On Fri, 04 Sep 1998 20:46:50 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
>SJ>My assessment of why "Christianity is being marginalized in modern
>>society" is as follows:
>>
>>1. 1800-1850. The 19th century Christian Church, four centuries after the
>>Reformation, was decadent, deistic, and leaning too heavily on "natural
>>theology" at the expense of Biblical revelation. Because it was relying too
>>heavily on Paley's version of the argument from design, the Church was a
>>`sitting duck' for a naturalistic explanation of design.
GM>So why are you such a fan of Philip Johnson and Michael Behe who
>are reviving Paley's argument from design?
Glenn should read what I said again. First I said: I said "leaning too heavily
on `natural theology' AT THE EXPENSE OF BIBLICAL
REVELATION." No one AFAIK in the ID movement is proposing that
"natural theology" should take the place of "Biblical revelation."
Second, I said "PALEY'S VERSION of the argument from design."
AFAIK Johnson does not even mention "Paley". But Behe states that
Paley's version of the design argument had flaws, mainly due to a) Paley
overreaching himself:
"The pre-Darwinian strength of the design argument reached its zenith in
the writings of the nineteenth-century Anglican clergyman William Paley.
An enthusiastic servant of his God, Paley brought a wide scientific
scholarship to bear in his writings but ironically, set himself up for
refutation by overreaching." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box," 1996,
p211)
and b) his lack of knowledge at the time:
"Compared with that of the Greeks, Paley's argument is much improved.
Although in Natural Theology he gives many poor examples of design
(akin to Diogenes and Socrates), he also frequently hits the nail on the
head. Among other things, Paley writes about discrete systems, such as
muscles, bones, and mammary glands, that he believes would cease to
function if one of several components were missing. This is the essence of
the design argument. However, it must be emphasized for the modern
reader that, even at his best, Paley was talking about biological black
boxes: systems larger than a cell. Paley's example of a watch, in contrast, is
excellent because the watch was not a black box its components and their
roles were known." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box," 1996, p212)
However, Behe affirms that the basic idea of the design argument (minus
Paley's above flaws), based on irreducible complexity, is still sound:
"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)
>SJ>5. 1990-2000. With the conversion and call of Phillip Johnson, a Senior
>>Professor of Law at Berkeley University (and a man of genius intellect),
>>creation has entered a new phase. Johnson through his brilliant critical
>>analysis of Darwinism and his refusal to follow the TE strategy of attacking
>>YECs, has quickly seized the Creationist middle ground (eg. Progressive
>>Creationists/OECs-Moderate YECs) and has welded it into the Intelligent
>>Design (ID) movement. Rightly sensing that Johnson is a threat to their
>>respective positions, first leading TEs and lately some leading YECs have
>>attacked Johnson. Johnson has not retaliated against the YECs (and indeed
>>has very cordial relations with many YECs), but he has vigorously
>>defended himself against the leading TEs, whom he has rightly pointed out
>>are really Theistic Naturalists.
GM>But Philip is reviving Paley's argument from design that you said was
>bad above.
See above.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------