On Mon, 16 Dec 1996 09:52:22 -0800 (PST), billgr@cco.caltech.edu
wrote:
[...]
BG>Of course not. But the ID hypothesis doesn't explain the
>existence of the designer...
Agreed. The "ID hypothesis" takes "the existence of
the designer" as a *starting point*.
BG>...(if you think about it for a bit, you can see that ID implies
>something we'd probably call God, although not necessarily to
>explain life *here*).
Unfortunately "ID" does not necessarily "imply...something we'd
probably call God". Denton is a leading "ID" theorist but he is an
agnsotic.
"ID" is certainly compatible with theism, but it is not proof of
theism, let alone *Christian* theism.
GB>If the goal is to figure out an explanation for any and all life
>in the universe, the criticism is appropriate. If we are concerned
>only with life on Earth (or maybe the solar system, now), then
>external intelligent designers of life (or unintelligent designers)
>can be invoked by *either* naturalists or non-naturalists. This was
>the point I was making: that in the question science sets for
>itself--to figure out a story about how life came to exist on Earth,
>methodological naturalism, contrary to the declarations of ID
>theorists, does not rule out
>external influences/forces/designers/contaminators/etc.
Agreed that "methodological naturalism...does not rule out "external
influences/forces/...contaminators/etc" is true and uncontroversial.
It is even true of "external...designers", if such designers are not
"external" *to nature*, ie. aliens. But if those "designers *are*
"external" to nature, ie. are super-natural, then by definition
"naturalism", which holds that nature is all there is, and hence
"methodological naturalism" does rule them out *in doing science*.
A good example is the review of Darwin's Black Box by Robert
Shapiro, which actually appears on its back cover:
"Michael Behe has done a top notch job of explaining and
illuminating one of the most vexing problems in biology: the origin of
complexity that permeates all of life on this planet. Professor Behe
selects an answer that falls outside of science: the original creation of
life by an intelligent designer. Many scientists, myself included, will
prefer to continue the search for an answer within science.
Nonetheless, this book should be on the essential reading list of all
those who are interested in the question of where we came from, as it
presents the most thorough and clever presentation of the design
argument that I have seen." (Robert Shapiro, Author of "Origins: A
Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth).
Shapiro simply assumes that "the original creation of life by an
intelligent designer", ie. a *supernatural* intelligent designer is
simply "outside of science" and cannot even be considered.
BH>...I think Behe traps himself with this last statement...
GB>As I alluded to above, ID *does* require an Intelligent Designer,
>if you are interested in life in the universe as a whole: where did
>the intelligent designers of life on this planet come from, after
>all? One would hope they were intelligently designed themselves,
>right? And how about *those* designers? This regress can only stop
>in some sort of First Cause (First Designer?) that we would
>probably call God. The question of who designed God would probably
>be answered that God designed God, right?
This is now clearer. But a dedicated materialist like Crick can
believe that the original life formed naturalistically under more
favourable conditions elsewhere in the cosmos.
>GB>That is, it seems to me that the goal of the intelligent
>design advocates is more ambitious than a demonstration that
>some biological features were designed purposefully by some
>person--
SJ>No. There is simply no way that "intelligent design" can be
>"more ambitious than a demonstration that some biological features
>were designed purposefully by some person". If you claim that ID
>is doing this, you need to supply quotes from their writings that
>they are. :-)
[...]
GB>And as I hope I argued successfully above, ID necessarily appeals
>ultimately to some sort of self-designing, final Cause for
>complexity which maps pretty well onto the classical ideas of the
>attributes of God. This seems somewhat more ambitious than the
>demonstration mentioned.
No. Individual "ID" theorists *may* "appeal ultimately to some
sort of self-designing, final Cause for complexity which maps pretty
well onto the classical ideas of the attributes of God", but it does
not "necessarily" do that. Again, proof of this is Denton, the
agnostic.
GB>I can't persuade myself that ID is not an argument from design for
>the existence of God. Is this something ID people readily agree
>to, or should I still try?
