« Akyol on BBC about Intelligent Design | Main | Turkish Muslims Pray for the German Hostage in Iraq »
December 2, 2005
Under God or Under Darwin?
[Originally published in National Review Online]
When President Bush declared his support for the teaching of intelligent design (ID) theory in public schools along with Darwinian evolution, both he and the theory itself drew a lot of criticism. Among the many lines of attack the critics launch, one theme remains strikingly constant: the notion that ID is a Trojan Horse of Christian fundamentalists whose ultimate aim is to turn the U.S. into an theocracy.
In a furious New Republic cover story, "The Case Against Intelligent Design," Jerry Coyne joined in this hype and implied that all non-Christians, including Muslims, should be alarmed by this supposedly Christian theory of beginnings that "might offend those of other faiths." Little does he realize that if there is any view on the origin of life that might seriously offend other faiths — including mine, Islam — it is the materialist dogma: the assumptions that God, by definition, is a superstition, and that rationality is inherently atheistic.
That offense is no minor issue. In fact, in the last two centuries, it has been the major source of the Muslim contempt for the West. And it deserves careful consideration.
An Old Wall
The conflict between Christian Europe and the Islamic Middle East has a long history, marked by many crusades and jihads, all of which had both sacred and mundane motives. Yet in the last two centuries, a new kind of West, a modern one, arose, and the relationship between the two civilizations became asymmetrical. Western Europe became overwhelmingly superior to the world of Islam and its sole superpower, the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans' realization of the West's ascendancy led them, in the late 18th century, to initiate a process of Westernization. The process, which began by importing Western technology, broadened throughout the 19th century with the adaptation of Western educational systems and legal structures, including a system of constitutional monarchy with an elected parliament. Other than marginal fanatics such as the Wahhabis of the Arabian Peninsula — who launched a revolt against Ottoman rule, asserting that "the Turks became infidels" by abolishing slavery — the Ottoman ulema (religious scholars) and Islamic intellectuals welcomed these reforms.
But it was more than just telegraphs, trains, and constitutions that started arriving from the West; philosophies came as well. And since late-19th-century European thought was predominantly atheistic and anti-religious, these philosophies alarmed Muslim thinkers. When the theories of Comte, Spencer, and Darwin became fashionable among the Westernized Ottoman elite, an intellectual war began. Istanbul, the Empire's capital, became the stage of hot intellectual debates. While Francophile atheists such as Abdullah Cevdet and Suphi Ethem were quoting the works of Darwin and Ernst Haeckel to argue that man is an accidental animal and religion a comforting myth, Muslim scholars were writing tracts to defend the Islamic faith and refute the "theories of disbelief" pouring in from Europe.
Sadly, it was secularist Europe — and especially, theophobic France — rather than the religious United States that the Islamic world encountered as "the West." No wonder, then, that the West eventually became synonymous with godlessness. Moreover, within Muslim societies, Europeanized elites grew in number and were seen — with a lot of justification — as soulless, skirt-and-money-chasing men drinking whiskey while looking down upon traditional believers as ignoramuses.
The Muslim reaction to this kind of Westernization was to erect a wall of separation between the West and their communities. "We will get the technology of the West," declared Said Nursi, a leading Muslim scholar of late Ottoman and early Turkish life, "but never their culture." That culture, according to Nursi, had a major problem: It was "plagued by materialism."
The gap between the West and the Middle East deepened owing to the political faults of the West, such as European colonialism and the American support for Middle East tyrannies, and, more recently, the barbaric terrorism of fanatics who act and kill in the name of Islam. Yet, despite these political conflicts, the perception of the West in the minds of devout Muslims remains the greatest underlying problem. Although they admire its freedom, they detest its materialism.
In a recent Spectator piece, titled "Muslims Are Right about Britain," Conservative British MP John Hayes pointed to the same problem. "Many moderate Muslims believe that much of Britain is decadent," says Mr. Hayes, and adds, "They are right." He explained that because of the prevailing culture, "Modern Britons . . . are condemned to be selfish, lonely creatures in a soulless society where little is worshipped beyond money and sex," and asked, "Is it any wonder that the family-minded, morally upright moderate Muslims despair?"
The distaste for American culture in the Islamic world is based on similar feelings. The America that people see is one represented by Hollywood and MTV. A recent poll in Turkey revealed that 37 percent of Turks define Americans as "materialistic" while a mere 8 percent define them as "religious." Not surprisingly, 90 percent say that they know the U.S. mainly through television.
From all this, one can see that the much-debated cultural gap between the West and the Muslim world is actually a two-sided coin: While the latter has some extremely conservative or radical elements that turn life into joyless misery, the former has extremely hedonistic and degenerate elements that turn life into meaningless profligacy. And if we look for a rapprochement between Westerners and Muslims, we again have to see both sides of the coin: While Muslim communities need reformers of culture that will save them from bigotry, the Western societies need redeemers of culture that will save them from materialism. Of course, the manifestations of the former (such as support for terrorism) are far more dangerous and intolerable than those of the latter, but as root causes, both must be acknowledged.
Richard Dawkins & the Material Girl
Yes, but what exactly is materialism? Isn't it more obviously represented by the extravagance of pop stars than by the sophisticated theories of atheist scientists and scholars? Isn't the cultural materialism of, say, Madonna, quite different from the philosophical materialism of Richard Dawkins?
Well, it is self-evident that they look dissimilar, but the worldviews they represent are intertwined. Cultural materialism means living as if there were no God or moral absolutes, and all that matters is matter. Philosophical materialism means to argue that there is no God to establish any moral absolutes, and matter is all there is. The former worldview finds its justification in the latter. Actually, in the modern world, philosophical materialists act as the secular priesthood of a lifestyle based on hedonism and moral relativism. The priesthood convinces the masses that we are all accidental occurrences who are not under any Divine judgment; and the masses live, earn, spend, and have relationships according to this supposition. A popular MTV hit summarizes this presumption bluntly: "You and me baby ain't nuthin' but mammals; so let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel."
