ARTICLE: Following the Evidence

[STR Ambassador]

Following the Evidence by Greg Koukl

What compels you to make particular decisions about your beliefs? How open are you to changing your beliefs when the evidence takes you another direction?
Two or three weeks ago I talked about a book I was reading called The Moral Animal by Robert Wright, and he made the case that what we call morality is really just patterns of behavior that are merely the result of the process of evolution.
I think he’s wrong for a number of reasons, but one of them has to do with what seems to be a destructive bias against the facts.
Wright makes the point that the world, in fact, appears designed (a stunning admission in itself, but one that's frequently made by evolutionists). This is why he feels comfortable using design and function language to describe the process of naturalistic evolution. His work is riddled with function words and design words. Is this reasonable?
If a thing has a function, it was meant to accomplish a particular end, and if it’s meant for something (that is, designed for a particular purpose), there’s an intent for how it is to be used or for what it is meant to accomplish.
Intent, however, is a function of mind. You can’t have design without intent, and you can’t have intent without mind. This seems to suggest that every time you use design language to describe the universe, you’re really talking about a mind behind the universe.
This happens all the time, though the common term used is Mother Nature. I think this is disingenuous, because "Mother Nature" has no mind at all. This term is just a euphemism for blind accident and chance, manifest in natural selection. This is what Wright believes.
So we have two possible explanations for the world, intelligent design or mindless natural selection. Both are good candidates to explain the universe as we find it. My question is this: If the universe actually looks designed, why do we opt for a naturalistic, non-intentional explanation for the so-called design features of the universe, rather than acknowledging that some Mind designed it? Wright essentially admits that a design explanation is as adequate to explain the features we find in the natural universe as is natural selection. Why, then, does Wright automatically default to a naturalistic option? Yes, appearances can be deceiving, but how does he know that appearances have deceived in this particular instance?
Incidentally, I don’t think it’s a toss-up. I don’t think natural selection is really capable of explaining the universe as we find it. But my question would still apply even if I were to say, Yes, natural selection can explain this and supernatural design can explain it. We have two empirically equivalent explanations for the same effect. (When I say empirically equivalent, I mean the evidence equally justifies either one.)
The question is, why must we opt for natural selection? The answer is that, in the minds of Robert Wright and many others who hold this view, design is simply not an option. He makes this point in his book. What other options are there…? he argues like so many others. …Here we are, so we must have evolved. Which shows that he doesn't even consider as worthy of consideration the option that God might have created.
The question is, why doesn't he consider it? Is it the case that there’s no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God, and it’s just a ridiculous presumption, a function of wishful thinking of religious people? That it’s just a mere invention, and since it’s only an invention and we have no reason to believe it at all, we’re stuck with the natural order of things? No, that isn’t the case at all. Wright already admits the universe looks designed.
This isn't science, ladies and gentlemen. What’s being done here is philosophy first, and science second. This is very important, because this tendency pops up in other issues, too. Wasn’t this what we were just talking about regarding the Jesus Seminar? You read in the papers about the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ or the miracles in the Bible or the sayings of Jesus, and the Jesus Seminar folks claim there is no evidence. Or conversely, they say, “New evidence proves the stories are fiction.”
Of course, they’re not talking about real evidence at all, and what they offer is not new at all; it’s the same old thing, rejections of the accounts based on an a priori rejection of the supernatural. When we look at the details of why the scholars believe, not just what they believe, then we see this bias. We see philosophy applied first before history is even attempted.
A lot of these discussions—the scientific discussion I just mentioned, the historical discussion about the Jesus Seminar we talked about last hour—are preceded by a prior discussion that is not scientific or historical at all; it’s philosophical. The difference between a J.P. Moreland or a Greg Koukl or any other informed Christian arguing the case is not that we are biased so we must conclude that supernatural events happened. Rather, our philosophy allows for the supernatural, broadening the possibilities of things we might consider, so we can follow where the evidence leads us, instead of dismissing certain options (supernatural ones) simply because we don't like them.
I’m a Christian. That means I’m open to either a naturalistic explanation or a supernatural explanation. Both are possible in my world view. I can follow the evidence where it leads me--whether we’re talking about cosmology or the historicity of the Gospels--not hindered by a metaphysical view that automatically eliminates options, regardless of what the evidence says.
If you start out with the idea that God cannot be involved and there are no miracles, guess what you’ll never be able to find, even if the evidence shows it? You’ll never be able to find God acting. You'll never be able to find a miracle. You won't even be able to admit there is evidence for a miracle, whether the miracle of creation or the miracle of a resurrection. Why? Because arbitrarily, before you’ve started, and without proper justification, you have excluded them from the possibilities.
You see, a Christian is biased in that he has a point of view. But this bias doesn’t inform the conclusions in the same way that biases inform the conclusions of a Marcus Borg (Jesus Seminar) on the Bible, or a Robert Wright on the issue of evolution. These men must come up with a conclusion that leaves God out of the picture because their philosophy demands such a thing.
The bias of the Christian, however, broadens his categories, it doesn't limit them. we can follow the evidence where it leads us, and that’s the critical distinction.


Stand to Reason - Training Christian ambassadors in the areas of knowledge, wisdom, and character - www.str.org - http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/evolution/followin.htm

[EvoUK]

he made the case that what we call morality is really just patterns of behavior that are merely the result of the process of evolution.

And I largely agree with him.

Wright makes the point that the world, in fact, appears designed (a stunning admission in itself, but one that's frequently made by evolutionists).

Well, there is more than one way to interpret this. Obviously, many evolutionists are theists, so (in general) believe that their god designed, or played a part in the creatrion of the universe.

Dawkins also thinks (to an extent) that life at least (biology being his subject) seems to be designed. He just attributes it to the process of natural selection- a so-called blind watchmaker.

If a thing has a function, it was meant to accomplish a particular end, and if it’s meant for something (that is, designed for a particular purpose), there’s an intent for how it is to be used or for what it is meant to accomplish.

Not necessarily- something doesn’t have to be planned ahead of time to have a function. The purpose argument is applied to life, though, the designer is intentionally left entirely unknowable, and thus the purpose of the designer is not part of the picture. To the extent that traits of living things have a purpose, that purpose, ultimately, is the reproductive success of the organism's genes. Such purpose is entirely consistent with evolution.

Intent, however, is a function of mind. You can’t have design without intent, and you can’t have intent without mind. This seems to suggest that every time you use design language to describe the universe, you’re really talking about a mind behind the universe.

This paragraph is based (not surprisingly) on the rather fallacious previous paragraph- stating that something has to be designed to have a function.

This happens all the time, though the common term used is Mother Nature. I think this is disingenuous, because "Mother Nature" has no mind at all. This term is just a euphemism for blind accident and chance, manifest in natural selection. This is what Wright believes.

One wonders why someone feels they can write an essay on a subject when they make such cringe-worthy mistakes. How, precisely, is natural selection chance?

So we have two possible explanations for the world, intelligent design or mindless natural selection. Both are good candidates to explain the universe as we find it. My question is this: If the universe actually looks designed, why do we opt for a naturalistic, non-intentional explanation for the so-called design features of the universe, rather than acknowledging that some Mind designed it?

Easy, because the supernatural explanation is either untestable, and/or useless as a scientific theory. Look up the scientific method.

Wright essentially admits that a design explanation is as adequate to explain the features we find in the natural universe as is natural selection.

It goes back to what he considers to be design. Even dawkins considers biological life to be designed, he just defines it in a different manner to creationists (YEC to ID).

Why, then, does Wright automatically default to a naturalistic option?

Again, look up the scientific method and science philosophy.

Yes, appearances can be deceiving, but how does he know that appearances have deceived in this particular instance?

He doesn’t, but as the supernatural explanation is untestable and therefore unscientific, he has no choice but to conclude that there’s a natural explanation- scientifically speaking. He can have any supernatural opinions/beliefs to do with it as he wants- but they are not themselves part of science, as they fall outside of its boundaries.

Incidentally, I don’t think it’s a toss-up. I don’t think natural selection is really capable of explaining the universe as we find it.

Opinion noted- though obviously natural selection has absolutely nothing to do ith the universe- enforcing my opinion that the writer doesn’t know much about the subject he’s speaking of.

have two empirically equivalent explanations for the same effect.

I’d like to hear them… lol

The question is, why must we opt for natural selection?

Lack of understanding regarding the scientific method noted. Why does he discuss a subject he doesn’t know the basics about?

The answer is that, in the minds of Robert Wright and many others who hold this view, design is simply not an option.

Scientifically speaking, no it’s not. Metaphysically speaking, yes it can be. Depends on the person.

Think of any famous theist in the 20th century. What’s the difference between them and creationists? They don’t use a supernatural explanation to describe an observation in our environment. Newton was a creationist- but he didn’t use god to describe any of his theories.

Here we are, so we must have evolved. Which shows that he doesn't even consider as worthy of consideration the option that God might have created.

A supernatural entity such as a god are untestable- so can’t be considered scientifically. It’s a simple concept really.

Is it the case that there’s no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God, and it’s just a ridiculous presumption, a function of wishful thinking of religious people?

Yup.

This isn't science, ladies and gentlemen.

Heh:

Science:

1.
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

Nowhere does it say explaining observations using untestable, supernatural entities. He is using science.

What’s being done here is philosophy first, and science second.

This is the philosophy of science0- what it’s been built on ever since it’ conception. It’s the only system that has been proven to work- to the best of our capabilities- in describing natural phenomenon.

If you can come up with any method better than the scientific one- then feel free.

Wasn’t this what we were just talking about regarding the Jesus Seminar? You read in the papers about the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ or the miracles in the Bible or the sayings of Jesus, and the Jesus Seminar folks claim there is no evidence. Or conversely, they say, “New evidence proves the stories are fiction.”

This is too easy- I’ll leave it at:

:lol:

Of course, they’re not talking about real evidence at all, and what they offer is not new at all; it’s the same old thing, rejections of the accounts based on an a priori rejection of the supernatural.

And the lack of any third part accounts of any of the claims in the bible. I suppose we’re meant to take the accounts of thousand year old (I’m making the silly assumption that they’ve remained unchanged since- because I’m such a nice person) people as reliable, when describing events which are far out of the ordinary. By that standard- the bible is just as reliable as any other holy book/piece of mythology out there.

Rather, our philosophy allows for the supernatural, broadening the possibilities of things we might consider, so we can follow where the evidence leads us, instead of dismissing certain options (supernatural ones) simply because we don't like them.

If you merely claim that something supernatural occurred- yet provide no real evidence that they did- you can’t expect to be taken seriously, now can you?

I’m a Christian. That means I’m open to either a naturalistic explanation or a supernatural explanation. Both are possible in my world view. I can follow the evidence where it leads me--whether we’re talking about cosmology or the historicity of the Gospels--not hindered by a metaphysical view that automatically eliminates options, regardless of what the evidence says.

Now you’re talking about a specific group of people (metaphysical naturalists), rather than what you were discussing earlier- the scientific method. Why the sudden change?

Why they don’t accept your claims I feel is too obvious to be worth mentioning.

If you start out with the idea that God cannot be involved and there are no miracles, guess what you’ll never be able to find, even if the evidence shows it?

It’s the other way around. It’s because there is no valid evidence to support gods/miracles/fairies/invisible unicorns etc that we don’t believe in them.

Close though.

You won't even be able to admit there is evidence for a miracle, whether the miracle of creation or the miracle of a resurrection.

I’d love to see any evidence of a resurrection… lol

Let me guess- the cave was empty, right? :lol:

Why? Because arbitrarily, before you’ve started, and without proper justification, you have excluded them from the possibilities.

No- it’s a possibility, it’s just not proven enough to be a reasonable possibility (ie, having a high enough probability).

[HRG_new]

The problem of this article is that it confuses the metaphorical use of "function" and "design" with the real thing.

Its author might profit from reading Dennett's work on the "intentional stance".

Regards,
HRG.

[Queen]

Who says that nature isn't supernatural at all.....I mean...How wonderful is it that every cell in a multi cellular organism "knows" its future task........being a liver cell or a brain cell......we all (and I include ALL life in this) start as a bunch stemcells.....:wink:

Morality is not something only humans have. Morality in nature is something we human beings could learn from. What is this anti evolution nonsense anyway. Maybe God just started the whole process with a big bang and left the rest to nature..........We have too much prove against the litterally Genesis creation. If God wanted us to know that he created this world and universe, why give Darwin the opportunity to discover something that he started to call evolution? Why give humans a scientific brain and the healthy curiousity to discover things like gravity, evolution, DNA, E=mc2 and so on? I mean, if he created us, why not give us the opportunity to discover that He really created this universe?

A counter thought: God created the world in 7 days..........who says that one day for God is the same as one day for humans? Days differ in the whole universe. A day here on earth is absolutely not the same as a day on a planet in the Vega system.......

HRG is right: Use the words function and design as they are meant Biological.....and don't pull the whole aspect of this out of it's contence.

Queen

[kofh2u]

Ambassador
Following the Evidence by Greg Koukl

HELLO
(I hope you will tolerate the use caps in order to separate my responses.)

THE FIRST POINT:
What compels you to make particular decisions about your beliefs?
OFTEN ONLY THE CONSEQUENCES FORTH COMING.

NEXT:
How open are you to changing your beliefs when the evidence takes you another direction?

YES. BURNED ONCE IS ENOUGH.
(That proof would be as empirical as can be. I also am very confident in Logical/mathematical "spirit" of thought in the heavens of mental reflection.
Still, cognitive dissonance often prevents changes in behavior, even though I know better, but believe in the luck that I'll get away with it, or something else to justify it. Such thinking is hard to justify, but the caldron of my Id often comes up with these irrepressible, instinctual responses.

NEXT RESPONSE:
Wright makes the point that the world, in fact, appears designed...
YES, BY NATURAL LAW AND THE PRESENT REALITY WHICH HAS BEEN CONSEQUENTAL TO THEM.

THIRD RESPONSE:
His work is riddled with function words and design words. Is this reasonable? YES.

NEXT RESPONSE:
If a thing has a function, it was meant to accomplish a particular end, and if it’s meant for something (that is, designed for a particular purpose), there’s an intent for how it is to be used or for what it is meant to accomplish.
THE PROOF WILL BE IN EXTINCTIONS OR SURVIVAL AS REGARDS LIVING ORGANISMS, .... ITS NOT NICE TO DEFY FATHER UNIVERSE.

NEXT RESPONSE:
Intent, however, is a function of mind. You can’t have design without intent, and you can’t have intent without mind. This seems to suggest that every time you use design language to describe the universe, you’re really talking about a mind behind the universe.
NO. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A MIND EXPLAINING THE REALITY OF THE UNIVERSE.
YOU ARE ALSO SUGGESTING THAT THE MIND CAN IMAGE THE EXTERNAL UNIVERSE, OR MODEL IT, EFFECTIVELY, IF NOT ESSENTIALLY IMAGINE IT AS TGE SAME, IN PRACTICAL AND MATHEMATICAL ABSTRACTION.


