On Wed, 3 Jan 96 17:14:47 MST you wrote:
[...]
SJ>Human beings have trouble working out what other human beings
>(including themselves) would do in any given circumstances, let alone
>what an omniscient Creator would do in designing a world!
JF>It's creationists who are fondest of pointing out how beautifully
>the universe is designed for us to live in (e.g. Hugh Ross).
Agreed, but "beautiful" is not the same thing as ideally perfect. And
we were talking about the panda's thumb, not the universe. But I do
not always agree with everything Christian apologists write,
particularly the YEC's. Gould and Dawkins (and Jim Foley in his
Hominid FAQ <g>) write as if there are only YEC's.
JF>And I've read a few young earth creationists who were quite sure
>that evolution couldn't be true because God wouldn't use such a
>cruel, wasteful system.
Agreed. I have a long-running debate on fidonet with a YEC who keeps
posting the atheist Monod's argument to this effect. Dawkins in a
summary of his book, "River Out of Eden", (Dawkins R., "God's Utility
Function", Scientific American, November 1995, vol 273, No. 5, p62ff)
used as similar "God-wouldn't-have-done-it-that-way-because-its-cruel"
argument - Dawkins own version of the argument from personal
incredulity! It is interesting how YEC's and atheists like Monod and
Dawkins share common ground on this.
I disagree with that argument: a) because natural selection is not
"cruel" to the individual organism - it doesn't realise it is headed
for extinction in 1 million years time; and b) being "wasteful" is a
problem to man with his finite resources, but it is no problem to God.
Besides, what is wasted anyway? Everything in the biosphere is
recycled, either as food for other animals or as humus. This latter
is actually an argument for design!
JF>Both points of view, especially the latter, suggest certain
>preconceptions about how God would or would not have gone about his
>business. Both sides of this debate often use the argument that God's
>design should reveal evidence of its designer.
I have no problem with scientific arguments against Designer but: 1.
they should at least find out what the Bible actually says. Gould is
always quoting the Bible and claims to have Christian friends, so he
has no excuse; 2. they cannot then claim that the design argument is
not part of science - by trying to falsify it, they affirm it is
scientific; 3. they cannot claim (as Gould does) that religion and
science are separate but equal, and are not opposed, and then turn
around and oppose science with religion; and 4. they cannot berate
creationists for a dualistic mode of argument, that it is either
creation or evolution, because Gould (and Dawkins) clearly believe
that to discredit creation is to credit evolution.
SJ>Perhaps Jim will now conclude that the because there is in fact a
>brilliantly successful "harmonious ecology", where "species" are
>"designed to help one another", by paradoxically helping themselves,
>that this is evidence of a Super-Intellect behind the scenes?
JF>It is certainly consistent with a Super-Intellect who set up an
>evolutionary mechanism, knowing that letting natural selection run wild
>would result in complex ecologies. I have no quarrel with such an
>interpretion, but hypothesizing that A caused B, and then showing that B
>exists, does not show that A exists.
Partly agree: 1. it is indeed consistent with a "Super-Intellect"; 2.
natural selction does not "run wild", but operates within negative
feedback cybernetic/homeostatic mechanisms (more evidence of the
"Super-Intellect"!; and 3. if B. (design) exists then it is legitimate
and reasonable to infer that A. (Designer) exists, from our 100% human
experience that design requires a designer. The fact that we cannot
see, hear, touch, smell or feel a designer, does not mean there is no
designer. Carl Sagan may never see, hear, touch, smell or feel an
extra-terrestrial intelligent being, but he (and the scientific
establishment who fund him) believes it is scientific to infer B. (an
intelligent designer) from A. (evidence of design).
However, if releasing "natural selection" mechanisms which then
"result in complex ecologies", is indeed "consistent with a
Super-Intellect" , what becomes of your original argument:
"If God designed species to form a harmonious ecology, one might well
expect species to be designed to help one another. But, as far as we
know, they aren't." :-)
Regards.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------