The biological justification for promiscuity — that we are "nuthin' but mammals" — is no accident: The idea that we are all mere animals is at the heart of cultural materialism. And that idea is, of course, based on Darwinism. That's why Darwinism, in the words of Daniel Dennett, one of its hard-core proponents, acts as a "universal acid; it eats through just about every traditional concept and leaves in its wake a revolutionized worldview."
That "revolutionized worldview" — in which God is denied, attacked, and ridiculed — is the grand problem we Muslims have with the West. It is true that some fanatics among us hate the West's liberty and democracy, too. Yet for the sane and pious Muslim majority, those are welcome attributes. This majority's only problem is the materialism that encompasses the West. And they would welcome those who would save the West — and thus the whole world — from it.
A Discovery Zone
That's why something called the Wedge Document — although horrifying to America's secularist intelligentsia — offers a message of hope for Muslims. The Wedge Document is a 1999 memorandum of the Discovery Institute (DI), the Seattle-based think tank that acts as the main proponent of ID. In this document, the Institute explains that its long-term goal is "to defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies." Much of the fuss made about the Document by its opponents is absurd; it does not propose the transformation of the U.S. into a theocracy. But, as official DI documents point out, there is nothing wrong in expecting cultural impact from a scientific theory; Darwinians, after all, revel in the cultural impact of their own doctrines.
By its bold challenge to Darwinian evolution — a concept that claims it is possible to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist" — ID is indeed a wedge that can split the foundations of scientific materialism. ID presents a new perspective on science, one that is based solely on scientific evidence yet is fully compatible with faith in God. That's why William Dembski, one of its leading theorists, defines ID as a bridge between science and theology.
As the history of the cultural conflict between the modern West and Islam shows, ID can also be a bridge between these two civilizations. The first bricks of that bridge are now being laid in the Islamic world. In Turkey, the current debate over ID has attracted much attention in the Islamic media. Islamic newspapers are publishing translations of pieces by the leading figures of the ID movement, such as Michael J. Behe and Phillip E. Johnson. The Discovery Institute is praised in their news stories and depicted as the vanguard in the case for God, and President Bush's support for ID is gaining sympathy. For many decades the cultural debate in Turkey has been between secularists who quote modern Western sources and Muslims who quote traditional Islamic sources. Now, for the first time, Muslims are discovering that they share a common cause with the believers in the West. For the first time, the West appears to be the antidote to, not the source of, the materialist plague.
Is ID True?
Of course, ID — like any other scientific theory — stands or falls not according to its political and diplomatic utility, but according to the evidence. So: Is ID true?
There is a huge and growing body of ID literature produced by some of the world's finest minds, and I won't attempt even to summarize the overwhelming evidence it presents for design in nature. Yet I think an examination of the main premise behind the current opposition to ID might be helpful.
To see that premise, we first have to note how ID theorists criticize Darwin. They do this by applying his own criterion for falsification. "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications," said Darwin, "my theory would break down." ID theorists, such as biochemist Michael J. Behe, apply this criterion to complex biochemical systems such as the bacterial flagellum or blood clotting and explain that they could not have been "formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications" — because they don't function at all unless they are complete.
What is the Darwinian response to this? Here's Jerry Coyne again, in The New Republic: "In view of our progress in understanding biochemical evolution, it is simply irrational to say that because we do not completely understand how biochemical pathways evolved, we should give up trying and invoke the intelligent designer." Note that Coyne is here denying the falsification criterion that Darwin himself acknowledged. According to Darwin, if you demonstrate "that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications," the theory will break down. According to Coyne, you will only be pointing to a system about which "we do not completely understand how [it] evolved."
In other words, Coyne leaves no way that the theory can break down. Whatever problem you find with the theory today will somehow be solved in the future. Actually Coyne, quite generously, does give a criterion to refute Darwinism: Should we "find human fossils co-existing with dinosaurs, or fossils of birds living alongside those of the earliest invertebrates," that would "sink neo-Darwinism for good." But ID proponents aren't questioning the fact that dinosaurs predated humans and invertebrates predated birds; our question, rather, is how they came to be. Coyne sounds like someone who would silence a serious critique of the theory of plate tectonics by saying, "Hey, show me that the Earth is flat and thus sink my theory for good, or shut up forever."
With his solid faith in Darwinism, Coyne also assures us that the gaps in the fossil record — which should have been filled by the 150-year-long desperate search for the fossilized remains of numerous, successive, slight modifications — "are certainly due to the imperfection of the fossil record." But why can't we consider the possibility that the gaps might be real — that forms of complex life might have appeared on Earth in the way they are, as the fossil record suggests? The standard reply to this question is the "god of the gaps" argument: that theists have imagined divine powers behind natural phenomena in the past, and science, in time, unveiled the natural processes behind those phenomena. But if we had seen a cumulative filling of gaps since Darwin, we would have agreed. What we have actually seen is the reverse: Ever since Darwin, and especially in recent decades, the problems with the theory of evolution have been deepening and widening. With the discovery of the unexpected complexity of biology, and the sudden leap forward in the history of life with the Cambrian explosion, the Darwinian theory turns out to be based on an atheism of the gaps, in which lack of knowledge about life led to the wrong assumption that it is simple enough to be explained by a non-design theory.
God & Muslims
There are many other attacks on ID in the media, and they are all useful in that they demonstrate the true intellectual force behind Darwinism: a commitment to materialism. The most common argument against ID, that it invokes God and so cannot be a part of science, is a crystal-clear expression of that commitment. Instead of asking, "What if there really were an intelligent designer active in the origin of life?" the Darwinists take it for granted that such a designer doesn't exist and limit the definition of science according to that unproven premise. Similarly, the evidence for the existence of a pre-Sumerian civilization would not be "a part of history" if you define history as "the discipline that examines the past of human societies starting from the Sumerians and never, ever, accepting the possibility of something else before." A saner approach would be to question the definition of the discipline that is challenged by evidence — not to ignore the evidence in order to save the definition of the discipline. The reason this saner approach is not the mainstream view in biology is the same old dogmatic belief: materialism.
