At 07:13 AM 11/26/96 +0800, Steve wrote:
>Group
;-)
[...]
>
>SJ>This is (as usual) a play on the word "evolution". That a human
>>intelligent designer (or a divine Intelligent Designer) could design
>>"software" that could in turn produce "hardware" by an pre-programmed
>>"genetic programming system" that might beat a human designer, is not
>>controversial. What "blind watchmaker" evolution claims is that there
>>is *no* intelligent design anywhere in the process:
>
>BH>Yes, and this is why "blind watchmaker" evolution is a
>>metaphysical belief, it cannot be supported by the methods of
>>science.
>
>Agreed, yet as Johnson points out it is the dominant view of evolution
>today in the scientfic world and gained Dawkins the Oxford Chair of Public
>Understanding of Science:
Steve, do have any evidence that it is Dawkins metaphysical belief
that there is no intelligent design anywhere in the process of
evolution which gained him his esteemed awards? I mean,
something besides Johnson said it, I believe it, that settles it?
>
>"Among modern Darwinists, Dawkins has achieved enormous acclaim for
>presenting orthodox neo-Darwinism persuasively Francis Crick has
>advised the public, `If you doubt the power of natural selection I
>urge you, to save your soul, to read Dawkins' book.' In 1990 Dawkins
>received the Michael Faraday Award from the British Royal Society as
>`the scientist who has done the most to further the public
>understanding of science'. In 1992 he gave the Royal Institution's
>Christmas lectures for young people, televised by the BBC, arguing
>the same naturalistic worldview that he presents in The Blind
>Watchmaker. I mention these accolades to dispel any illusion that
>Dawkins's explicitly naturalistic presentation of Darwinism amounts
>to a mere personal philosophy. He certainly is promoting
>metaphysical naturalism, but, like his American counterpart Carl
>Sagan (who received the Public Welfare Medal in 1994 from the
>National Academy of Sciences for his contributions to public
>education), he does so with the wholehearted support of the
>scientific establishment of his nation." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in
>the Balance", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., 1995, p76)
>
You know, I thought along these same lines not too long ago.
At that point in my "education" I had read only Johnson and
Ross. All the horrible quotes by all the horrible atheists were
quite distressing. But when I began to read widely from many
authors I found quite a different picture. A much more optimistic
picture that should be presented alongside the pessimistic
atheistic quotation ad absurdum. Dawkins and Sagan do not
represent scientists or the scientific establishment or the
"naturalistic rulers of science" (a nonexistent group, BTW).
Let me give you an example. Awhile back someone gave this
horrible quote from Heinz Pagels. Though the context of the
quote was never given I'm sure it was taken out of context
because I know a little about Pagels and the stands he has
taken. As an example, I quoted the last paragraph of an article
written by Pagels which happens to be one of the most often
cited articles in the Anthropic Principle literature. Here it is
again:
There does exist a line of thinking that _is_ in direct
competition with the anthropic principle. Edward Harrison,
in his textbook _Cosmology_, advises his readers early on:
"We shall occasionally refer to the anthropic principle,
and the reader may, if it is preferred, substitute the
alternative theistic principle." The theistic principle
is quite straightforward: the reason the universe seems
tailor-made for our existence is that it _was_ tailor-made
for our existence; some supreme being created it as a home
for intelligent life. Of course, some scientists, believing
science and religion mutually exclusive, find this idea
unattractive. Faced with questions that do not neatly fit
into the framework of science, they are loath to resort to
religious explanation; yet their curiosity will not let
them leave matters unaddressed. Hence, the anthropic principle.
It is the closest that some atheists can get to God.
-- Pagels, H. (1985). "A Cozy Cosmology," <The Sciences>
25(2):35-38. also in <Physical Cosmology and Philosophy>,
Ed. J. Leslie, Macmillan, New York, 1990, pp. 174-180.
Pagels was (he died in 1988 in a mountain climbing accident) Executive
Director and Chief Executive Officer of the New York Academy
of Sciences, president of International League for Human Rights,
fellow of the New York Institute of the Humanities, member of
the Council on Foreign Relations, member of the Science and Law
Committee of the New York Bar Association, and a trustee of the
New York Hall of Science.
This is but one example, I could give others.
Now, Steve, I'm sure you are interested in fairness and in presenting
a balanced view. Thus in the future I'm sure you'll be quoting
Pagels alongside Dawkins when discussing those awful naturalistic
rulers of science. If you want, I could remind you ;-).
>BH>Please note though that I can make this statement stick
>>only by accepting methodologcal naturalism. Without it, the net is
>>down (tennis metaphor) and anything goes.
>
>This is too deep for my poor benighted creationist brain! :-)
>Perhaps Brian could clarify if he thinks it important?
>
One can clearly identify that Dawkins' has stepped outside
the boundaries of science if one recognizes what those
boundaries are.
Brian Harper | "If you don't understand
Associate Professor | something and want to
Applied Mechanics | sound profound, use the
The Ohio State University | word 'entropy'"
| -- Morrowitz
Bastion for the naturalistic |
rulers of science |