By all means keep trying! :-) But there is no way that I know of
that "an argument from design" could prove "the existence of God",
let alone the God of the Bible. All ID can hope to do is to show
that the existence of a supernatural Intelligent Designer is the best
general explanation.
On Tue, 17 Dec 1996 12:31:47 -0800 (PST), billgr@cco.caltech.edu wrote:
GB>This raises (at least for me) another question about ID: how is
>the presence of *bad* design explained? i.e. sub-optimal design,
>Rube Goldbergish design, etc. If all design is ultimately to be
>traced back to God, the existence of any bad design in the universe
>is a troubling portent.
Who is to say that there is any "bad design in the universe" *when
all things have been considered*? Even Dawkins doesn't claim that there
is "bad design", just design that could be better:
"We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has
attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built
into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose, such as flying,
swimming, seeing, eating, reproducing, or more generally promoting the
survival and replication of the organism's genes. It is not necessary, to
suppose that the design of a body or organ is the best that an engineer
could conceive of." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", Penguin: London,
1991, p21)
Besides, Behe points out that a Designer might have other motives otives, with
engineering excellence oftentimes relegated to a secondary role."
(Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to
Evolution", Free Press: New York, 1996, p223).
Bethell argues that from the `ideal engineering' argument from
imperfection is breaks down because: 1. evolutionary biology
doesn't recognise ideal engineering criteria anyway; and 2. from an
engineer's point of view, living things are in fact highly
successful in doing what they were primarily designed for -
surviving and leaving offspring:
"Once this point is clarified, we can see that the analogy between
biology and engineering breaks down, because evolutionary biology as
currently set forth by such experts as Gould himself does not
recognize the idea that animals have any ultimate function other
than to survive and leave offspring. It can plausibly be argued
from an engineer's standpoint that various birds are badly
designed-ostriches and flamingoes, for example-but if they succeed
in surviving and leaving offspring, as they do, who is to say that
they are defective om an engineer's point of view?" (Bethell T.,
"Darwin's Unfalsifiable Theory", Kronos, Summer 1982, at 33, 34, in
Bird W. R., "The Origin of Species Revisited", Vol. II, 1991, p157)
In the end, as Ferguson points out, if God is to be God He must
necessarily be the "ultimate self-confirming hypothesis", to be
accepted or rejected, but not judged by our finite standards:
"In one way of thinking about it, arguably the only sensible way: if
God is God he can break any laws He's made at any time, owes us no
apologies, and cannot be judged by any criteria other than his own.
Though we can deduce what God's criteria probably are, we don't
really know. An eminent nineteenth-century physicist, Sir George
Stokes, said: 'Admit the existence of a God, of a personal God, and
the possibility of the miraculous follows at once. If the laws of nature
are carried on in accordance with his will, he who willed them may
will their suspension. Stokes had found a gentle way of saying what
the Bible states much more bluntly. 'Who is this that darkens my
counsel with words without knowledge?' God asks Job in response to
Job's well-justified queries and complaints.(Job 38:2) And a little
later: 'Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct Him? ...
Would you discredit my justice? Would you condemn me to justify
yourself?' (Job 40:2, 8) Nor is this a strictly Old Testament view of
God. In his letter to the Romans Paul quotes God as saying, 'But who
are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him
who formed it, Why did you make me like this?' (Romans 9:20) This
God is - let us put it frankly - the ultimate self-confirming hypothesis.
We can despise such a concept of God if we choose, but we could
also make a good argument that no God can be God without being at
the same time the ultimate standard and definer of such concepts as
justice, goodness, faithfulness, even self-consistency. Arguing from
our own standards, or what we think ought to be God's standards,
has dubious validity. We grant ourselves authority, as Evelyn Waugh
has one of his characters say in Brideshead Revisited, to 'set up a rival
good to God's' "(Ferguson K., "The Fire in the Equations", Bantam Books:
London, pp231-232)
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------