Wendee Holtcamp wrote:
>Also, the question of whether natural selection is adequate to account
for "the larger-scale patterns of morphological evolution
>(‘macroevolution’)" is essentially a scientific question
and not a theological one.
Yes.
>Science is such that as time moved forward, holes in theories are
filled in, questions are answered and new questions are
>raised. If another mechanism besides natural selection is proposed that
fits data, then that will help scientists understand
>evolution to a greater extent. That doesn't mean that natural selection
does not happen or is not valid, or does not account for
>some macroevolution. Science is ever-changing. But I agree with Dave
that we are not going to put God in a test tube!
>I don't understand why some Christians are so set against "defeating
Darwin" - it is really a ridiculous and fruitless pursuit.
Something I see quite often is the conflation of the scientific question
you mentioned above with the theological question you mention here. They
are two distinct questions. In my experience more critics of intelligent
design confuse the theological and scientific questions (as you and Dave
do here) than do proponents of ID.
>The whole premise of ID is a little bit appalling ethically.
On June 29 you wrote, "What the heck is this intelligent design theory
anyway. I have heard it used for 4 years or so but have not the foggiest
what it theorizes." In three weeks or so, you have apparently moved from
ignorance concerning ID, to a sufficient understanding to make public
pronouncements of ethical disgust. I responded to your June 29 query
with this answer: "ID theory is the claim that intelligent design is
empirically detectable and that evidence for intelligent design can be
found in various scientific disciplines (e.g. cosmology, biology)." I
suggest you study ID a bit more before publicly making ethical
pronouncements against it. Having studied both ethics and ID myself, I
do not see that the basic ID thesis exhibits any ethical transgression
whatsoever.
>It is actually a fascinating idea, trying to test whether there are
signs of
>intelligent design in nature. But if they do their research properly
and if find out NO, there are not, then what? Will they >discard their
hypothesis and say "oops, we were wrong."
Again notice the confusion of the ID thesis (i.e. "idea") with ID
proponents (i.e. "they"). One of the beauties of specific ID claims is
that they are falsifiable in just the way you describe. Whether ID
proponents are intellectually honest or not, and will admit when they
are wrong, is not the issue in question (although I believe that most of
them are intellectually honest). The issue is whether the basic ID
thesis and specific ID claims are true or false.
>Will it harm the cause of Christianity, whereby even more scientists
laugh at
>the notion of God because the ID hypothesis turns out wrong?
Only if Christian apologists have pinned God as the intelligent designer
behind certain features of nature. Besides, ID proponents are not
pragmatists about truth, and they don't try to avoid going where the
evidence leads just because there might be theological implications. In
general, they firmly believe that all truth is God's truth. They want
the truth, even if it 'hurts' their present religious views; even if it
forces them to revise their theology.
>Not that it would indeed disprove the existence of God, of
>course, but non-believers and particularly some of the materialist
types will seize on anything to promote the idea that "God is
>dead."
True. But bad reasoning is bad reasoning no matter who engages in it. If
truth is what one is after, then one will not a priori rule out
non-natural explanations just because some persons may misuse one's
non-natural hypothesis when it is falsified. As a scientist, it is
better to be open to all possibilities and be laughed at when you're
wrong, then to be closed (a priori) to certain kinds of explanations
that turn out to be true. The price of intellectual openness and
truth-seeking is the possibility of ridicule and scorn. You either pay a
small price now, or you pay a big price when the paradigm shifts. But
history shows that truth-seekers generally must pay the price.
- Bryan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 24 2000 - 11:21:06 EDT