RE: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism

The supposed similarity of engineering and biological complexity.

Does the argument from design depend upon whether we are talking about biology or engineering, or whether we are discussing small structures like cells or large structures like the space shuttle?
 

Bertrramd Russell greatly respected the argument from design especially as expounded by Leibniz. (He regarded Leibniz, in whom he specialised, as "one of the supreme intellects of all time") Bertrand Russell writes: "This argument contends that, on a survey of the known world, we find things which cannot plausibly be explained as the product of blind natural forces, but are much more reasonably to be regarded as evidences of a beneficent purpose."

He regards this familiar argument as having no "formal logical defect". He rightly points out that it does not prove the infinite or good God of normal religious belief but nevertheless says, that if true, (and BR does not give any argument against it) it demonstrates that God is "vastly wiser and more powerful than we are".

(See his chapter on Leibniz in his History of Western Philosophy)
 
How do you prove the Space Shuttle and similar engineering structures were designed? Is there a scientific test? No! It is a matter of faith not science. Does the theory that it was designed make any predictions? Indeed there are written records of how they were designed. I think the records were just made up. Maybe the naturally occurring metals just rolled down the countryside and just came together to form a space shuttle. It's true that we don't understand it all - but we will do one day, without having to invoke the superstitious view that it had something to do with civil engineers. I am not going to believe in the existence of civil engineers until you show me something that they actually do.

Howard Taylor.

------------------------------------------------
FAITH AND THE MODERN WORLD:
www.howardtaylor.net
Howard Taylor,
Work:
Chaplain, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS
Tel: 0131 451 4508 Mobile: 0775 969 6811
E-mail: H.G.Taylor@hw.ac.uk
 
Home:
51 The Murrays, Edinburgh, EH17 8UD
Tel: 0131 664 0751
E-mail: HowardTaylor1944@yahoo.co.uk
 
Skype: Howard1944
 
Blog: http://apologetics.blog.co.uk

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Jack
Sent: Thu 7/19/2007 11:51
To: Peter Loose; asa@calvin.edu; 'Iain Strachan'
Subject: Re: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism

Personally I cant discuss your analogy with Engineering Design, because I
dont understand what point you are trying to make.

I would like to step back a bit, and clear up what I see are some
misconceptions in the thread.

I do not think that anyone here would deny that the universe is designed.
But making the claim that the universe is designed is a statement of faith,
not science. Science, via MN has so far not been able to prove that there
is a designer, and it probably never will because it is a limitation of the
method. But science cannot disprove a designer either.

Of course there are atheists who would claim that MN is the only source of
truth and knowledge (PN), but I have not heard anyone here make that claim.
It seems very clear to me that MN is a robust method of discovering how the
universe works, but cannot discover the meaning of the universe, or who
created it and how.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Loose" <peterwloose@compuserve.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>; "'Iain Strachan'" <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:27 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific
Naturalism

>
> My friends - I just don't get it - sorry!
>
> Those who disagree with my analogy simply are disagreeing. BTW - I do know
> what a straw-man is! But what I don't see is anyone explaining, WHY it is
> that everything we know about Intelligence and Design (in the engineering
> world in my example) is different from the Biological world.
>
> Some of you are saying that it is not circular reasoning or special
> pleading. But it is as I see it. Let me explain:
>
> One says "but evolution is clearly nothing like that". Isn't that special
> pleading? It is a statement made without evidential support and is of
> sweeping generalisation. Simply by claiming that evolution is nothing like
> that is unconvincing and would have no evidential merit in a Court for
> example. Show me why evolution is not like that?
>
> The circular reasoning is that you assume RM+NS to be evidentially true.
> So
> of course RM+NS is an example of design. But you proved nothing: you
> simply
> made a tautological statement.
>
> So may I propose that before we attempt to move on in this discussion and
> consider other aspects I raised about MN and its relationship to ON (or
> what
> some call PN), it would perhaps be helpful to focus on the evidential
> aspects of why my analogy with Engineering Design (Software - Hardware
> Integration) is false, or a straw-man as someone wants to characterise it?
>
> Blessings
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Dave Wallace
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 4:16 PM
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific
> Naturalism
>
>
> Iain Strachan wrote:
>
>> The second point that occurs to me is that, as I'm also a software
>> engineer, I'm also well aware of the intelligent design effort that goes
>> into a complex piece of software.
>>
>
> As a software engineer I agree with Iain's point about problems with the
> analogy. As a former lead designer on a large software product
> sometimes I would despair as to whether or not some of the design that I
> saw coming out of some groups was intelligent or not.
>
> Dave W
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.8/906 - Release Date: 17/07/2007
> 18:30
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 19 07:25:25 2007