Of course, Darwinians have the right to believe in whatever they wish, but it is crucial to unveil that theirs is a subjective faith, not an objective truth, as they have been claiming for more than a century. This unveiling would mark a turning point in the history of Western civilization, by reconciling science and religion and letting people become intellectually fulfilled theists. Moreover, it would mark a turning point in the history of the world, by changing the meaning of "the West" and "Westernization" in the eyes of Muslims. They have been resisting the influx of godlessness from the West for a long time; they would be much less alarmed in the face of a redeemed West.
Phillip E. Johnson once said that the ID debate is about the question whether the U.S. is a nation under God or a nation under Darwin. We Muslims see the latter as a plague; we have no problem with the former. We might have disagreements, but we agree on the most fundamental truth of all — that there really is a God out there, and He is the One to Whom we owe our very life and existence.
Posted by Mustafa Akyol at December 2, 2005 8:27 PM
Mr. Akyol,
Your argument is unpersuasive because of your reliance on assertions that are obviously and demonstably false, and on your mischaracterization of the positions of your opponents.
You charge "darwinists" with seeking to avoid the falsification criterion that Darwin himself laid down. But Darwin's challange was to point to an organ that "could not possibly have" have been formed by natural processes. No one has met that challange. Pointing out that science has not fully understood everything yet is hardly an argument that science has concluded that something could not possibly have been formed naturally. The examples and arguments of Behe utterly fail in that regard as well. His assertions about irreducible complexity of the flagellum or other complex structures are absurd on their face - there exists quite a bit of natural variation in flagellum structure, giving lie to the argument that the structure can only work in one, fully formed manner. These arguments used to be advanced for the eye as well, until the variation in eye structure, including many different levels of complexity for light-sensitive organs, was revealed.
Your arguments regarding the fossil record are completely at odds with reality. Discoveries of fossils have consistently filled in the gaps in the evidentiary record of evolution. I would suggest that you spend a little time investigating these issues for yourself, in the scientific record, rather than accepting at face value the assertion of those with political or religous agendas. You could focus on any one of hundreds of lineages whose fossil record has grown ever more robust - the transition of one branch of theropod dinosaurs into birds, of primitive amniotes into mammals, of sarcopterygian fishes into tetrapods are just some of the more well-known examples. And of course there is the evolution of hominids as well.
You claim that you would agree with the criticism of the "god of the gaps" approach, if only you could see the gaps being filled. But it is only a willful ignoring of evidence that could allow you to pretend that such evidence is not there.
There are almost no serious biologists who would agree with your statement that there are "deepening and widening" problems in evolutionary theory. This is an argument advanced almost exclusively by religous activists who know nothing of the science, and who really have no intent of ever admitting any evidence that could undermine their agenda. Sadly, you seem to have such an attitude.
And, by the way, the complexity that we find in biological structures cannot, in any way, be considered "unexpected", except perhaps to those who have never attempted to understand them. Those of us who actually do biology have always understood the complexity of biological structures, even as we work to understand how they work. If anything, our successes in understanding those structures has increased our confidence that natural explanations are sufficient.
ID offers no challange to scientific understanding, nor is it a scientific theory. It is a non-scientific assertion of a supernatural cause for natural phenomena. It exists wholly in the realm of religion or metaphysics.
You are perfectly free to believe in a designer, and to call it god or anything else. It is not a mission of science to attack religion. The mission of science is to do science - to further our rational understand of the natural world. If that has implications, be they good or bad, for religion, that is outside the sphere of concern of science. If your religions wish to accomodate themselves to the findings of science, that may be seen as a strength in those traditions. Others may see it as a weakness. In any case, it is not a concern of science.
It is, however, deeply dishonest to pretend that these religious approaches are scientific, or that they offer refutations or even plausible arguements against specific scientific findings.
What I find most odd in your argument is that in some sense you seem to understand this. Much of your article makes clear that you see yourself as advancing the case for your religion. And that is the explicit motivation for the American ID movement as well. And yet, for some reason, they constantly try to advance scientific arguments, or to criticize scientific findings, on scientific terms, as if their movement was an alternative scientific theory. And in that realm, they are consistently revealed as nothing but a joke.
What motivates this ridiculous strategy? Is it the case that you have internalized the notion that scientific findings will be the death-knell of religion? Do you believe that to such an extent that you feel the need to argue against, or undermine the results of scientific investigation? Even at the cost of making yourselves, and by extension, making religion itself, seem foolish and dishonest?
There are many religious scientists who understand and accept darwinian evolution. They seem not to fear science the way you do. They therefore have no motivation to advance ridiculous arguments. They seem to have far more confidence in their religion than you do.
Posted by: Tano at December 2, 2005 9:48 PM
Absolutely brilliant! Without question one of the best pieces I have read in the last 5 years on the subject! Your insights are truly penetrating and quite original. Thank you so much for your article.
Posted by: Steve Cooney at December 2, 2005 10:01 PM
Mr./Ms. Tano,
What Behe (and others like Dembski, Minnich etc) do is to show that bacterial flagellum or blood clotting mechanisms could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, because they can only work when fully formed and intermediate stages do not function. They don't need to show more then that...
The burden of proof is actually on the Darwinian side; they have to show hypothetical intermediate stages that can have functions. They don't. What they do is to postpone the discovery of those stages to an unknown future. And that is faith, not science.
As for the fossil record, it is not just "creationists" who find the Cambrian explosion at odds with Darwinian evolution. Today it is known that no naturalistic explanation for the explosion exists. But Darwinians can't stand to hear that, as seen in the affair about the famous article by Meyer. See:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177&program=CSC&callingPage=discoMainPage
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/klinghoffer200508160826.asp
You are perfectly free to believe that life is the product of naturalistic mechanisms, but it would be deeply dishonest to pretend that this view is supported by scientific evidence.
And yes, I am advancing the case for my religion, but not by imposing it on science, but saving it from the materialist dogmatism. We ID-proponents are not trying to impose on science an a priori commitment to theism. The Darwinians, however, do impose on science an a priori commitment to materialism. Richard Richard frankly acknowledged this commitment a few years ago.
Actually what we say is clear: Let's follow the evidence wherever it leads. Unfortunately, the materialist camp cannot accept this, since, I suspect, they seem to have not confidence in their religion.
Posted by: Mustafa Akyol at December 2, 2005 10:44 PM
Mustafa,
You seem like an intellegent and articulate man. I think that you owe it to yourself, and to your credibility to bring that intellegence to bear on any subject that you address. I dont sense that you have done that with evolutionary science.
You repeat the charges and accusations of people like Behe and Dembski, who have no credibility whatsoever in the scientific community, and whose arguments have been refuted many times. Their only constiuency are those with a religous agenda - specifically to limit and inhibit science from explaining things that some religous people wish to reserve for themselves.
I suggest you spend some time investigating the issues that they raise, on your own. I realize that you are not a scientist, but I am sure that you would be capable of coming to a rational conclusion, if you make the effort.
Here are a few places to begin. They are just an entry into a large literature on these subjects - and I would encourage you to pursue your studies as far as you need to, in order to come to an informed position.
On the bacterial flagellum:
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html
On the Cambrian diversity:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/13/6947
Whatever you conclude, I think it inevitable that you will conclude that the comments you have made on the subject are ill-informed, at the very least.
ID is most certainly attempting to impose theism on science - how can you possibly argue otherwise? You need only read the documents of the Discovery Institute, or Dembski's own website to see an explicit acknowledgement of that.
And it is not the "darwinians" who are imposing materialism on science. Science is, by its very nature, an attempt to achieve material, naturalistic explanations of the natural world.
Science does not claim that there is nothing else that could possibly exist, such as a god (as a true materialist might propose). Science merely attempts to explain the natural world on its own terms without reference to supernatural explanation. Many scientists find that to be perfectly compatable with their religous beliefs.
You seem not to acknowledge that as a possibility, despite the fact that the majority of scientists are religous, and a very large number of educated religous people fully accept evolutionary theory.
You claim to want to follow the evidence where it leads. Go for it. Seriously.
Posted by: Tano at December 3, 2005 2:43 AM
Enjoyed your column very much! I then found your blog, and read some more of your writing. Very good stuff. I agree whole heartly, materialism had some bad consequences for the West. I have always wondered why some people are so proud to think of themselves as just a cosmic accident. Rather sad, don't you think? Cosmic accidents, spending time, and money, reputations, and thier whole lives, trying to discover, after all that, that they are just Cosmic accidents. Why a human would do this to himself, I will never fathom. Darwin explains some things about life on this planet very well. It would be nice, and a bit more honest if the Darwin believers, would just aknowledge that there are somethings about life on earth, that darwin can't answer very well at all. They won't be struck down dead by admitting it, for petes sake.
To me science is like the young brash new kid at the table with the adults, the great religons. He knows how to do the new math better than they do, never gets lost with technology, like they do, and is usually more certian of himself. He knows all the clever new arguments, etc. Morever, he thinks because he is so clever, young, and with it, the adults are clueless. The adults often disagree with each other about different things, but all know things about the world from long experiance that the brash youngster, who thinks he knows everything, has yet to learn. I think as modern science gets longer in the tooth,and maturity, science itself will get just a bit more honest about what we can know, and what we can't. just like those other adults at the table.
Great column! Mark
Posted by: Mark at December 3, 2005 3:23 AM
Mr. Akyol,
It is difficult to accept as "following the evidence wherever it leads" any argument that cites as support for a critical point 2 articles, one of which is an opinion piece and the other the product of a program that "supports research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory". That's not actually evidence.
It seems to me that the case for ID is actually based on a lack of evidence - that's a tough case to make and you have not made it persuasively here.
Posted by: horosho at December 3, 2005 3:31 AM
Mr. Akyol:
Here is a question worth considering when contemplating the ID debate: Why is it that so many otherwise brilliant people, among both Theists and Materialists, fail to realize that there is no logical contradiction between (a.) an Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Creator God who Performs Miracles, and (b.) a Natural Universe in which the post-Big-Bang chain of cause and effect is never interrputed by non-Natural causes?
Since you've mentioned C.S.Lewis in passing before now, I guess you're aware of this already. But so many are apparently not aware that THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION between these things, that it bears repeating.
The Jewish/Christian/Muslim concept of God describes him as (a.) creating the universe, and having complete control over its formation; (b.) able to exert miraculous power over events in the present; and (c.) seeing all places and times simultaneously from the perspective of Eternity.
(The last item, (c.), is something that we time-bound and place-bound mortals cannot easily grasp, but perhaps the best picture we can form in our minds is of a God who views all times as NOW; who is, from His own perspective, currently watching me type this note, currently watching my birth, currently observing the birth of Abram, and currently determining the exact trajectory of every particle to be ejected from the Big Bang.)
Meanwhile, the Naturalist/Materialist view is that all events in the history of the universe are "Natural", by which they mean, completely "caused" by events which came earlier in time. For the Materialist, the Cause->Effect relationship is critical; an event at time X which was not completely Caused by some other collection of events at times earlier than X would be non-Natural (and potentially, Supernatural). Materialists view all events in the history of the universe to be an endless chain of Cause-Effect linkages, traceable, in principle, right back to the Big Bang, the first event, itself.
The Materialist asserts:
1. The scientific method requires scientists, when experimenting, to assume that experimental results occur only for Natural reasons, and not because of divine intervention. Without this working assumption, hypothesis would become useless.
2. The scientific method has produced such success at describing and predicting our world that this working assumption may as well be assumed to be an Axiom.
3. On the basis of this Axiom, all events are Natural; i.e., preceded by their Causes.
4. Miracles, which require God to "meddle" in the flow of Cause and Effect emanating from the Big Bang, violate this Axiom.
5. Therefore God either (a.) doesn't exist, or (b.) exists but may as well not exist, since He exerts no influence in our universe. Moreover, our own thoughts and decisions and consciousness are purely Natural events; had a particle been ejected from the Big Bang at a slightly different trajectory, Billy Graham might have been an atheist, or Adolf Hitler, a humanitarian.
This is the reasoning by which Materialists repudiate Theism. It is the thing to which Theists respond so fervently when they reject Naturalism/Materialism.
But the entire chain of reasoning is flawed, on more than one point. And once some of those points are corrected, it becomes clear that there need not be a contradiction between a Naturalistic Universe and a Miraculous and Omnipotent God.
In a nutshell, the argument goes like this:
1. The Big Bang itself was not a "Natural" event, since Time began with the Big Bang. If the Big Bang had a Cause, that Cause could not have preceded the Big Bang, since Time began with the Bang. The phrase "before the Bang" is meaningless.
2. Materialists posit a "multiverse" to allow a non-deity cause for the Bang; i.e., since our own space-time doesn't allow any time for a Natural Cause, they hope for a Natural Cause in some other space-time. Theists assert that this is only "backing up" the problem, not solving it; or else, perhaps it is just describing "where God is".
Either way, the main difference between Materialist and Theist assertions about the Cause of the Bang is about whether that Cause is personal and free-willed, or impersonal. Science is mute on such questions, since they are beyond experiment. To paraphrase atheist satirist Douglas Adams, one can't "fire missiles at right-angles to reality", and one can't very well conduct experiments on things entirely outside our space-time.
3. Miracles, then, are the real "hang-up": Theists allow for them. Materialists don't, on the basis that they require divine interference with the chain of Cause-and-Effect which makes up their nice tidy view of the universe. Materialists hold it as Axiomatic that such interferences never happen.
But a moment's examination reveals that Miracles don't require divine intervention AFTER the Big Bang.
A God which can intervene AT the Big Bang, and who has the power to determine the initial trajectory of every subatomic particle formed by the Big Bang, is every bit sovereign enough to, for example, cause a meteor (or something like it) to strike a hand-built altar on Mt. Carmel at exactly the right time to cause the prophet Elijah to look rather smug and the false prophets of Baal to look rather sheepish. And a God which can observe every point in the universe, at every Time in the universe, simultaneously from the perspective of the Eternal Now, would have no trouble "planning" such an event to occur.
I do not assert that every Miracle ever claimed by anyone was real; I assume (because of the abundance of charlatans in the world) that most are phony. I do not even need to assert that ALL genuine Miracles are the result of God's precise planning of the "detonation" of the Big Bang. Maybe they are, maybe not. But they all COULD be. There is nothing in Theism that requires otherwise.
For that reason, the conflict between science and Theism (as defined in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) is bogus. The very facet of Materialism which Materialists claim makes their philosophy "more scientific" than Theism turns out not to contradict with the concept of an Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Sovereign, Creator God. It is as much of a non-argument as Einstein's "Twins Paradox", or the wave-particle duality of light. What at first appears contradictory requires, not that one be chosen, but more clear thinking about both.
-- R.C.
Posted by: R.C.Hamrick at December 3, 2005 4:50 AM
Um. There is not one shred of evidence that a god exists. Why is that so problematic for people to digest? And does anybody ask himself why we need a transcendental male deity to function?
We have seen moral and ethical societies who did not defer to gods,
wake up
Posted by: ken at December 4, 2005 7:37 AM
From both myself and my circle of friends, I say thank you. We have been searching for an articulate Muslim voice and yours illuminates a path building critical bridges to a peaceful world. Very interesting debates in the follow up comment section, to which little might be added. As the world returns to a more sane climate, you might consider the historical research opening up from the libraries of Freemasons. None were, or can be, atheists. Indeed, in the 18th century, the craft referred to them as "stupid atheists". From the dark ages on, they attracted bulders from every country by insisting that no specific deity be exemplified, using instead, such terminology as Creator, or Architect of the Universe. It will show that much of the discipline of scientific inquiry came about through it's insistence on tolerance of viewpoints from all peoples and cultures. For builders the tests were simple: it either stood or fell down, and grew from there. You will be surprised at its list of prominent thinkers, and probably wonder why it has been effectively hidden for so long. That the world was not ready is one common argument, lending a certain excitement to why this information is now coming to light. Radical truth tends to get people hurt, and Masons are obligated to do no harm. They also tend to contribute anonymously, recognizing that true unselfish service is between one's self and their maker.
Posted by: James Johnson at December 4, 2005 6:08 PM
I applaud Mustafa for his desires to forge a bridge between the humane muslim majority and similar groups in the west. Unfortunatly, the focus on the ID movement creates a link to a reactionary political movement that is intent on subverting the church-state distinctions that served as the formula for allowing true freedom of religion, along with unimpeded scientific and technological advance.
It is no doubt an exercise in hyperbole to refer to the ID crowd as the "American Taliban", as many here in the US do. But the underlying point is valid - they are a backward-looking movement fearful of the growth of knowledge and intent on forcing scientific knowledge to be shoe-horned into a static religous framework. It is not THE christian framework, merely the framework of one faction of a diverse christian faith. Even the Vatican has distanced themselves from this movement.
It is my understanding that islam has had a glorious tradition of scientific accomplishment. Building bridges from such a foundation to the western inheritors of that tradition would be a solid bridge indeed. Those in the ID movement however are enemies of science.
