Also there are many examples of “imperfect design,” such as the blind spot in the retina of the eye.

• Design as general direction toward life and consciousness, but with no predictable final state. A biofriendly universe. Both chance and law have a role in the outcome.

• Necessary features of an evolutionary world: death (successive generations) and suffering (from competition).

• God endowed matter with diverse potentialities and propensities, including the possibility of human freedom.

III. EVOLUTIONARY THEISM

• Natural Theology: the attempt to prove the existence of God from features of nature, e.g., the argument from design.

• Theology of Nature: the attempt to view features of nature from within a religious tradition based on the religious experience of a historical community.

• Religion in Human Life: ritual, meditation, the healing of brokenness in individual and social life, ethical norms. For Christians, response to the life and death of Christ.

• Traditional beliefs can be reformulated in the context of the religious community in the light of science.

• The Limitations of Science: every science is selective, using limited concepts to understand particular aspects of experience.

• Meta-questions: why is there a universe at all, why does it have the order it has, why is it intelligible to the human mind? Questions raised but not answered by science.

• Doctrines as relationships: creation, fall, redemption, fulfillment are not a sequence of events but enduring characteristics of the relation between God and the world.

Science and Religion as Distinctive Domains• Science asks about regularities among events in nature.

Empirical inquiry in the interest of prediction and control.• Religion asks about ultimate meaning and purpose.

A way of life expressed in the rituals, stories and practices of a community.

• Analytic Philosophy claims that differing language systems have differing and independent functions in human life.

• However, science and religion do sometimes influence each other. Our understanding of nature affects our view of God’s relation to nature.

• Five models of God’s action through the structures of nature rather than by supernatural intervention in violation of the laws of nature:

1. Primary and Secondary Causality• God as primary cause works through the secondary

causes that science investigates (neo-Thomism).• Primary causality is a different order of explanation,

answering questions unlike those that scientists ask about relationships between natural events.

• God is radically transcendent, not another cause like natural causes.

• The integrity of the created order and the integrity of science are preserved (William Stoeger).

• Nature is a developmental economy without deficiencies requiring later intervention ( Howard van Til).

2. God as Communicator of Information

• Information: an ordered pattern in a sequence of elements (DNA, computer digits, letters, sounds).

• Communication of information occurs when another system responds selectively (cell, computer, human person).

• Meaning of the message is not contained in the sequence itself but is dependent on a wider context of interpretation.

• God’s action as “an input of pure information.” Selection among possibilities in chaotic processes (John Polkinghorne).

• Divine Word as rational principle (Greek logos) and as creative power (Hebrew).

• The meaning of the message is discernable only in a wider context of interpretation.

• For Christians, the message of creation is seen in the person of Christ (“the Word made flesh”) but also in the created order.

3. God as Top-down Cause

• An extension of the idea of top-down causality between levels in the world (Arthur Peacocke).

• Upper levels produce constraints or boundary conditions on lower levels without violating lower-level laws.

• Chance and law together are creative and expressive of open-ended design.

• God’s purposes are communicated through the patterns of events, expressing intentions but not a predetermined plan.

• Christ is a mode of God’s self-expression, revealing God’s nature to us.

4. God’s Self-Limitation (Kenosis)

• Between the omnipotent God of classical Christianity and the inactive God of Deism (Nancey Murphy & George Ellis).

• God’s power is not omnipotent control but the empowerment of other beings.

• An incomplete cosmos still coming into being. • The cross shows a God who participates in suffering and

transforms it through redeeming love.• Compare feminist critiques of male

images of coercive power (both in human relations and in God’s action).

5. Process Theology• Reality as a dynamic web of momentary events, not a

collection of enduring self-contained objects (Alfred North Whitehead).

• Rejects mind-matter dualism and materialism. Defends a two-aspect monism in a hierarchy of organizational levels.

• All integrated entities have objective and subjective (experiential) features in varying degrees, but only higher-level organisms are conscious.

• To every entity God presents new possibilities with open alternatives, eliciting its response.

• God is the ultimate source of both order and novelty, but the entity itself selects among alternatives.

• An unfinished universe showing order and disorder is compatible with the biblical message of promise and hope but not with the idea of completed design (John Haught).

• A God of self-limiting love allows creaturely creativity in the emergence of new forms of order, relationality, and inclusive community.

• God’s participation in the suffering of the world contrasts with God’s detachment in Deism.

• Promise and hope point toward the future rather than the past.

The Biblical View of the Holy Spirit• As God active in both nature and human life.• “The earth was without form and void, and the darkness

was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters” (Genesis 1:2).

• Plants and animals: “When thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created” (Psalm 104:30).

• Inspiration of the prophets (Ezekiel 11:5).• Worship: “Take not thy Holy Spirit from me” (Psalm

51:11).• Christ received the Spirit at his baptism (Mark 1:10).• His followers were empowered by the Spirit (Acts 2).

• The role of the Spirit in nature, religious experience, and the life of Christ offers a common framework for creation and redemption, which are often contrasted.

• “Come, Holy Spirit, renew thy whole creation.”

Theme of World Council of Churches 1991 Assembly

ConclusionIn a Theistic Framework: Order includes lawfulness without excluding novelty,

creativity, and contingency. Purpose can be expressed in open-ended design, but

intention and agency are needed to avoid Deism.Human Responses:To a Universe of Chance: pessimism or courage in

facing meaninglessness; search for security.To a Universe of Law: resignation, alienation from

an impersonal cosmos.To a Universe of Design: gratitude, trust, hope.

We can accept many biblical affirmations today, even though our cosmology is very different.

Images accompanied by verses from the Psalms: