ID, Aliens, and Pointlessness
In an actually useful HuffPo post, Michael Shermer discusses intelligent design, offering an updated version of Philo’s objections in Hume’s Dialogues. Namely, if the best explanation of various phenomena is design, then we require a theory of the designer. And the best theory may simply be a committee of super-intelligent but fallible aliens. Which, clearly, get us no closer to the God of Abraham than we were before.
Here’s Hume:
Now, Cleanthes, said Philo, with an air of alacrity and triumph, mark the consequences. First, By this method of reasoning, you renounce all claim to infinity in any of the attributes of the Deity. For, as the cause ought only to be proportioned to the effect, and the effect, so far as it falls under our cognizance, is not infinite; what pretensions have we, upon your suppositions, to ascribe that attribute to the Divine Being? . . .
Secondly, You have no reason, on your theory, for ascribing perfection to the Deity, even in his finite capacity, or for supposing him free from every error, mistake, or incoherence, in his undertakings. There are many inexplicable difficulties in the works of Nature, which, if we allow a perfect author to be proved a priori, are easily solved, and become only seeming difficulties, from the narrow capacity of man, who cannot trace infinite relations. But according to your method of reasoning, these difficulties become all real; and perhaps will be insisted on, as new instances of likeness to human art and contrivance. . .
And what shadow of an argument, continued Philo, can you produce, from your hypothesis, to prove the unity of the Deity? A great number of men join in building a house or ship, in rearing a city, in framing a commonwealth; why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world? This is only so much greater similarity to human affairs. By sharing the work among several, we may so much further limit the attributes of each, and get rid of that extensive power and knowledge, which must be supposed in one deity, and which, according to you, can only serve to weaken the proof of his existence. And if such foolish, such vicious creatures as man, can yet often unite in framing and executing one plan, how much more those deities or demons, whom we may suppose several degrees more perfect!
Or, try this. ID, even if true, puts us in an explanatory spiral, an unclosed regressive loop.
Assume ID is the best explanation for ordered complexity. That means, our best theory of ordered complexity posits the existence of an intelligent designer, meaning that we posited intelligence as an explanatory fundamental. However, intelligence as we know it is a property of biological beings, and a form of the kind of ordered complexity we initially sought to explain.
If it is suggested that “higher” intelligence is not a form of ordered complexity analogous to our own intelligence, then there is no ground for calling it intelligence after all. If it is itself a form of ordered complexity, then we have made no explanatory advance, for we will be left positing an even higher order intelligent designer for each higher order intelligent designer.
If it proposed that we stop the explanatory spiral by positing an undesigned designer then a new question arises: What explains the emergence of the undesigned designer? Whatever the explanation for the ordered complexity of the undesigned designer may be, then it seems that that explanation could be applied to first order ordered complexity, and Occam demands we excise the useless proliferation of higher order designers.
If it is replied that there is no mechanism that gave rise to the undesigned designer, then first order ordered complexity is still unexplained, only it is now more elaborately unexplained.
Even if it’s the best explanation, ID would get us nowhere, which means its probably not.
My take on ID is that if there were any evidence for it, then the probability of intelligent extraterrestrial life would be non-zero. We would then have a proximate explanation for ordered complexity as it appears on Earth. But we’d be no closer to an account of ordered complexity as such.
August 27th, 2005 09:44
With recent news I also have impulses to want to make this sort of argument.
But is there really anyone on the fence on this issue? Supporters of Intelligent Design have as their first axiom that there is an original Creator. ID itself is merely a way to describe their theory of how the world was created, GIVEN THE AXIOM. They certainly are not subject to Occam’s razor with respect to their first axiom.
And epistemologically they believe (to the extent they have thought about it) that one’s first axiom is necessarily based on faith. So they don’t accept your approach of working back from reality to explanations — for them the explanation comes first.
The only reason they’ve even bothered to invent ID is to influence teachings in public schools. Yet another reason to end public education.
August 28th, 2005 11:32
I’m now convinced that ID is motivated by a desire to teach the closest to creationism that can gotten away with and, ultimately, to influence the conduct of science. This is a different goal from trying to get scientists and pedagogues discussing religion and the relation between the science and religion. While that latter goal is perfectly legitimate, ID is unflinchingly devoted to subverting science and science teaching.
August 28th, 2005 12:41
Bill, I agree.
Dave, I think you’re right about how IDers operate. But the pretense is that this is science, and has nothing to do with faith. So they can’t have faith-based axioms. The ID hypothesis that that fully rational inquiry will lead to a designer. I’m just trying to show that that gets them nowhere.
I also think you’re right about the public schools. This issue would not be an issue but for the state enforced hegemony of secularism in public institutions that should not be public. ID is a predicatble form of self-defense by believers given the nature of our over-politicized institutions. The fact that our institutions would lead to a movement “unflinchingly devoted to subverting science and science teaching,” in Bill’s words, shows that there is something deeply wrong with our institutions. That is, state-sponsored hegemonic secularism breeds its own opposition. So we have a kind of Marxist “cultural contradiction.” The way to cut the knot is to get the state out of the provision of education, even if it remains in the business of financing education.
August 29th, 2005 17:04
Will,
I’m as opposed to government involvement in “education” as anyone, but I don’t think your conclusion follows.
I don’t think liberal neutrality requires the teaching of anything like ID in science classes, so I don’t think this is a legitimate backlash or indication of a problem with the institution (there are many others, though).
If there was a racist backlash to a legal system that treated all races equally, would you conclude that this “shows that there is something wrong with our institutions.”?
August 29th, 2005 17:38
Gil, The point about liberal neutrality is that it doesn’t require that ANYTHING in particular be taught in classes, other than the minimum necessary to give someone a decent chance in life. A good school, almost by definition, won’t teach ID. Some religious schools might. And a neutral state should have nothing to say about either, as long as the kids are getting reading, ‘riting, and ‘rithmatic.
August 29th, 2005 22:38
Will,
Thanks. I think I misinterpreted you.
And, I agree that this issue could be avoided (at least in its political form) if the state would stay out of this area which is unnecessary for it to protect basic rights.
But, many will argue that ensuring the learning of basic science is as important to a decent chance in modern life as the three R’s.
September 1st, 2005 15:15
I think that dismissing ID on this basis is a falacy. Evolution, for example, is silent on abiogenesis (which is what most religious people are railing against, whether they know it or not) but that makes it no less science. (I personally think the Evolution is fatally flawed, but I don’t deny that it is science. It is just wrong.)
To give credence to ID, a mechanism must be found. Genetic manipulation, tinkering with quantum probability, something. If that mechanism is identified, then it doesn’t matter WHO did it, the same that abiogenesis is irrelevant to Evolution.