Should spirits be allowed in science?

[FreezBee]

Hi!

This is a copy of a post I've made at the TWeb, but I thought it might be of interest here as well.

William Dembski has written a rebuttal of a critique by Howard Van Till of Dembski's book No Free Lunch.

Near the end of the linked paper Dembski invokes the spirit of W.V. Quine and writes:

I close with a quote by the late philosopher Willard Quine. Quine, though a naturalist, was not wedded to the methodological and metaphysical naturalism of Van Till. Quine was a pragmatic naturalist. This pragmatism allowed him to entertain the following possibility: "If I saw indirect explanatory benefit in positing sensibilia, possibilia, spirits, a Creator, I would joyfully accord them scientific status too, on a par with such avowedly scientific posits as quarks and black holes" (from "Naturalism; or, Living within One's Means," Dialectica 1995, vol. 49).

From the point of view of 99.99% of the world population, "sensibilia, possibilia, spirits, a Creator" may appear much more real than do quarks and black holes. Quarks and black holes may indeed appear to be little more than objects made up to explain the otherwise unexplainable. However, there is an important difference: quarks and black holes are only given the attributes necessary for their explanatory values. Does e.g. a unicorn explain anything? Does it explain it better than a gnome would? In science is used a special version of Occam's razor that states that a theory should explain as much as possible with as little effort as possible. No decorations for mere display are allowed. Quarks have no quirks, and there are no shocking pink black holes.

Dembski continues:

Quine's pragmatic naturalism is far more intellectually nimble than Van Till's naturalism, which, as we've seen, is scientifically stultifying and when pushed to extremes, as Van Till does, commits an argument from invincible ignorance. I would, therefore, that the scientific community take seriously the possibility raised by Quine of joyfully according intelligent design full scientific status. At issue is not the endless list of quibbles that Van Till raises, but whether intelligent design can confer explanatory benefit in understanding biological systems. That is now happening. To be sure, design theorists still have their work cut out. But it is an intellectual project that is fast gaining momentum and that promises shortly to displace Van Till's naturalism.

Ok, so Dembski would have made an excellent used-car salesman, but should we joyfully accord intelligent design full scientific status? Does the assumption of invisible hands add any explanatory power?

Let's look at, what the words of the Bible say, shall we?

In 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chron 21 we find the story about a census supposedly ordered by king David. The main differences between the two versions are in the very first verse:

2 Samuel 24
Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah."

1 Chron 21
Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.

So, who is against Israel? And who incited David to take the census? God ("the LORD" by any other name) or Satan? Is there any observable difference? The rest of the story is pretty much the same in the two versions. Yet we must assume that it makes some difference, whether God or Satan were against Israel and incited David to take the census!

What if David simply himself decided to take the census without spiritual inference? Is there any observable difference?

In the continuation of the story God gets upset with the census (for no apparent reason, divine logic is weird) and decided to take punitive action. The Angel of Death is sent towards Jerusalem, but then David asks, why innocent people should be killed because he had done something wrong. God regrets the evil he had planned, recalls the Angel of Death and gives David the choice between three punishments: 3 years of famine in the land, 3 months of fleeing from his enemies, and 3 days of plague in the land.

Again the divine logic escapes us: only one of these choices hits David directly without collateral damage, but who are we to inquire about the reasonings of God?

David chooses the plague - and 70,000 people are killed all over the land in the three days.

Well, if Satan wanted to hit Israel and have God do the hard work for him, this would be the way to go, so the version in 1 Chron 21 appears to be the one that makes the most sense

However, say a census was taken, and shortly after 70,000 people die during some plague. We'll simply accept the story as historical with respect to this. Would either of the versions be much of an explanation, or would they just confuse matters more than needed? And if confimative, which version should be accept as the best explanation?



- FreezBee

 

[shernren]

Behe disowns the clotting cascade and the bacterial cilium ...

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7819_part_07_dr_michael_behe_dr_10_31_2002.asp

 

[FreezBee]

Behe disowns the clotting cascade and the bacterial cilium ...

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7819_part_07_dr_michael_behe_dr_10_31_2002.asp

Thanks for the link, interesting stuff and funny as well

And that's exactly my point: the design hypotheses are themselves hypotheses and not the final verdict, so what's the idea behind them? Can we at all consider the ID movement to try to further any scientific ideas?


- FreezBee

 

[Mallon]

Can we at all consider the ID movement to try to further any scientific ideas?

Course not. The ID movement is all about putting an end to the advancement of scientific ideas... or at least, attempting to find the "boundaries" of such ideas. Unfortunately for the IDists, these boundaries are crossed all the time.
There's a theology that didn't last long.