On Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:49:27 GMT, Gary Collins wrote:
[...]
>SJ>...Indeed, some of the information may have come from outside of
>>the universe altogether, eg. by supernatural intervention.
GC>...Supernatural intervention is certainly possible, but by its
>very nature I doubt whether it could be discerned as such
Agreed. Dennett admits that it is impossible to distinguish natural
selection from artificial selection and hence Design:
"Indeed, all the biologists I have queried on this point have agreed
with me that there are no sure marks of natural, as opposed to
artificial, selection...it is not clear how one could grade
organisms as "probably" or "very probably" or "extremely probably"
the products of artificial selection. Should this conclusion be
viewed as a terrible embarrassment to the evolutionists in their
struggle against creationists? One can imagine the headlines:
"Scientists Concede: Darwinian Theory Cannot Disprove Intelligent
Design!" It would be foolhardy, however, for any defender of
neo-Darwinism to claim that contemporary evolution theory gives one
the power to read history so finely from present data as to rule out
the earlier historical presence of rational designers..." (Dennett
D.C., "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", 1995, pp317
This means that design can only be ruled out on philosophical
grounds, ie. materialism (all is matter, there is no God), and/or
naturalism (even if there is a God, He could not/would not
intervene in this world). In fact, instead of considering design
Dennett continues by just rules it out of hand:
"...rational designers-a wildly implausible fantasy, but a
possibility after all." (Dennett, 1995, p318)
GC>it would surely appear in the guise of a "natural" process for
>which we don't (as yet) have the explanation.
This is just just promissory materialism. When confronted with
evidence for design that they cannot explain, materialists can
always offer the irrefutable defence that they "don't (as yet) have
the explanation":
"As we have seen, many of the most important assumptions underlying
the idea that life originated by nonintelligent processes do not
correspond to the facts of science, and are not supported by sound
reasoning from those facts. Some scientists protest such statements,
maintaining that in the future discoveries will be made that will
essentially circumvent present findings. This idea has been called
"promissory materialism" And while no one can say for sure that this
won't happen, science cannot confidently proceed by discounting
what is known in favor of hoped-for future discoveries." (Davis P.
& Kenyon D.H., "Of Pandas and People:", 1993, p58)
GC>One must be wary of a "God of the gaps" in cases like this.
Why? A supernatural intervention by God could well be uniquely revealed
in a discontinuity within nature. Moreland considers criticisms of the
theistic science model that it uses a "God-of-the-gaps" strategy":
"Objection 1. The theistic science model utilizes an epistemically
inappropriate "God-of-the-gaps" strategy in which God only acts when
there are gaps in nature; one appeals to God merely to fill gaps in
our scientific knowledge of naturalistic mechanisms. These gaps are
used in apologetic, natural-theology arguments to support Christian
theism. Scientific progress is making these gaps increasingly rare,
and thus this strategy is not a good one." (Moreland J.P., "The
Creation Hypothesis", 1994, pp59-60).
Moreland replies that: 1) the TS model does not limit God's causal
activity to gaps; 2) it only postulates a gap where God is expected
to act by primary causes; and 3) that gaps are getting smaller does
not mean there are no gaps:
"Reply. First, the model does not limit God's causal activity to
gaps. God is constantly active in sustaining and governing the
universe. Nature is not autonomous...Second, the model does not
appeal to or attempt to explain in light of God and his activities
to cover our ignorance, but only when good theological or
philosophical reasons are present, such as when certain theological
or philosophical reasons would cause us to expect a discontinuity in
nature where God acted via primary causation (e.g., the origin of
the universe, first life, basic "kinds" of life). Third, even if
the gaps in naturalistic scientific explanations are getting
smaller, this does not prove that there are no gaps at all. It begs
the question to argue that just because most alleged gaps turn out
to be explainable in naturalistic terms without gaps at that level
of explanation, all alleged gaps will turn out this way. After all,
it is to be expected that gaps will be few. Gaps due to primary
divine agency are miracles, and they are in the minority for two
reasons: (1) God's usual way of operating (though I acknowledge the
need for further clarity regarding this notion) is through secondary
causes. Primary causal gaps are God's extraordinary, unusual way of
operating; by definition, these will be few and far between. (2)
The evidential or sign value of a miraculous gap arises most
naturally against a backdrop where the gaps are rare, unexpected and
have a religious context (there are positive theological reasons to
expect their presence)." (Moreland J.P., 1994, pp59-60)
>>GC>This development in the theory of the genetic code implies
>>>a biological discovery of immense importance: not only are
>>>the processes of life directed by programs, but also in some
>>>extraordinary way the living cell produces its own program...
>SJ>Indeed, as Denton points out, the living cell is the only
>>example of a self-duplicating Von Neumann machine: "...it is hard
>>to escape the feeling that the DNA molecule may be the one and only
>>perfect solution to the twin problems of information storage and
>>duplication for self-replicating automata." (Denton M., "Evolution:
>>A Theory in Crisis", 1985, pp337-338)...we cannot with our 20th
>>century technology and all the power of human intelligence, produce a
>>self-duplicating, self-repairing machine. But according to
>>materialist-naturalism, the `blind watchmaker' did it!
GC>Paley is generally dismissed today, but *I* think his argument
>was essentially reasonable (design shows evidence of a designer).
>So did Thorpe...
Indeed, Mike Behe points out that Paley was never really refuted:
"But exactly where, we may ask, was Paley refuted? Who has answered
his argument? How was the watch produced without an intelligent
designer? It is surprising but true that the main argument of the
discredited Paley has actually never been refuted. Neither Darwin
nor Dawkins, neither science nor philosophy, has explained how an
irreducibly complex system such as a watch might be produced without
designer. Instead Paley's argument has been sidetracked by attacks
or its injudicious examples and off-the-point theological
discussions. Paley, of course, is to blame for not framing his
argument more tightly. But many of Paley's detractors are also to
blame for refusing to engage his main point, playing dumb in order
to reach a more palatable conclusion." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black
Box", 1996, p213)
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------