From: bivalve (bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com)
Date: Wed Apr 30 2003 - 17:02:40 EDT
It may be worth noting that certain ID advocates are not the only ones who equate lack of evidence for ID with evidence against design of any sort (defining ID in the sense of non-use of physical means). The latest ASA newsletter cites interviews with Watson and Crick in which they use this fallacy to argue for atheism. It is particularly ironic that antievolutionary advocates frequently quote such pronouncements as correct, rather than realizing that the theology of atheists might have some problems.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 20:29:51 -0400
>Josh Bembenek wrote:
>>
>> G: "Perhaps, but information does have significant connections with energy
>> & entropy, & has been the subject of a good deal of study by physicists.
>> E.g., it's involved in a lot of the work today on quantum gravity. (See,
>> e.g., Smolin's _Three Roads to Quantum Gravity_ which I reviewed in the most
>> recent PSCF.) It may not be "reducible" to other concepts of physics but
>> it's certainly related to them. So I wouldn't bet too much on info being
>> /sui generis/."
>>
>> -I'll have to review my recent PSCFs. I'm not really betting on it, but I
>> won't committ myself to another view until I see it as a plausible
>> mechanistic description for information derivation.
>
> If you want to get into the quantum gravity angle, look at Smolin's book. I
>didn't say a lot about this in my review. N.B. - I am _not claiming that quantum
>gravity gives any immediate insight into biological info, just that it brings out some
>important connections between information & other physical concepts.
>
>>
>> "I think you should, because for Christians this is (or should be) the
>> critical question. Whether or not God created things isn't in debate.
>> Whether or not the development of those things can be explained in terms of
>> lawful natural processes - which will be the case if God acts through those
>> processes - is."
>>
>> -And because I see so much room for understanding even the nature of the
>> natural processes as they exist in their current form today, reaching for
>> exact mechanisms for their derivation feels premature in many ways. Also, I
>> believe Dembski, in response to Van Till's article about degrees of
>> naturalism, etc. commented that ID is as consistent with a RFEP as it is
>> with progressive staltutory creationism (correct me if I'm wrong here). The
>> key issue is not HOW God implements, but whether the features of our
>> universe indicate that they should have been implemented by anyone at all.
>> Indeed, if we could calculate all variables for the formation of the
>> universe, according to a complete RFEP and no intervening actions by God, we
>> would find that the laws of nature and the phenomena associated with the
>> fine tuning of natural laws, constants, etc. would not lie within the upper
>> probability bounds of Dembski's filter. With all other RFEP calculations
>> properly made, however, we would detect that all of biological structures
>> and planetary formations, etc. are not within the upper probability
>> boundary, and thus did not require form-conferring interventions. All of us
>> here agree that *somewhere* the filter should indicate a design inference.
>> Exactly where, to me, is a matter of speculation at the current time.
>
> With all due respect, I'm not very interesting into forcing my understanding of
>the relationship between science & theology into Dembski's framework. _If_ phenomena
>can be understood in terms of natural processes obeying known physical laws without any
>appeal to God - well then, they can be, & thus provide no evidence for God. & thus the
>question of how God acts is crucial.
> As far as "All of us here agree that *somewhere* the filter should indicate a
>design inference" is concerned, "Gentlemen, include me out." My belief in divine
>activity in the world is based on revelation, not probability calculations &c - though
>the latter can be helpful, when viewed in the light of revelation, in gaining further
>understand of how God acts.
>
>> "I would argue that natural processes are not only the "instruments" God
>> uses (as in traditional models of primary & secondaty causation) but also
>> (in Luther's phrase) the "masks of God, behind which he wishes to remain
>> concealed and give us all things." If this the case, our scientific
>> investigation of the world will find only the
>> masks, not the face of God."
>>
>> -Does Peter Ruest indicate a similar point in his comments about God's
>> action in creation? Can you elaborate on the masks, I am unfamiliar with
>> Luther's usage here.
>
> It's perhaps easiest to cite a passage in which Luther uses the phrase.
>
> 'God could easily give you grain and fruit without your plowing and planting.
>But He does not want to do so. Neither does He want your plowing and planting alone to
>give you grain and fruit; but you are to plow and plant and then ask His blessing and
>pray: "Now let God take over; now grant grain and fruit, dear Lord! Our plowing and
>planting will not do it. It is Thy gift." This is what we do when we teach children to
>fast and pray and hang up their stockings that the Christ Child or St. Nicholas may
>bring them presents. But if they do not pray, they will get nothing or only a switch
>and horse apples.
> What else is all our work to God - whether in the fields, in the garden, in the
>city, in the house, in war, or in government - but just such a child's performance, by
>which He wants to give us His gifts in the fields, at home, and everywhere else? These
>are the masks of God [/unsers herrn Gotts larven/], behind which He wants to remain
>concealed and do all things.'
>
> (This is from Vol.14 of _Luther's Works_, p.114. He uses the phrase "masks of
>God" in other places as well, meaning the creatures through which God acts.)
>
>> " But it's a quite different thing just to give up on a problem & invoke
>> God as an element of scientific explanation because we haven't yet solved
>> it."
>>
>> -I don't believe I am giving up here. The question is, on the front side of
>> discovery, we should be equally open to finding mysteries of the universe
>> that cannot be explained in any reasonable way outside the action of God, as
>> we are to finding natural explanations for all phenomena ever observed. In
>> biology, both are valid possibilities, and as I said the frontier is just
>> beginning to be explored. With the era of the genome upon us, things will
>> advance incredibly over the next 50 years. I predict after a century of
>> understanding the structure of DNA, we will have exquisite knowledge of the
>> relationships of the animal phyla in terms of evolution or whatever else it
>> might be. Even then, the origin of information in biological systems may
>> not be cleanly resolved.
>>
>> "If Behe, Dembski /et al./ limited themselves to pointing out areas where
>> current theories are incomplete or inadequate, I would have no argument with
>> them. But they go farther than that in claiming that phenomena cannot be
>> explained by any theory which does not acknowledge the activity of God (aka
>> the Intelligent Designer)."
>>
>> -I believe that Behe clearly states himself as proposing a hypothesis and
>> acknowledges that once an answer satisfies his question, the issue will be
>> laid to rest. I feel that in laying out a hypothesis, if all Behe did was
>> say "evolution doesn't answer this" it wouldn't carry the weight as if he
>> said "evolution doesn't answer this, therefore I hypothesize that the answer
>> cannot be found unless we invoke the action of an intelligent designer."
>> Indeed, if it is found that natural causes can provide the function Behe
>> asserts is due to the IDer, as we have discussed here, it does not negate
>> the existence of such an IDer. I believe that the rhetorical strategy of
>> Johnson, Behe, Wells, et al. would change rapidly in this direction if such
>> a case was proven.
>
> I think this is probably the case with Behe but certainly not of Johnson (whose
>whole attack on "naturalism" would fall to the ground if he had to concede
>that metahysical naturalism worked for the origin & development of life) & Wells (who
>has said that he went into biology because Rev. Moon told him he should fight the evils
>of evolution).
>>
>> "See my comments above on information & laws. As to God breathing into
>> dust, I don't believe that this is to be read as a scientific account but as
>> a theological statement about human nature & its relationship with God."
>>
>> -I agree, but for those who see Genesis as literal, they should consider
>> such possibilities.
>
> Those who see Genesis as literal (i.e., accurate historical & scientific
>reporting) of course reject evolution immediately.)
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
>George L. Murphy
>gmurphy@raex.com
>http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 30 2003 - 16:55:23 EDT