Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Monday, April 5 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1386
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 16:12:57 -0600
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Dembski and Nelson at MIT and Tufts
>
>ID is not a scientific theory....
>
Catch me, I'm fainting! At last, an IDer who admits it.
>
>...but it certainly is a conclusion from
>observing the physical universe, especially, our own nature.
>
Since it is not a scientific theory then there is no evidence to support
such a "conclusion" and plenty of evidence to refute it. This is simply
your opinion; you are welcome to it, but the universe is under no obligation
to conform itself to your wishes.
>
>Our reasoning
>ability, our free will, our ability to know that we are, etc are not
>physical and thus they lie outside the purview of science.
>
You have no evidence to support these claims, and there is evidence that
contradicts them; read the scientific literature.
>
>These are not
>personal biases but reflections on the creation.
>
Without evidence they are still just opinions.
>
>If self, free will, etc
>are illusions, then our thinking ability is faulty and thus nothing that
>comes from it can be believed.
>
There is of course a third option, an option the prevailing evidence
supports: the self, free will and the ability to reason are consequences of
the physical brain and the physiochemical forces that it operates by.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 16:23:20 -0600
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Dembski and Nelson at MIT and Tufts
>
>If YEC are doing science, then they should withstand the normal criticism
>that goes with doing science. However, I can imagine that none of their
>papers would make it into most scientific journals. I am not evaluating
>their work but indicating how close-minded is the scientific community to
>new ideas.
>
You asked me if I was a working scientist; it is obvious from this statement
that you are not (or if you are you work with a very weird group of people).
Most scientific journals would not care if the author was a creationist;
they would only care if he did good work. Most mainstream creationists
cannot get published because their work is trash, not because they are
creationists. There are exceptions, and they get published, even though it
is known that they are creationists.
>
>The only reason that we know how a painter painted by observing his
finished
>work is that we are painters ourselves. Such is not the case with humans
vis
>a vis God and His creation. We truly will never know how God created. We
can
>speculate, but that is all we can do.
>
Oh please. Don't depend on your ignorance or the ignorance of others; read
the scientific literature for a change.
>
>The question of origins is a very difficult one. We do not know in physics
>why the fundamental constants have the values they do.
>
Patience, friend, we'll figure it out.
>
>How can we then solve
>problems that are astronomically more difficult that these fundamental
>question in physics?
>
Because in fact they are not; they only seem so at first glance. Read the
scientific literature.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 21:12:11 -0400
From: "Howard J. Van Till" <110661.1365@compuserve.com>
Subject: X is intelligently designed means ...
Wow. What a flood of postings re ID! =
For now, let me respond to some points made by Bill Dembski.
Thanks, Bill, for joining in this conversation. Onlookers should know tha=
t we =
have talked about this issue in a variety of circumstances and that we ha=
ve =
each enjoyed the respect of the other. It's been a friendly exchange so f=
ar, =
and I trust it will continue to be so. =
At the risk of focusing on points of disagreement, let's work on this mat=
ter =
of defining the term that names your enterprise, ID.
I asked, As *you* use the term, what does it mean to be (or have been) =
"intelligently designed"?
Your reply: "To be (or have been) 'intelligently designed' is
to be (or have been) **designed** by an **intelligent agent**.
Bill, you know as well as I do that one cannot ordinarily use the term to=
be =
defined in that term's definition. We all learned that to say that "a hor=
se is
a horsey thing" does nothing to help us know what a horse is. =
Following your pattern for the definition of 'intelligent design,' I coul=
d =
define my nonsense term, 'gzorply muffnordled,' with this sentence:
To be (or have been) gzorply muffnordled is to be (or have been) =
**muffnordled** by a **gzorply agent**. =
How much would I have communicated about the meaning of the term? Exactly=
=
nothing!
Knowing that I would so object, you say:
>Does Howard mean to suggest that "intelligent design" is as
>incomprehensible a notion as "gzorply muffnordled"? "Gzorply muffnordled=
"
>is a nonsense phrase with no history of usage and no semantic content.
>"Intelligent design," on the other hand, has a perfectly well understood=
>common usage.
Bill, I heartily disagree with your optimistic assessment regarding "comm=
on =
usage." The posts on this list are evidence enough that common usage is =
anything but uniform. Numerous differing operative definitions have made =
fruitful discourse on this topic nearly impossible. Trying to follow the =
shifts in meaning could leave a person hopelessly exhausted.
