Re: [asa] Artificial molecule evolves (now 'evolving' labels)

Hi David,

Thanks for your remarks.

I'm going to repeat the last paragraph at the first just as a teaser. :)

"But what reason could we give to PZ Meyers that it must be either of these?
PZ undoubtedly would believe that the genes produce the mind, and no
supernatural is ever needed. But then he, not being of the particluar
religious persuasion, has no reason to believe that design only comes about
due to the supernatural. He has no reason to fill the knowledge gap about
design with God. He has no reason to say the math doesn't exist. His
only objection is that religionists say design comes only from the
supernatural. He has no reason to believe them.
This is why I feel I can try to take his position. "

  Equating firm belief in evolution with rejection of
> the idea that there might be something outside the operation of
> natural law in the origin of our minds is claiming that religious
> views do affect one's claims about science.

If I may, here's how I think of it:

I might accept evolution but I don't accept that it happens due to something
outside the operation of natural law if that something cannot be formulated
due to a mathematical principle. That would be magic.

Here's how I think the problem arises:

 Someone claims to object to the existence of a mathematical formula for
detecting design. Why? "Because", so goes their claim, "design somehow
invokes the supernatural, and thus cannot existent in nature". They are
therefore saying the proposition is religious, and thus is disallowed.

It fine with me if they believe that.

But then, when asked how do they know the pattern recognizer in the human
mind isn't a natural phenomena? Their answer, so goes their claim, is "the
human mind is supernatural!!!!!" Thus, on the left hand they object to any
invocation of the supernatural (design), but on the right hand they insist
that an observable phenomena (that is right in front of their face) can
only be explained by being supernatural. But if they really object to things
of a religious nature then why not reject the second claim out of hand? It
would seem so obvious to do so.

Let me restate the propositions:
PROPOSITION #1: Design does not exist because it would be supernatural. The
supernatural is religious, therefore design must be rejected.
PROPOSITION #2: The human mind's pattern recognizer is supernatural. The
supernatural is religious, but let's overlook that...the human mind's
supernatural pattern recognizer must be accepted anyway.

I could believe in one of these as plausible. Or the other. But to believe
both simultaneously? Hmmmmm.

If one is rejecting things because they are religious then it would make
sense to reject both because both are religious.

Or, if one is *not* in the business of rejecting things because they are
religious then it would make sense to not reject either ideas.

But to reject one but not the other...seems inconsistent.

THE BIG QUESTION: Is it true that both both of these is filling a gap
with God?

If so, isn't it reasonable to object to both of these based on a general
objection to filling a gap with God? If not, why not?

To believe both gap filling positions *simultaneously* seems to me to
take a certain kind of religious person. Yes, if you have a certain
religion seems you can accept both propositions simultaneously. But lets
be honest about it - the logical inconsistency is acceptable solely because
its driven by one's religion.

I'm not one of the adherents , so I get uncomfortable with this religion.

  But, y'know, I'd say let them have their religion. In private. But I'd
also really have to insist they also keep their religion out of schools and
out of public policy and totally separated from state. When they talk to
courts they need to *disclose* their religion as a religion rather than
claiming it to have a secular purpose. To find a secular purpose in filling
a gap with God would be a real stretch. Wouldn't it? So the gap aspect
seems like critical factor. Needs further exploration.

      If you hold that God is sovereign over all that happens and that He is

> at work in all things, whether they happen by natural laws or not,
> then there's no contradiction in thinking that He generally used
> natural laws in creating living things but did a bit extra with regard
> to human minds. Given the complexity of human minds, it's hard to see
> how one could exhaustively prove things one way or another, so it's a
> judgement call.

Well lets keep in mind the criticism of Behe based on the allegations that
his is a complexity argument, and is therefore invalid. If Behe's idea was
mere complexity then the criticism would apply here equally.

>
>
> There's also a problem of definition-what is the relationship of
> brain, mind, spirit, etc.?

Perhaps its evidence of a soul? Thats mind boggling. ;)

> There are more dualist and more monistic
> ideas out there, with little to no way to decide between them. Recent
> work in neurobiology is often touted as a serious challenge to a
> dualist view. However, given that in a dualist view, the spirit still
> has to interact with the physical brain in some fashion, I don't see
> how showing that physical processes in the brain relate to
> personality, spirituality, etc. tell us anything one way or the other.
>
> Thus, "is the human mind supernatural?" requires a good deal of
> definiton.

Agreed. I was merely musing that if the "software download" isn't coded for
in the genes then maybe it really is infused after conception!

> Although it is exceptional in its relative size and
> complexity, the physical human brain is not so drastically different
> from that of other primates as to seem to be a serious challenge to
> evolution. Our mental abilities are remarkable, possibly but not
> overwhelmingly convincingly suggesting something above and beyond
> regular natural selection might be involved.

The computers I work on are a fancy chunk of glass until the operating
system is added.
Intel is just a fancy glass blowing outfit. :)

> Philosophically, simply
> appealing to natural selection is not very satisfying. Theologically,
> Christianity makes it clear that humans have a supernatural component
> to their identity, but the exact relationship with our physical bodies
> is never explicit in the Bible, nor is there any obvious way to decide
> between the idea that it is something inserted at a particular point
> as opposed to being a front-loaded emergent property that would
> "automatically" appear when we evolved to a certain level of
> intelligence, not that those are the only two options.
>
Interesting.

But what reason could we give to PZ Meyers that it must be either of these?
PZ undoubtedly would believe that the genes produce the mind, and no
supernatural is ever needed. But then he, not being of the particluar
religious persuasion, has no reason to believe that design only comes about
due to the supernatural. He has no reason to fill the knowledge gap about
design with God. He has no reason to say the math doesn't exist. His
only objection is that religionists say design comes only from the
supernatural. He has no reason to believe them.
This is why I feel I can try to take his position.

>
> --
> Dr. David Campbell
> 425 Scientific Collections
> University of Alabama
> "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
>
> 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 Fri Jan 16 21:17:50 2009