Skip to main content

If I'm being honest

More on Darwinian speculation The Maverick Philosopher continues to explore the subject of Darwinism, now using the writings of Australian philosopher David Stove. Of which, Vacellia writes (in another post): "David Stove's atheistic credentials are impeccable, which is one reason why his critique of paleo- and neo-Darwinism is so interesting: no one can accuse him of having a theistic, or, to use the Left's second favorite 'F' word, fundamentalist 'agenda." This is as good a place as any to say that I like Bill's blog so much it's probably illegal. Anyway - Bill draws on Stove's observation words and ideas contain not only what they say, but also more than that. They imply some further things and are also a negation of what they oppose. The example is that if we know a person is divorced, then we also know they were once married. He then takes this intellectual apparatus to the word design, with the following result:
Consider the subtitle of The Blind Watchmaker. It reads: Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. Now I think I understand that. What Dawkins will do in his book is argue how the modern theory of evolution shows that the natural universe as a whole and in its parts is in no way the embodiment of the intentions and purposes of any intelligent being. Thus a bat, a piece of "living machinery," is such that "the 'designer' is unconscious natural selection." (p. 37) The scare quotes show that Dawkins is not using 'designer' literally. What he is saying, putting the point in plain English, is that there is no designer. For if there were a designer, then he would be contradicting the subtitle of his book, which implies that no part of nature is designed. So far, so good. Unfortunately, on the same page Dawkins says the following about Paley: His hypothesis was that living watches were literally designed and built by a master watchmaker. Our modern hypothesis is that the job was done in gradual evolutionary stages by natural selection. But now we have a contradiction. We were told a moment ago that there is no designer. But now we are being told that there is a designer. For if the design job is done by natural selection, then natural selection is the designer. Now which is it? Is there a designer or isn't there one? What this contradiction shows is that Dawkins is using 'design' and cognates in an unintelligible way. Some will say I am quibbling over words. But I am not. The issue is not about words but about the concepts those words are used to express. I am simply thinking clearly about the concepts that Dawkins et al. are deploying, concepts like design. If you tell me that design in nature is merely apparent, and that in reality nothing is designed and everything can be explained mechanistically or non-teleologically, then I understand that whether or not I agree with it. But if you tell me that there is design in nature but that the designer is natural selection, then I say that is nonsense, i.e. unintelligible.
I suppose the very clever will object that Dawkins is not using the word 'design' in a literal sense. "The job" should be understood in the same way as 'design', in quotes. I have read Dawkins' book and his sense is indeed that design in nature is an illusion, something that we project onto the environment. My counter is an bit different from Bill's, and it is that Dawkins is projecting chaos or randomness in the same way. The truly neutral position is to say that the ultimate cause is unknown and it is unknown because there is no way to test for it. People speculate that evolution is random and they also speculate that it is caused by God. To explore that side of the subject is to enter into religion and metaphysics. The reason this causes some people - on the left, mostly - to freak out is that they have been able to use Darwin's theory, which is not as simple as it seems on the surface, to bamboozle and sledgehammer their metaphysical opponents for some time now. The thought of losing this powerful tool turns their bowels to jelly. To turn a common anti religious argument on it's head, however: in good science, the fact that you need or want something to comfort you has no bearing on its truth. To be fair, it also has no bearing on its falsity either.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi