RE: intelligent design

From: Joel Z Bandstra (bandstra@ese.ogi.edu)
Date: Thu Jul 06 2000 - 00:28:47 EDT

  • Next message: Bryan R. Cross: "Re: Involvement in evolution"

    In the message below Bob brings up an excellent point concerning the
    purposelessness of Darwinian Evolution versus our belief that God has been
    quite intentional in his creation of the universe and, more specifically,
    his creation of each of us. I propose, however, that this is where the
    distinction between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism
    becomes of central importance. In methodological naturalism we
    intentionally posit no purpose or ultimate goal in our theory of how nature
    operates. We do this, knowing all the while that nature is purposeful
    because at the root of it all is God. In Philosophical Naturalism, to the
    contrary, one presupposes that nature itself has no purpose.

    Perhaps the problem here is the blurring of the line between the theory and
    the phenomena. As Christians we never think of phenomena as being an
    accident but as scientists we almost always ascribe our explanations of and
    predictions concerning physical phenomena to purposeless theories. For
    example, one could ask, "is there a purposefulness in classical mechanics?"
     The answer would be no. Classical mechanics presupposes no god, no goal,
    it does not even attempt to explain why it works or outline it's
    limitations. This purposelessness of classical mechanics does not,
    however, mean that the phenomena of planets orbiting the sun is without
    divine intent. Perhaps it would be good to wonder for a while if it would
    even be possible to do science under the auspices that every theory ought
    to start explicitly with the existence of the triune God and the truth of
    the Bible and then follow logically from there.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: RDehaan237@aol.com [SMTP:RDehaan237@aol.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 3:15 AM
    To: David_Bowman@georgetowncollege.edu; asa@calvin.edu
    Subject: Re: intelligent design

    In a message dated 7/4/2000 12:19:42 AM, David_Bowman@georgetowncollege.edu
    writes:

    << So Bob, why is local adaptation incompatible with teleology for
    Darwinian
    mechanisms? >>

    David,

    For the reasons you stated. You wrote:

    "It seems to me that a process possessing short-term causal correlations at
    a
    local scientific level of description, but which is unpredictable in the
    long
    run (where the short term causal influences can not be extrapolated to the
    long term via any deterministic or quasi-deterministic stochastic
    scientific
    description) this does not imply a lack of purpose--especially a lack of
    *Divine* purpose. All it
    implies is a scientific inability to discern any teleology that may be
    present based on the consideration of those local conditions."

    Are purposes Divine in origin?. If so, they lie outside the purview of
    science. Is science unable to discern any teleology? Then it lies outside
    the reach of science.

    What I am saying is that the current theory of Darwinian evolution, held by
    the scientific community as expressed by some of their prominent
    spokespersons, and by large segments of the literate public, is that
    Darwinian evolution is a purposeless, directionless process with respect to
    distant goals. This is applied to human beings, and the conclusion is
    drawn
    that there is no purpose to be found in human evolution. This is the point
    of the quotations I offered in an earlier post.

    It is hard to say how widespread this view of evolution is held, because it
    is hard to find out who speaks for the theory of evolution, and how
    forthright they are in the face of some parts of the American religious
    community. For almost every expert opinion on the subject, an equal and
    opposite one can be found.

    I have stated elsewhere that this view of the purposelessness of natural
    selection is has both a scientific basis and a philosophical one. The
    scientific one is that natural selection does not work for the distant good
    of an animal or plant. How can it? It only works only for its immediate
    adaptation to its present environment. Moreover, environments do not ch
    ange
    in a directional manner with respect to a future goal. So neither the
    randomness of mutations nor environment can be counted on to lead toward a
    given distant, prefixed goal. Thus Darwinian evolution is purposeless.
     This
    is what I have called the "necessary inference", not an opinion, from the
    inherent character of natural selection.

    If anyone can show that it is not so, I am willing to listen.

    Moreover, secular scientists are hard put to identify what a future cosmic
    or
    biological goal for evolution might be? Complexity? Human life? There is
    no
    basis for identifying one.

    This is where the atheism of some influential evolutionary authors kicks
    in,
    and provides a philosophical basis for declaring that evolution is
    directionless and purposeless.

    I hope I have addressed your questions.

    Regards,

    Bob



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 06 2000 - 00:19:26 EDT