NEXT:
This happens all the time, though the common term used is Mother Nature. I think this is disingenuous, because "Mother Nature" has no mind at all. This term is just a euphemism for blind accident and chance, manifest in natural selection. This is what Wright believes.
IF HE USED THE TERM HEAVENLY FATHER OF ALL NATURE, or First Cause, Prime Mover, Almighty Power, Total (pre-Big Bag) Initial Energy.
????

NEXT:
So we have two possible explanations for the world, intelligent design or mindless natural selection. Both are good candidates to explain the universe as we find it.

NO WAY.
ITS BACKWARDS.
WE ARE THE INTELLIGENCE THAT LOOKS BACKWARDS. We recognize the order and beautiful harmony of thr interwoven majesty of the Natural Laws of the Universe.


NEXT:
My question is this: If the universe actually looks designed, why do we opt for a naturalistic, non-intentional explanation for the so-called design features of the universe, rather than acknowledging that some Mind designed it? Wright essentially admits that a design explanation is as adequate to explain the features we find in the natural universe as is natural selection. Why, then, does Wright automatically default to a naturalistic option? Yes, appearances can be deceiving, but how does he know that appearances have deceived in this particular instance?

LOST ME. WHY NOT JUST AS WRITTEN?
1) Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God, (The Universal Force) created the heaven and the earth.

2) Gen. 1:26 And God, (The Universal Force, the Macrocosmos), said, "Let us, (the Natural Laws), make man, (a conscious mind, to model us, the Universe, as in a Microcosmos of his mind, in order that our image might be modeled after our own orderly organization): and let him (that conscious mind,) have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

Gen. 1:27 So God (The Universal Force) created man (an abstract mind in his own image, enabled to image The Universal Force, abstractly and mathematically), so created God (The Universal Force) him; male and female created he them.


NEXT:
Incidentally, I don’t think it’s a toss-up. I don’t think natural selection is really capable of explaining the universe as we find it.

TRUE. WE EXPLAIN THE UNIVERSE AS A PROBABILITY FUNCTION OF MATTER INTERACTION CONSEQUENTIAL TO THE MATERIAL ENTITY EMINATING FROM UNDEFINABLE PTIMORAL OR FIRST CAUSE ENERGY, ie Big Bang


NEXT:
But my question would still apply even if I were to say, Yes, natural selection can explain this and supernatural design can explain it. We have two empirically equivalent explanations for the same effect. (When I say empirically equivalent, I mean the evidence equally justifies either one.)
The question is, why must we opt for natural selection? The answer is that, in the minds of Robert Wright and many others who hold this view, design is simply not an option. He makes this point in his book. What other options are there…? he argues like so many others. …Here we are, so we must have evolved. Which shows that he doesn't even consider as worthy of consideration the option that God might have created.

IN EITHER CASE, GOD CAN NOT BE DENIED BY SUCH ARGUMENT. (We are arguing how God did it, not if. Did God violate the natural (law) continuum of life reproducing itself from organisms already alive? Did God, at one time, spontaneously manifest life forms, just as was thought before Robert Hook's work with the microscope introduced us to cell theory? Or, does God utilize chromosomes, mitosis and miosis?)

THE QUESTION IS NOT ABOUT IF GOD, but about how God ... Does these things.

NEXT:
The question is, why doesn't he consider it? Is it the case that there’s no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God, and it’s just a ridiculous presumption, a function of wishful thinking of religious people?

NO.
These people do not even think about the question of God. They DO have unadmitted Gods in their life. They worship money.
They worship the comraderie and lustful sexuality of their Libidinal urges, Baal-ism.
They shop until they drop, the profitable worship of Eros (Ashtoreh).
They worship Nebo, God of secular education. They read, study, write arguments of vain conceit which heaps the praise of their contemporaries upon their shoulders.
They all have their unrecognized and unmentionable Gods. They are merely against the recognition of a moralistic, stoic, sexually restraining God, the one they preceive is found in the Bible.

NEXT:
That it’s just a mere invention, and since it’s only an invention and we have no reason to believe it at all, we’re stuck with the natural order of things?

THEY CAN NOT ignor that before the Big Bang, the only thing pre-existing was and MUST have been the Absolute Total Energy which transformed by the Einstienian process into Matter/Space/Time.

They have no definition for this immaterial entity, Energy.

Just ask them. "Define Energy." How is this Ultimate Cause, energy, any better defined than the idea of God in the Judaio-christian sense?

NEXT:
No, that isn’t the case at all. Wright already admits the universe looks designed.
This isn't science, ladies and gentlemen. What’s being done here is philosophy first, and science second.
ABSOLUTELY. Bad philosophy, too, because they avoid First Cause.

E = mC^2

YES
This is very important, because this tendency pops up in other issues, too.

AND,

Rather, our philosophy allows for the supernatural, broadening the possibilities of things we might consider, so we can follow where the evidence leads us, instead of dismissing certain options (supernatural ones) simply because we don't like them.

SO DOES A GOOD SCIENTIST!
(Most every scientific advancement went right there, into some previously assumed area thought impossible for our understanding. My will never fly. Matter can NOT be created nor destroyed. Etc... )

NEXT:
I can follow the evidence where it leads me--whether we’re talking about cosmology or the historicity of the Gospels--not hindered by a metaphysical view that automatically eliminates options, regardless of what the evidence says.

CAN YOU TOLERATE THIS:

Satan = Libido = physical urges and drives

Lucifer = Id = The Pleasyre Principle

Baalzebub = Self = The Reality Principle

Mammon = Ego - The Aggressive Drive

False Prophet = Superego = Logical/mathematical thinking

False Shepherd = Sense of psychic bakance = Harmony Principle

Devil = Anima/animus = The Feminine Principle

And, of course,
The Holy Spirit = Conscience = Interpersonal Integrity


Stand to Reason ?

[EvoUK]

*Bump*

[Queen]

You mean :bump:

[EvoUK]

It seems people feel they have already refuted this silly piece of misinformation... Glad to hear it..

[Queen]

It seems people feel they have already refuted this silly piece of misinformation... Glad to hear it..

Yep......:teeth:

But you are GOOD!!!!! I already wondered why I loved you...:wink:

:love: :Q:
:queen:

[EvoUK]

I already wondered why I loved you...

I'm unworthy of your brilliance Queeny...

:wink:

[Queen]

I'm unworthy of your brilliance Queeny...

:wink:

:blush:

:lol:

[chickenman]

So we have two possible explanations for the world, intelligent design or mindless natural selection. Both are good candidates to explain the universe as we find it. My question is this: If the universe actually looks designed, why do we opt for a naturalistic, non-intentional explanation for the so-called design features of the universe, rather than acknowledging that some Mind designed it? Wright essentially admits that a design explanation is as adequate to explain the features we find in the natural universe as is natural selection. Why, then, does Wright automatically default to a naturalistic option? Yes, appearances can be deceiving, but how does he know that appearances have deceived in this particular instance?
Incidentally, I don’t think it’s a toss-up. I don’t think natural selection is really capable of explaining the universe as we find it. But my question would still apply even if I were to say, Yes, natural selection can explain this and supernatural design can explain it. We have two empirically equivalent explanations for the same effect. (When I say empirically equivalent, I mean the evidence equally justifies either one.)
The question is, why must we opt for natural selection? The answer is that, in the minds of Robert Wright and many others who hold this view, design is simply not an option. He makes this point in his book. What other options are there…? he argues like so many others. …Here we are, so we must have evolved. Which shows that he doesn't even consider as worthy of consideration the option that God might have created.

sheesh, it doesn't all "appear designed" and in fact there are many instances of things which don't seem designed at all, such as processed pseudogenes, which are much better explained by natural processes like retrotranscription and common descent

the explanations are quite clearly not empirically equivalent