At the top of the pantheon of the American secular religion is Santa God.

This is the second time in as many days that I have run across the question of whether G-d has free will; both times the question was raised as if the answer was obvious. I would like to think that G-d has free will, but it certainly isn't obvious to me. I can't, off the top of my head and with a quick reread of early Genesis, come up with a biblical verse that says that G-d chose. Free will and omniscience, while not mutually exclusive, must exist together gingerly. So I might be willing to say that G-d doesn't have free will, at least in any way that humans can understand, but intuitively I shy away from that conclusion -- and our intuition is not to be ignored when considering the nature of G-d.

What do people think? Does G-d have free will? Does the artist have free will if he accurately paints the picture in his head?

I suspect that the problem comes from our inability to come to terms with the nature of Creation. G-d knows all the universe and all the creatures ever in it, from beginning to end, as a single fact akin to our knowing that 2+2=4. Do I have free will when adding 2 to 2?

(Peter: If anyone follows up on this, I'll be sorry for hijacking the thread.)

One of those parents that doesn't intervene ever, huh?

Well, if G-d gives us free will how can he intervene?

On the other hand intervention could occur as long as it didn't affect our choices.

Bartman:

Yes, not coincidentally evolution ended when He finished making Man.

More fabulous commentary from Mr. B. Many thanks.

Peter, ID is a crock. It has nothing useful to say.

Francis Schaeffer pointed out that people like to separate the world into a rational physical component and an irrational spirtual component. Coyne seems to have fallen prey to this. It also makes him very popular, since he tells us that our very finite knowledge is sufficient to understand everything.

As to free will, well if you're swimming in a river, you can freely choose which direction to go in - that doesn't mean you're not subject to the current.

David:

I suspect that the problem comes from our inability to come to terms with the nature of Creation.

Perhaps the problem has more to do with coming to terms with the concept of free will itself.

If there was ever a notion that gets further away the closer you get to it, that is it.

Hey, who hijacked my thread? Oh, The Reasonable One. Figures.

David, if Genecis offers any clue to His nature, how about the fact that He paused, surveyed and "saw that it was good" after each step and before embarking on the next. Hard to square that with the artist who sees the end result before even starting. I suppose "saw that it was good" could just mean conformed to the model, but that does take the punch out of the tale, no?

Anon:

Really? Well, heck, that's good enough for me.

Anon:

Of course it's a crock, but its only competition is likewise a crock. Since Darwinism isn't science you can beat it with another faux science.

Jeff:

It's only really a problem for you determinists.

David - Many Christian theologians have affirmed that God cannot be anything other than good, loving, truthful; else He might be extremely powerful, but He would not be worthy of worship, and would not be God. So, is God good, loving, and truthful because He's smart enough to recognize that's His only choice? Or because He has no choice?

Jeff: Agreed.

Peter: The language of Genesis is actually pretty distancing. Even if we say that G-d saw that it was good, it comes across more as G-d recognizing an objection fact. If we take out the interpolated "it was", then G-d saw that good, which makes the point more strongly. Also, the language does not speak to causation (i.e., G-d saw that it was good, so He continued). It's very much "G-d made this and saw that. And made this and saw that. And made this and saw that. And saw that it was very good."

PJ: And yet we are Created, so how much of a trick is it for G-d to arrange things so that whatever He does strikes us as good? Or is that what free will means?

I had the opportunity to attend a lecture last year given by one of the scientists from the Vatican Observatory, a Jesuit cosmologist, on the so-called "multi-verse theory". This is an attempt to account for the very limited range of the fundamental physical constants which give rise to the observed structure of the universe and life by positing a large (possibly infinite) number of big-bangs creating multiple, separate universes, each differing from the others in the values of the constants. Of course, by definition we happen to occupy a universe where life is possible, Q.E.D.

There is no known physical theory which accounts for these (infinite) creation events, nor any theory explaining why the constants would be different in each universe. Yet this extravagant, unsupported, metaphysical speculation to conceal our ignorance is apparently considered science by the worthies at the Vatican Observatory. (I note in passing that the multi-verse "theory" is untestable, since the universes must be separate and non-interacting, and non-falsifiable)

Posted by: jd watson at November 19, 2005 4:48 PM

What is the primary motivation for ID? Is it
1) An assault of religion on science, attempting to undermine a philosophy that threatens to open people's minds and turn them away from religion?
Or
2) A response of religion to a series of assaults by Science that have attempted to portray religion as superstitious nonsense that can't be justified in any rational way?

It really boils down to how one views the motivation of the other side, it seems to me. When I first heard about ID, I never imagined it would be even remotely controversial--it concedes the existence of evolution, but just says that God is involved. So what? It seems silly to me to think that observations concerning biology "prove" anything about God, but then it seems equally silly that anyone thinks that a field like "evolutionary psychology" deserves anything like intellectual respect.

b:

Yes, thank-you. From what I've read about ID, some of which is very impressive and much of which is not, although all of it born of scientific minds and very scientific (which, by definition, leaves me gasping for air), it seems to me to be best seen as a critique or cross-examination of natural darwinism and not as a self-contained theory.

The criticism that ID does not offer a cogent explanation for existence and life by itself may be well-founded. It may indeed be bad science. The criticism that it is not science at all is absurd and nothing more than a petulant circling of the wagons by a pompous and increasingly worried establishment.

b:

It's just a repackaging of Creation Science and an attempt to get a challenge to the religion of Darwinism into classrooms.

Peter:

ID is not science at all, not even bad science. In order for something to be within the realm of rational inquiry, it has to be based on first order knowledge, and have binding deductive consequences.

That assertion is neither absurd, nor petulant.

It might, of course, be wrong. I will happily concede such if you, or anyone, can provide first order knowledge upon which ID is based, AND even one binding deductive consequence.

It's based on common descent, particulate inheritance, mutation, variation, etc. The only difference from Darwinism is that it posits an intelligent selector instead of Nature.

Here's an easy exercise for you--try to come up with an observed consequence of Darwinism or an experimental result that isn't likewise explained by ID.

Sorry, Jeff, ID may be wrong, but it is definitely science, or at least scientific inquiry. I realize your faith leads you to reject that and that you would be far more comfortable if it were true, but not science, but there you go. No one ever promised you a rose garden.

OJ:

No. It. Isn't.

Peter:

No. It. Isn't.

I laid out the criteria that must be met for something to be within the realm of rational inquiry. There are two options -- either show how my criteria are incorrect, or how ID meets them.

Until you do so, you are simply evading the point at hand.

Really, just one element of first hand knowledge; just one binding deductive consequence. That's all it takes.

Until then, it isn't science.

Peter, If ID can't be falsified in true Popperian fashion it isn't science. It's not even scientific inquiry.

Of course it's a crock, but its only competition is likewise a crock.

There is a third choice beside the idiocy of ID/creationism and the nihilism of Darwinism. Its called "evolution" and its accepted by the Vatican and the church as far back as St. Augustine of Hippo in the 5th century.

Anon:

Yes, that's why Darwinism isn't science either.

Jeff:

Rational inquiry has nothing to do with science. Darwinism, ID and Creation are all perfectly rational, they just aren't scientific. Darwinism meets neither of your criteria.

Anon:

No one doubts evolution--Genesis is evolutionary.

Jeff: As far as I have ever been able to tell, your definition of science postulates God out of existence. That's not science as I've ever understood or practiced it, i.e. a method of inquiry that is agnostic about what conclusions the user draws based on observations. What you are talking about is what I refer to as Science, and that's the whole problem...

OJ:

The naturalistic theory of evolution most certainly meets my criteria for scientific inquiry -- elsewhere I have laid out the case in detail; there is no need to repeat it here.

As for Darwinism, that is a straw man that lives entirely in your own mind, and is irrelevant to this discussion.

b:

You wrote your definition of science postulates God out of existence.

Apologies if I am being dense, but I don't see how you reached that conclusion. Just because itit is nonsense to assert Genesis in any way details how natural history actually worked, doesn't the scientific inquiry that establishes that atheistic.

Scientific inquiry relies on observing nature as it is (or as closely as humans can manage). To conclude that the exercise is somehow atheistic is to also conclude that nature itself is atheistic.

I'm pretty sure you don't intend that conclusion.

Jeff: What a bizarre caricature of what I said. I'm disappointed in you, to be honest. You say repeatedly that science requires looking for a "naturalistic" explanation for everything, don't you? And don't you mean by this to exclude God?

If a physicist, cosmologist, biologist, whatever, were to say "After a lifetime of careful study of the Universe, and of mankind, I have come to the inescapable conclusion that God exists, and all of creation is according to His design"--is that person really a scientist? I recall a few years back some very prominent scientist (Dawkins? Watson or Crick--whichever one is the total militant atheist nutjob?) said that someone who holds religious views could not be a "scientist", in the fundamental sense of the word.

I was naive at the time, and thought similarly to Fr. Coyne, that science & religion were two separate spheres that were basically separate paths to Truth, but not incompatible. And yet every scientific colleague who I tentatively brought up the quote with immediately agreed with it. I eventually quit bringing it up, greatly depressed.

Heck, while I'm at it, let me be somewhat provocative--the whole "a scientific theory must be testable" line exists solely to rule out God.

Jeff sez: "Scientific inquiry relies on observing nature as it is (or as closely as humans can manage). To conclude that the exercise is somehow atheistic is to also conclude that nature itself is atheistic."

Your first sentence I agree with 100%. Your second sentence is based on a complete misrepresentation of what I said, and so is nonsensical.

Given a set of observations, some set of conclusions may be drawn (that is all science is). Maybe person X draws the conclusion that God exists. Maybe person Y draws the conclusion that the Universe is random, and God does not exist (whether he states so explicitly or not...). Each person has made an aesthetic choice based on the observations. And yet person Y is allowed to say to person X: "Oh yeah? 'God exists'? What are the deductive consequences of that? That's not testable, so your conclusion is illegitimate. Sorry. Please try again."

The theory that God has guided evolution belongs in science classes to the same degree that the theory that God has guided human history belongs in history classes.

No one doubts evolution--Genesis is evolutionary.

A literal 24 hour day, 6 day creattion is evolutionary? How so? Augustine warned against such a literal interpretation of Genesis: "Sacred Scripture in its customary style is speaking with the limitations of human language in addressing men of limited understanding."

The universe would have dissipated by now if it weren't created (or collapsed into a black nothingness). There had to be a beginning--that much is obvious to all but the willfully blind. Who created it is still questionable, but has already been answered to most people's satisfaction by Jesus Christ.

Jeff:

I laid out the criteria that must be met for something to be within the realm of rational inquiry

Ooh, I just love it when you go all authoritative like that. It's just so...you know...butch. Were you speaking ex cathedra at the time?

Science 1.The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

Have you told the authors of our dictionaries about your rulings yet?

Anon:

Do you not see that your and Jeff's persistent efforts to equate creationism with biblical literalism and attack ID for not having an evidentiary base it doesn't claim to have are just efforts to divert criticism away from natural evolution and the gaps and defects in darwinism? If memory serves, no one here has ever argued the case for biblical literalism or that ID has solved the mystery of life--quite the opposite in fact--but still you persist in attacking as if we do. It's just darwinism's well-known tactic of arguing for complete, unquestionning acceptance on the basis that there is no other competing natural explanation, all-the-while defing modern darwinism to include any natural explanation possible no matter how implausible or counter-intuitive. b is right. It's all just hocus-pocus designed to exclude any suggestion of a non-natural agent no matter how scientificallycompelling.

Peter:

Dictionaries exist to give guidance for using words correctly in sentences. They do not exist to give deep background.

My assertion (which is not original to me, BTW) is that all scientific theories include the characteristics I listed, and that ID contains none of them.

That is the sole basis for my attacking efforts to put ID into science classes, and is a point entirely separate from naturalistic evolution. My challenge to you still stands unanswered:

1. List the first order knowledge ID possesses upon which ID is based.
2. List ID's binding deductive consequences.

As long as both 1 & 2 are empty lists, then ID is not within the realm of scientific inquiry.

attack ID for not having an evidentiary base it doesn't claim to have

You need to learn much more about ID if you can say that with a straight face. ID does make claims to have an evidentiary basis, it just so happens those claims are completely empty.

If memory serves, no one here has ever argued the case for biblical literalism or that ID has solved the mystery of life--quite the opposite in fact--but still you persist in attacking as if we do.

I have a reasonably good memory of what I have posted on this subject, and am just as reasonably certain I (nor has Anon) ever written anything remotely like that, which makes darwinism's well-known tactic of arguing for complete, unquestionning acceptance ... completely wrong.

Apologies in advance, of course, if you track down a quote of mine to the contrary.

It's all just hocus-pocus designed to exclude any suggestion of a non-natural agent no matter how scientifically compelling.

Well, that's the problem in a nutshell, isn't it? ID, as it stands, is not compelling; rather, scientifically speaking, it is completely, totally, empty.

It is really quite clear how to prove both me and the Vatican wrong on this.

Clear, but not possible.

b:

You say repeatedly that science requires looking for a "naturalistic" explanation for everything, don't you? And don't you mean by this to exclude God?

No. What I mean is that the invocation of God instantly stops scientific inquiry. For instance, let's take ID at its word: the immune system is irreducibly complex, and that the odds of its appearance out of whole cloth are so small as to make it impossible within the lifetime of the universe.

In other words, God did it. Question answered, and in such a way as to end further research into the immune system's evolution, and insight thereby into its workings.

Now it may well be that ID is onto something, but the only way to reach that conclusion is to act as if God does not intrude into natural processes. In other words, the only way to find God acting through nature is to assume the opposite and force a contradiction by exhausting every naturalistic explanation.

That is why my (not in the sense that it is mine alone, but rather that I am the one who provided it here) definition of naturalistic science is paradoxical: only by excluding God from the explanation until all other avenues are exhausted is it possible to know how God intervenes in nature, not whether God exists.

To do otherwise, as ID does now, is to derive a conclusion from its proponents ignorance.

ID is a crock, and here's why. In order to establish a science of design, you really only have the designed works of men as data points upon which to extrapolate the characteristics of design. The fact that Nature has pruduced artifacts that share similarities with designed artifacts of men does not lead to the conclusion that nature shares the attributes of intelligence and design intent that men posess. ID is built upon an invalid syllogism, as follows:

Men design things.
Men are intelligent.
Nature produces things that are similar to things designed by men.
Therefore, Nature is intelligent.

The logic is obviously invalid, but there is no ID without it.

Sigh. I never should have let up on my vow to avoid commenting on evolution-related topics. Peter is 100% right that these threads are endlessly frustrating because people aren't really talking to each other--one side is attacking Darwinism, but not defending ID (because they concede that it isn't "science", by the nonsensical rules defining that term, but argue that Darwinism isn't either), and the other side is attacking ID, but not defending Darwinism (I suppose because they feel it doesn't need defending).

Jeff: you do realize that you owe much of your present predicament to Ralph Nader, don't you?

b:

... people aren't talking to each other

IIRC, the topic of the cited article was that ID does not qualify as science, and therefore does not belong in science classes.

Perhaps addressing the point would be helpful.

Does ID represent valid scientific inquiry?

I say no, for very specific reasons, which you apparently find nonsensical, but don't say why. In fact, no one is able to present a case for ID as science.

So it seems the answer is: No.

If ID does not (yet, anyway) qualify as scientific inquiry, does it belong in a science class? Peter says relegating it elsewhere " ... represents one of the greatest intellectual hypocrisies of our times."

Yet, somehow forcing the inclusion of that which is manifestly non within the realm of scientific inquiry in science classes is not hypocritical.

I haven't defended naturalistic evolution in this thread, because it isn't under discussion. But I have defended it before, not as either right or wrong, but as being well and truly within the realm of scientific inquiry.

Joe:

My predicament would be?

And I owe to Ralph Nader how?

BTW -- previously, OJ said this about ID:

The only difference from Darwinism is that it posits an intelligent selector instead of Nature.

Which means he is as woefully ignorant of ID as he is about naturalistic evolution.

ID posits an intelligent mutator, and is apparently quite happy with natural selection.

If you pick the mutation you've selected.

Uhh. No.

If you pick the mutation, you pick which mutation gets to play.

Selection decides which wins--if the mutation doesn't show up in the next generation you lose.

Like I said, you are just as woefully ignorant about ID as naturalistic evolution.