Regarding tone, and often regarding contents, one of the more reasonable commenters on BioLogos is Chris Falter. He tries to at least listen to those who disagree with the TE/EC party line, and (with one exception which I will refrain from mentioning here, as it concerns a science other than evolutionary biology), he tends to engage constructively with critics of his views.
In a recent reply to “Marty”, a relatively new BioLogos commenter, Chris made a distinction between ID proponents who legitimately draw philosophical inferences from the facts revealed by science, and ID proponents who (allegedly) reject good science and substitute a God of the gaps. Chris wrote:
“When someone like Hugh Ross uses the fine-tuning argument based on the findings of physics, he does not cast aspersions on the big theories of physics (Big Bang, relativity, quantum mechanics). He doesn’t say, “this whole universe is so improbable that we have to conclude that astronomers are demonstrating an anti-theistic bias when they interpret the data in favor of the Big Bang Theory. They simply assume the truth of their pet theory and then torture the data until it confesses to the BBT. But the data actually reveal many gaps that can only be explained by the intervention of an intelligent designer outside the bounds of known physics.
“Though Ross does not try to turn the theories of physics into a punching bag, most (not all) ID proponents do not show similar restraint with the theories of biology. They claim not that the theories of biology point to a remarkable reality that begs for further explanation, but that the theories are just wrong.
“If the ID movement were to take an approach similar to Ross’ actual approach to physics, they could instead say, “The closer you examine the biological evidence, the more remarkable the existence of biological life appears. This strongly suggests that the existence of life is not an accident of history; it is the working of a wise Creator.” Or intelligent designer, if you will.
“I would have no bone to pick with such an argument.”
The distinction Chris makes here has some plausibility, and his conclusion is encouraging, so I wish to discuss his remarks.
First, I thank him for writing “not all” in front of ID proponents. Of course, included in that “not all” are Michael Behe, Michael Denton, Richard Sternberg, Jay Richards and many others — probably more than Chris is aware of; but I don’t wish to cavil when Chris concedes something that is correct. I give him credit for being more careful in his statement than many BioLogos commenters and TE/EC leaders.
Second, Chris seems to be arguing that scientific biology is one thing, and philosophical inferences based on that biology are another, and that he has nothing against ID folks for doing the latter, as long as they don’t criticize the purely scientific conclusions of current evolutionary biology. Now, I have reservations about this — Chris adopts a strict separation between science of nature and philosophy of nature which, in the light of the history of science, is hard to maintain (cf. Aristotle, the Medievals, and even Boyle and Newton when they are read carefully) — but for the purposes of this column, I will leave that larger question of epistemology aside, and grant the legitimacy of the distinction.
So if I understand Chris rightly, it’s appropriate for someone to consider the facts of revealed by science, and draw the inference that some mind or intelligence lies behind the arrangements of living nature. He thinks that’s fine, as long as the inference is labelled “philosophy” rather than “science.” Let’s run with that.
Who else on BioLogos shares Chris’s view, that design inferences are OK as long as they aren’t called scientific inferences? Probably Ted Davis would accept such a distinction, but who else? I’m thinking hard, and can’t come up with any more clear examples.
To be sure, I have read, in numerous passing comments scattered around BioLogos, “motherhood” statements about the marvelous complexity of God’s universe, and those statements seem to imply that God had to do some thinking to design such a universe. But actual direct statements that one can legitimately infer a designer or designing mind from the structure of living things, or the laws of nature, etc.? I have not found any clear statements of that. Not in Haarsma, Applegate, Venema, Swamidass, or anyone else. To be sure, all of these people have indicated that they believe that God has designed the universe, but the context makes clear that this belief arises from faith in Christian revelation, not as the result of any inference from the facts of nature. In other words, there is no evidence that any important BioLogos figure accepts Chris’s suggestion that reasoning from the facts of nature to the existence of a design or designer or God is legitimate.
The reason for this hesitation from the others seems twofold. First, on the scientific front, the BioLogians seem committed to the view that purely stochastic processes of chemical combinations, variation, etc., aided by natural selection (and by pre-organic chemical analogues of natural selection) constitute a fully competent designer-substitute. You can get exquisite “designs” for wings, lungs, and even human brains without any designer, because natural selection will, without any intentionality, find those designs by eliminating all the inferior arrangements spit out by chance variation. And if one is convinced of that, then the reasoning to some intelligence or mind beyond the variations and the selection seems dubious, to say the least. If random processes could just as easily have led to no human life on earth, or no complex life, or no life at all, then how can we infer any designing intelligence? I think it’s no accident that we have never seen the biologists on BioLogos (Venema, Swamidass, Falk, etc.) say what Chris says here — that the arrangements of life point beyond life to an intelligent designer of life. Their professional instincts as modern biologists would appear to fiercely resist such inferences. They do say, speaking as Christians, that they have faith in some overarching design of God behind life, but they have never put that insight into the form of an inference of the type that Chris here seems to be endorsing.
Second, among the BioLogians, as among TE/EC leaders generally, there is a pronounced distaste for natural theology — for the belief that we can learn things about God from reason, and for such things do not require Christian revelation. Reasoning such as Chris seems to endorse is essentially reasoning of the natural theology type, and it does not find favor among many EC/TE leaders, either at BioLogos or in the ASA. Far more common among EC/TE leaders is the view that we can know of God for certain only what is revealed in Scripture (some would add what is found in religious experience, but since that experience is always filtered through Scriptural statements, that isn’t a substantive modification). So we know from revelation that God created the universe, and therefore we can look at the universe as designed by God, and assert (based on faith) that the marvelous arrangements of biology are part of the divine design. But that is not the same thing as independent reasoning that there must be design, given the arrangements of living nature. Chris appears to allow the latter sort of reasoning (as long as it is called philosophical and not scientific reasoning), but I have not seen any endorsement of it in the writings of most TE/EC leaders that I have read, and certainly such statements are rare on BioLogos.
Will any BioLogos columnist, President, Senior Scholar, etc., speak out directly in agreement with Chris, and say, “Yes, design inferences from the arrangements of biological nature are legitimate, as long as they are understood as a philosophical extrapolation from the findings of science, and not themselves scientific conclusions”? If statements of this kind could be found among American TE/EC leaders, I suspect that the relations between TE/EC and ID would be different. If the only difference between TE/EC and ID is how design inferences are to be classified, if there is no dispute from TE/EC quarters regarding their validity, then the way is clear for reconciliation between the camps. But I am not convinced that many TE/EC leaders — at least on BioLogos — believe that such inferences are valid, even understood as purely philosophical inferences. The overwhelming sense I have got, after reading virtually everything on the question on BioLogos since its inception and a good number of writings by TE/EC leaders in the ASA, is that design inferences are from the scientific point of view highly suspect (since chance etc. can already explain everything that the design inference is supposed to explain), and from the religious point of view bad theology (or at best dubious theology) that Christians would be well-advised to steer away from.
Chris is welcome to post comments here, and correct me if I have misunderstood his position. Marty, whose articulate comments on BioLogos led to the writing of this column, is also welcome to add his comments. Other BioLogos folks, including columnists and management, are also invited to post here, if they have anything to say about the issue I’ve raised. The goal is to have a genuine intellectual discussion (free of the flak that unfortunately so often spoils BioLogos discussions) about design inferences — what their epistemological status is, how far they are valid, etc. Chris Falter’s concession to Marty suggests that there exists in the TE/EC community, even if not among many of the most vocal leaders, a genuine openness to design inferences based on the known facts of nature. Will TE/EC folks join us here on the Hump, to help establish just how widespread this openness is in the TE/EC community?