From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Sun Apr 27 2003 - 17:12:20 EDT
Iain Strachan (asa) wrote:
>
> George Murphy wrote:
>
> > > ----------------
> > > Roberts (p. 248) quotes a statement in Behe's book as follows: "If a
> > > biological structure can be explained in terms of those natural laws
> then we
> > > cannot conclude that it was designed" (p. 203).
> >
> > This statement is already questionable, even without carrying the argument
> > farther. It's true that we can't "conclude" that such a structure is
> designed in the
> > sense of logical implication - but then we can't "conclude" in that sense
> that a
> > structure is designed if it _can't_ be explained in terms of known natural
> laws.
>
> I honestly don't see what you're getting at here George. All observations
> we make are subject to error and any conclusions we draw have to be made on
> the basis of probability. If I toss a coin 1000 times and it comes up heads
> over 900 times, then it is reasonable for me to conclude that the coin is
> biased. But if I toss it 10 times and it comes up heads 9 times then it is
> not reasonable to conclude that it's biased, because it's not sufficiently
> unlikely; there is not enough evidence. But however low the probability,
> you can never absolutely rule out coincidence; as in "Hitchhiker's Guide To
> The Galaxy", where Douglas Adams describes an "infinite improbability drive"
> that could, for example cause all the molecules in the hostesse's dress at a
> party to move 1 meter to the left of their normal position. There is
> clearly a finite probability of this happening, but it's so vanishingly
> improbable that we would be reasonable to conclude that it was a miracle (
> Richard Dawkins gives another example in The Blind Watchmaker of a statue
> waving its hand at you; which again he would concede is a miracle).
>
> Your second statement; that we can't conclude it is designed if it can't be
> explained in terms of natural laws is a more rational attack on the ID
> position, but it is not the issue that Roberts was addressing. Roberts was
> attacking Behe for showing proper scientific caution and not drawing a
> conclusion (making an inference if you prefer) if there is insufficient
> data. Furthermore he was wrongly (IMO) suggesting that Behe's lack of a
> design inference meant that Behe was excluding God's provenance. But
> whether God causes a coin to fall heads once, or the lot to fall on a chosen
> person is a theological question, and not one that is susceptible to
> scientific analysis.
Iain -
You've omitted part of my post that, I think, makes my point clearer. To
repeat:
"OTOH, we can certainly say, from the standpont of faith (which is where we
ought to begin theological arguments, /fides quarens intellectum/) that some
structures are designed even if we have perfectly good explanations for them in terms of
natural processes. IDers have been reticent about answering the question "is the
carbon-12 nucleus intelligently designed"?" The reason is pretty clear: They don't
want to say "No" because that would suggest that the rather remarkable "coincidences"
which make the triple alpha process possible are indeed just coincidences which God
wasn't especially concerned to make happen. But if they say "Yes" then they have an
example of an intelligently designed structure which can be explained in terms of known
physical laws of nuclear & EM interactions. This then suggests that other such
structures which seem to be intelligently designed can be explained in terms of
secondary causes without the explicit invocation of a designer."
This is a response to Behe's statement cited above (rather than a defence of
Michael's argument). God can "design" things in the world by acting through natural
processes - which is what the ideas of concurrence and governanec in traditional
doctrines of providence speak of. If IDers would make clear their agreement with this
principle to begin with then I would have fewer problems with their arguments. But
again, I understand why they hesitate to make a point of this. For if they agree that
C-12 (e.g.) is "intelligently designed," though explicable in terms of known natural
processes, then when some other structure which is essential for life is encountered, it
will be natural for a Christian to suggest that God brought it about through natural
processes also.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Apr 27 2003 - 17:12:02 EDT