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

Hello Jack:

My point is: MN assumes, entirely a priori, that every event in the Natural
world can be explained in terms of natural causes. We properly should
define what we mean by 'Natural' - however, pro-tem I'll step aside from
that if you agree, for I suspect that is a huge debate. Nested debates may
get tricky to handle.

The core point is that MN is looking only for answers/explanations in terms
of Matter and Energy or, to avoid the Einstein energy-matter equivalence,
let's just call it 'stuff'. It's not original, but try defining MN as that
which seeks logical explanations!! Oops, the Naturalist camp will become
most animated in my experience.

I reason, not from Theology or Creed, but that evidentially and
experientially all I know about Design in Software and Hardware tells me
that Design doesn't just happen. There has to be a source of pre-existing
Information or Mind or Intelligence.

If that analogy is a faithful one (i.e. it's not the supposed 'straw-man'
that some have alleged) then rather than simply say it is a straw-man, will
some show me why 'evolution is different' and so defeat my false analogy?

I appreciate I may not be communicating clearly, but that's my fault.

All I am asking is how MN can make any progress in discovering 'facts' about
the Natural world if indeed there is a pre-existing Intelligence or Mind or
source of Information. If there is an external source of Information, then
no explanation that excludes that will every come to an understanding or
'knowledge' of what really is. To explore my analogy with Software, it's as
if a bunch of scientists were trying to figure out how Windows XP works
(wouldn't we like to know that sometimes!) but they have MN as their
assumption. A story would emerge - but Bill Gates would laugh like crazy.

So my question again - why is my analogy with every experience humanity has
of 'design' a false or straw-man analogy? If it is so clear and so simple, I
assume someone can show that to be the case without circular reason or
special pleading.

In relation to your last paragraph Jack, if MN (within ASA) is not the only
source of truth and knowledge, then at what point do the other sources of
truth and knowledge interact with the 'Natural World'? Are 'we' going to
adopt Stephen J Gould's non-overlapping magistera?

That's all. I can't put it much more plainly. I am sorry if I don't
communicate clearly. I am doing my best.

Blessings

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Jack
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:51 AM
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.

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.9/907 - Release Date: 18/07/2007
15:30
 

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 07:54:25 2007