That is why I have long been pleading with those of you who are agressive=
ly =
promoting the use of that term to put your cards on the table and to prov=
ide =
us with a clear and candid definition of it. It need not be so restrictiv=
e as =
to leave insufficient room for adjustment or for options within a categor=
y. =
But the *fundamental category* to which "intelligent design" belongs shou=
ld be
something that could easily be delineated.
Is "intelligent design" a mind-like action such as "thoughtful =
conceptualization for the accomplishment of a purpose", a hand-like actio=
n =
such as "imposing a new form or structural arrangement on available raw =
materials" or some other category of action?
Are you using the term,'design,' in the modern sense or in the traditiona=
l =
Paleyan sense? Thinking minds want to know, Bill. I know that you and yo=
ur =
colleagues are weary of my asking for your operative definitions, but I =
believe that you owe it to all who want to evaluate your proposals. Your =
reference to these term as "intuitively well-understood notions" just doe=
sn't =
hold up. =
Bill:
>Howard and I have been through all this ground before. He wants a
>definition of "intelligent design" before he is even willing to consider=
>the possibility of specified complexity as a criterion for detecting
>design. What's more, he wants in the definition some acknowledgment of t=
he
>mode of assembly (and in the case of biological systems, an acknowledgme=
nt
>of extra-natural assembly). But the mode of assembly is a separate quest=
ion
>from design.
Bill, just saying that candidly and publicly would be a tremendous advanc=
e in =
the discussion. That's why I have been calling for a clear distinction be=
tween
two types of action: 1) thoughtful conceptualization for the accomplishme=
nt of
a purpose -- a mind-like action, and 2) imposing a novel form on material=
s not
gifted with the capabilities for actualizing that form without episodes o=
f =
external agent assistance -- a hand-like action.
The problem that so frustrates me is that some people think ID means 1), =
and =
others think it means *both* 1) and 2). Until we can distinguish mind-lik=
e =
action from hand-liike action, we will just talk past one another. Those =
who =
wish the concept of ID to be evaluated in a respectful manner must, there=
fore,
tell us what category of action is being proposed.
Bill:
>Howard's call to define "intelligent design" seems to me not a
>plea for clarity, but an attempt to straitjacket intelligent design so t=
hat
>it is sure to remain outside science and also to preserve his theology o=
f a
>fully-gifted creation.
No, Bill, I want people to be able to evaluate ID on the basis of what yo=
ur ID
program actually entails, not a misunderstanding of it. Isn't that what y=
ou =
want also? If so, we can end on that point of agreement.
Sincerely,
Howard Van Till
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 19:14:44 -0700
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Dembski and Nelson at MIT and Tufts
Moorad: ID is not a scientific theory, but it certainly is a conclusion from
observing the physical universe, especially, our own nature.
How did you come to that conclusion. At least not on a scientific basis I assume
?
Moorad: Our reasoning ability, our free will, our ability to know that we are,
etc are not
physical and thus they lie outside the purview of science.
How have you come to this decision ?
Moorad: These are not personal biases but reflections on the creation.
There are surely your personal interpretations.
MooradL If self, free will, etc are illusions, then our thinking ability is
faulty and thus nothing that
comes from it can be believed.
Who says that they are illusion ?
_________________________________________________________________
Moorad: Whatever talents you use to describe nature, rest assured that it
took much more than that to create it. If you used reasoning, cleverness, love,
etc.,
then the actual thing took a lot more of all that than you did to create
your theory. This is quite self-evident to me. Is it to you? If no, why not?
I am not sure what the relevance is of your statement especially as far as
my comment goes that ID has little chance of succeeding (assuming that you
are correct). What might be "self evident" to you could merely be a
reflection of your personal bias.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 19:16:35 -0700
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Dembski and Nelson at MIT and Tufts
Moorad: If YEC are doing science, then they should withstand the normal =
criticism
that goes with doing science. However, I can imagine that none of their
papers would make it into most scientific journals. I am not evaluating
their work but indicating how close-minded is the scientific community =
to
new ideas.
Oh please.... Is that the best you can do... The non-existing conspiracy =
of the "scientific community"...
Moorad: The only reason that we know how a painter painted by observing =
his finished
work is that we are painters ourselves. Such is not the case with humans =
vis
a vis God and His creation. We truly will never know how God created. We =
can
speculate, but that is all we can do.
How can you be sure of that ?
Moorad: The question of origins is a very difficult one. We do not know =
in physics
why the fundamental constants have the values they do. How can we then =
solve
problems that are astronomically more difficult that these fundamental
question in physics?
That's faulty logic. YOu have not even tried to establish that these are =
more difficult or that the issue of fundamental constants cannot be =
solved.
------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1386
********************************