Posted by: Tano at December 4, 2005 10:35 PM
Under God OR Under Darwin? Boy, there’s a title that reflects an interest in bridge-building! Other commentators have rightfully pointed out that there’s no contradiction between belief in god and the acceptance of evolution as scientific fact, and that there’s plenty of “intellectually-fulfilled theists” within the ranks of evolutionary scientists. But if Mr. Akyol wants to force a choice, I’ll take Darwin. Devoted and loyal husband to Emma (who took an unwavering belief in god to her grave, so Charles clearly had no problem living with her). Dedicated and doting father to 10 children. Benevolent and generous employer at a time of exploding class struggle. Scrupulously fair and ethical in his dealings with scientific colleagues, especially AR Wallace. Abolitionist. Monumental contributor to the public good, to the extent that his ideas underpin modern medical science and are poised to help us better understand the etiology of human genetic diseases. Theorist and historicist of a moral and ethical framework for living that is every bit respectable as any framework provided by organized religion. In short, a man whose obligations were first and foremost to his fellow human beings. Would that more of the religionists I know were people of such quality.
And enough of the bacterial flagellum and blood-clotting cascade, already. As several commentators note (and as my brighter college sophomores are just as quick to perceive), these are not puzzles better explained by intelligent design. ID advocates and their shills in the press have been beating these dead horses for 15 years. If there’s such “overwhelming evidence” for divine design in nature, how come there’s no new examples to trumpet, this time attended by accounts of WHY these biological structures look the way they do and WHY they appeared when they did? Isn’t this what truly causal explanation in science demands? The Templeton Foundation has money to throw at intelligent design researchers (in amounts that are competitive with Nobel Prizes) yet, as reported by Laurie Goodstein in yesterday’s New York Times, proposals for “actual research” have not been submitted by ID advocates. Indeed, the quote from a Templeton official is telling: “From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don’t come out very well in our world of scientific review”. And this is from a potential ID sympathizer!
Finally, Mr. Akyol, what exactly is it that you’re “expert” at that makes you—a Muslim writer based in Istanbul—qualified to testify at hearings on evolution in Kansas or any other state? Just curious…
Posted by: Dean Saitta at December 5, 2005 7:00 PM
Dear Mr. Akyol,
Great post -- don't let the Darwinists get you down. Note their shameless appeals to blind faith in authority. They don't attempt to rebut the arguments: they just go on and on about what "scientists" think.
After following the links to the critics of Behe, make sure to check Behe's own site. He carefully catalogs the errors and distortions of his critics. http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html
The pro-Darwinists are whistling past the graveyard. Evidence pouring in from biophysics will soon make Darwinism incredible. Recent studies published in Nature demonstrate that the odds of finding a protein with a given function by chance is 1 in 10 to the 77th power. Even with thousands or millions of random trials, the odds of successfully hitting such a small target over and over again in the history of life are astronomically small.
Posted by: audax at December 6, 2005 6:25 AM
I have never understood how it is good science to dispel any theory interested in describing unobservable events. Any scientist who can view the complexity of the universe and rule out any design in it is indeed brilliant beyond imagination.
Scientist theorize the Earth to be billions of years old to allow for changes that they have perceived in a couple of hundred years.
Don't even they think it possible that their theories today have a good chance of being the "flat earth" theories of tomorrow? How is the idea that the Universe could possibly be a design an entire premise that should be denied because various factions of people want that to be the case to boost their already formed beliefs?
Proponent's of the narrow-minded variety of Darwinist's that rule out the possibility of any Intelligent Design are the clergy of the religion of scientific groupthink. Today's persecuted Galileo will be someone who questions the prevailing dogma and will no doubt be branded a modern-day heretic.
Posted by: Matt Jones at December 6, 2005 8:53 PM
Dear Mr. Akyol,
Thanks for your reply to my note. [For the Reader: Mr. Akyol's reply is not posted here in full, but the relevant parts are referenced in the text which follows.]
In your reply, you've said it correctly: There are two possible theological viewpoints compatible with the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim understanding of God's omnipotence. The most common defines miracles as the result of divine intervention (a Materialist might call it "meddling") in the chain of Cause-and-Effect emanating from the Big Bang. The less common defines miracles as the result of divine intervention in the "structure and trajectory" (for want of any better terminology) of the Big Bang, resulting in unexpected coincidences, extremely unlikely outcomes at the quantum level, or "thermodynamic miracles" at later times in the history of the universe.
It was kind of you to reply to my note; however, there is a misunderstanding I'd like to correct, if you don't mind:
Both of the theological viewpoints described above are, in fact, interventionist. It is not a choice between interventionist theology and non-interventionist. Instead it is a choice between LATE-interventionism and EARLY-interventionism. The only difference is that of WHEN the intervention occurs.
Consider Elijah on Mt. Carmel. Let us say that, hidden behind a rock, a Theist and a Materialist observe the "showdown" between the prophets of Baal and the prophet of God, and they witness "fire from heaven" striking Elijah's altar, consuming the sacrifice and the stones and the water poured over both.
One can imagine the reactions. The Materialist might be shocked for a moment. But then, recovering his composure, he says, "Well, that was extraordinarily lucky for Elijah. But an examination of the ground where the altar once was will, probably, reveal meteorite fragments. And if we had the radar tracking data, we could probably chart the trajectory of that meteorite entering earth's atmosphere. We might even, with enough effort, be able to trace its trajectory backward to the broken asteroid or planetoid from which it came. We could then trace that planetoid back to the accretion disk from which it formed, and that backward to the nebulae which formed a proto-star, and that backward to an arm of a galaxy, and that backward to the spreading of our 'local group' of galaxies, and so on. Ultimately, if we had the technology and the data, we'd be able to trace the meteorite's origins right back to the Big Bang, thereby proving that God did not intervene in order to save Elijah."
At this point, the Theist smiles and says, "Of course we could. How clever of God, to plan and use the Big Bang in such a way as to conveniently validate the words of his prophet, so many billions of years later? If we had all the data you describe, and if it conclusively showed the lack of LATER intervention as you suggest, it would not prove that God did not intervene; it would only limit when (in the history of the universe) His intervention occurred."
Now, the critical point to realize, here, is that EITHER form of theology can explain the "fire from heaven" as a miracle of God. God could, perhaps, have called the meteorite into being spontaneously in orbit above Earth, and then let gravity do the rest. Or He could have "detonated" the Big Bang in such a way as to make the eventual creation and trajectory of the meteorite a certainty, and let natural processes take over from there.
At the end of your reply, you say: "What you ask is -- as I get it -- why don't we choose the first type of (naturalism-compatible) theology?"
...and then you add,
"Well, the answer is that ID is not based on theology; it is based on scientific evidence. And this very evidence gives us results which are compatible with the second type (interventionist) theology."
...and then, finally, you say, "Why should we close our eyes to that and retreat to naturalism while there is evidence that it is not correct?"
Here is my reply:
If ID is based on scientific evidence, and if that evidence shows results which are compatible with God's intervention in terrestrial biology, then we can conclude that God DID intervene. But we cannot decide WHEN. He still may have used EARLY intervention (at the Big Bang), or maybe LATE intervention. Either way, the same biological results can occur. A cosmic ray targeted just so; a low-probability quantum event or two, are all sufficient to force a sudden burst of otherwise improbable mutation, causing an irreducibly complex organ to appear. Whether the cosmic ray travels for billions of years before striking a DNA molecule, or whether it is spontaneously called into existence a millimeter from the DNA in question, is immaterial.
So, in adopting an early-intervention theology, we are not avoiding the evidence of Intelligent Design; we are embracing a plausible explanation for it.
Having heard my argument, you might ask whether I, personally, believe in early-intervention theology. The answer is: I am agnostic (!) on the question of whether God's intervention in nature is ALL confined to the Big Bang, or whether any of it occurs later on, or whether ALL of it occurs later on. I am a Theist (specifically an Evangelical Christian and a C.S.Lewis fan), but I can find no reason to be certain that God's intervention happens either only at the Big Bang, or sometimes later, or always later. The late-intervention idea is commonly assumed when describing a miracle, but I don't think that assumption is based on any particular evidence.
How does all this apply to the debate with Materialists?
Well, a Materialist is uncomfortable with the idea of late intervention. He has probably never heard of the possibility of early intervention.
If a Materialist is arguing against a Theist who EXCLUSIVELY insists on a late-intervention explanation for all Miracles, he will naturally insist that such explanations are "unscientific fantasies", since they run counter to all his academic training in the scientific method.
But if that Materialist argues against a Theist who says, "I do not insist that God must intervene in events AFTER the Big Bang; I merely insist that EITHER God intervenes later, OR that He planned the Big Bang in such a way as to bring about the very same, desired, divinely-planned results much later..." ...then the Materialist is deprived of anything which contradicts his habit of treating the working assumption of the scientific method as if it were axiomatic.
That doesn't mean all Materialists will give up attacking Theism! Many will continue to do so, reflexively, out of long habit. But some few will reconsider, because they are intellectually honest. And for those whose primary objection to Theism is an emotional revulsion toward a "God who breaks His own rules and meddles in His own physical laws", they will be deprived of that objection.
(I think this is a very common objection by Materialists with scientific training. It is not so much that they can find compelling intellectual argument against divine intervention in nature, but that they find such a thing emotionally distasteful, messy: The work of a God who didn't plan His artwork well and had to make corrections after the fact. I myself consider this emotional reaction to be a misunderstanding. But that is how many of them feel.)
Sorry that my note is so long. I hope it has been adequately clear. Thanks for your time.
Regards,
R.C. Hamrick
Posted by: R.C.Hamrick at December 25, 2005 11:20 PM
I think that the previons explanation about whether or not God intervened early, or late, or not at all seems to hinge on a theological point.
Namely, it involves the relationship between concept of a Perfect God and the completeness of his action.
Basically, if God does something, he does it correctly, and he gets it right the first time. I think that this makes sense, it is based on basic cause and effect principles, mixed with some basic theology and common sense.
So, if this concept about God's creation is correct, then it is hard to see the reason why God would need to intervene in the Universe once it has been created, and the only plausible theistic view is one where God creates the universe, and then leaves it alone.
However, there are several flaws with this way of thinking. The first is assuming that the action of God is to be understood as an event in time and space. If God exists apart and prior to creation, the entire universe itself, there is no reason to believe that an action of God who is eternal and transcendent is identical to a specific event in time.
Perhaps the action affects only one event in one place, one event in various places, several events in several places. From our point of view, we will see certain events coming before others. However, once we take into account the Transcendent nature of God, there is no need to assume that each event is an intervention of an already created universe.
The next flaw with an interventionist way of understanding divine action in the universe is to assume that even if God did make separate actions in the universe, that this means that the first action was somehow deficient or imperfect. Isn't it conceivable that there are many motives or reasons why God would intervene in the Universe? Isn't it possible that there is more to the universe than being a good creating of God? Perhaps God intened to be involved with his creating as a master likes to be involed with a pet, or more deeply, as someone who loves something likes to be involved with the thing he loves. In other words, if there there are other possible motives for an action other than making a correction, then there is no reason to see an "intervention" as a correction of a mistake.
The final flaw with the interventionist objection to divine action is the possibility that a perfect creation must stay perfect and not need God to correct something that has gone wrong.
It is arguable given the various philosophical and religions tradition that part of the creationg, especially that of human beings, involved a developmental and moral component AS PART OF THE CREATED ORDER.
In other words, God could have chosen to create the universe and life in many different ways, but if the developmental, and moral element of human beings is part of what makes human beings a good creation, then it is conceivable that such a state of affairs could introduce certain cases at which God may have to intervene at some point. In other words, God could have chosen to create a universe that could result in a situation where it would be beneficial for him to intervene. Now this point may be problematic. It gets into areas involving the nature of creation, the problem of evil, etc. But it is important to point out that a case can be made for a universe of God's chosing that would benefit from God's intervention.
I think that this controversy does point to a philosophical point that science brings up. Basically, what is the origin of the universe. Is the origion of the universe itself, does it not have an origin and causeless? Was it caused by something else (if this is the case, then this would imply God, otherwise, the cause would be simply another part of the universe).
At this point, it is also important to point out areas that were either philosophical controversial in the past, or simply mistaken in the past that have been cleared up now.
First, the universe is not infinte in size or in space. Ancient atheism assumed universe of infinite age(or world, kosmos), and during the moderm period, the universe was believed to by scientists until the big bang theory gained enough suppore.
Something similar has occurred with a universe of physical size. While the universe is expanding, it is always of finite size. While the energy in the universe is constant, it is constantly moving to a more disorganized and less useful state (law of entropy).
In other words, modern science has gone to the point where the following question: what explains the existence of the universe. Was it created, or did it start to exist with out cause. The other alternative, that the universe has always existence and therefore needs no explanation no longer holds water.
Posted by: Victor at February 28, 2006 10:01 AM
Who would have such a puny God that mere humans can tell him what to do and how to do it?
We know enough about the history of the Bible to know that each piece was collected and modified by humans in such and such a time period, selected, modified and included from a larger population of writings by certain humans with biases and political motives. The interpretations of these writings is suspect and contentious. Humans interpret all the holy works, and others disagree with each interpretaion. In other words, dogma is undoubtedly a human construct.
The Universe, or universes, are certainly not within the scope of comprehension of any of the humans involved with disseminating the popular religious dogmas. The people who best understand the scientific realms are flatly incapable of disproving the existence of God, but they can tell you that if he exists, you are underestimating him.
Posted by: jj mollo at March 7, 2006 4:14 AM
What is overestimated is the feasibility and the completeness of a "scientific" world view. Sure its undeniable that the sciences have made a myriad of contributions to knowledge and the power mankind has over nature.
However, the sciences themselves do not exhaust human knowledge. There are other disciplines, such as economic, agriculture, history, archaeology, mathematics, philosophy (including logic and ethics).
Those who think imply or suggest that humanity is now in a period of history where reality be completely understood in terms of some comprehensive "scientific" way, ought to remember that even the most obvious and basic issues are not "scientific."
For example, what is good, what is bad, what is existence, what does it mean to be human, what is innocense, what is guilt, what is truth, etc.
Interestingly, some issues that are foundational to science itself are not themselves subjects that are "tested" under any scientific method. Any scientific method at some sort ASSUMES a theory of truth, or at least usefulness, and ASSUMES phlosophical principles and mathematical principle (can any one point to a scientific experiment that supports Okkam's razor, no? thats because its a PHILOSOPHICAL idea about what good science is).
Once people get past this "Heroic Age of Science" approach to dialogue that not only dismisses religious points of view as a starting point, it is possible to have a more meaningful conversation.
Posted by: Victor at March 9, 2006 8:01 AM
I recently posted a blog entry in which I made mention of Mustafa Akyol and this blog to illustrate the point that the belief that intelligence is detectable is not confined to conservative Christians.
http://tinyurl.com/l8lah
Posted by: William Bradford at July 29, 2006 8:25 PM
"You repeat the charges and accusations of people like Behe and Dembski, who have no credibility whatsoever in the scientific community, and whose arguments have been refuted many times. Their only constiuency are those with a religous agenda - specifically to limit and inhibit science from explaining things that some religous people wish to reserve for themselves."
Opponents of Behe and Dembski flatter themselves by thinking they have refuted their arguments. Behe, in particluar, has made an empirical point by focusing on functions involving multi-protein complexes and pointing out the insufficiency of evidence indicating they evolved in Darwinian fashion. Actually Behe was a little too easy on Darwinists in his examples. He could have asked what is the evidence that the protein synthesis function evolved in incremental steps? How did nucleic acid acquire its encoding capacity? What forces of nature led to it? What were the precursor functions of transcription and translation as well as the precursor proteins to the proteins involved in transcribing and translating the necessary codons? The pretense that science has explained the origin and diversity of life in a manner refuting intelligent causality merits contempt by Muslims and thoughtful non-Muslims.
Posted by: William Bradford at July 30, 2006 3:29 AM
ID reduces to an "argument from ignorance": There are parts of the universe that are so complex that their purpose and nature are beyond human understanding; therefore, those parts must have been created by a supernatural being. This reaction to the natural world has very little to do with the scientific method.
Posted by: PT at April 4, 2007 1:32 AM
It is very refreshing for me (a non-nationalistic Greek) to discover this blog, on the other shore of the Aeghean sea! :)
I find this post very well written, readable, and of much adherence to rationalist methods of thinking.
However, permit me to say that I find your approach a bit... out of date today: New ideas, beyond mechanistic materialism, while certainly NOT religious) are becoming important (e.g. those of "Autopoesis" and Self-Organizing Systems).
"Intelligent Design" has been thoroughly debated by scientists, not all of them atheists BTW. It has also been _rejected_ by people... AS idealistic as many Orthodox Christians, who AGREE WITH DARWIN and Evolution (!) while remaining (as they say) consistent with their religion, by postulating that "God gave an additional breeze of spirit" to the first humans, etc. It is remarkable that MANY Christian scientists (not in the USA) agree with Darwinian Evolution but are looking for something much more subtle, of spititual nature, beyond the naivety of Intelligent Design.
As for me, I confess to being a Heretic, NEITHER materialistc NOR idealistic in my philosophy. I believe "God" is everywhere and does not need any distinction from the Inner Space of Matter itself. For this reason, I am also speculating about possible upgrades to Darwinian evolution based on "AUTOPOESIS" (googable term), or intelligent SELF-DESIGN - on the part of organisms that are conscious evolving forms of the same Universe, needing NO OTHER GOD than the Universe itself (in its topologically "internal" space).
You are welcome to visit my blog and find more about all this, but I am no biologist; just a computer scientist and wannabe-philosopher (artist, musician, etc). The keyword "evolution" is relevant, in the blog's categories or searches,
while about half of my posts are in English.
Once again, I congratulate you for your blog and for your peace-loving intellect. I am also adding it in my blogroll - in a few minutes! :)
Posted by: omadeon at November 2, 2008 10:34 AM