----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 13:00:35 EDT
From: Bertvan@aol.com
Subject: "Scientific" position on philosophical questions
Bertvan:
>>There may not be a way to "prove scientifically" that nature is the result
>>of rational design, rather than random processes. I could suggest the
"burden
>>of proof" lies with those who claim obvious appearances are really an
>>illusion.
Chris
>You could suggest it, but since we're talking science and not subjective
>opinions, it wouldn't wash. Could you AT LEAST tell us how things would have
>to be if they're NOT designed? How would things either HAVE to be different,
>or how would you EXPECT things to be different, and on the basis of WHAT
>assumptions?
Hi Chris,
You seem to be urging me to offer some evidence or argument to challenge your
belief in an accidental universe. Why on earth would I want to do that? You
seem to believe in a random, accidental universe, are an atheist, and believe
free will is ultimately an illusion. "Random mutation and natural selection"
as an explanation of evolution is a logical conclusion for anyone with such
beliefs. It is a consistent position, and you seem content with it. My only
objection to any of it is when someone tries to impose it upon others by
such intimidating tactics as declaring theirs is the only "scientific"
position. There is no "scientific position" on the existence or non
existence of god. There is no scientific position on whether the laws of
nature are the result of random processes or the result of rational design.
That doesn't mean on position isn't closer to the truth, and those scientists
with the most valid philosophy might be more successful unraveling nature's
"design" (if one exists).
When I first read Johnson and Denton, I thought, "How nice! Someone finally
expressed some of the things I've always believed." I probably disagreed
with both about religion, but then I'm used to holding minority opinions. I
never became emotionally in the controversy until I saw that any challenge to
the most orthodox of Darwinism was met by bitter personal attacks upon such
challengers. The truth is, even Young Earth Creationists pose no danger to
science. A belief in alien abductions poses no danger to science. The only
danger to science would lie in a passionate defense of some orthodox theory
because it fit the philosophical position of some vocal "defenders of
science".
Bertvan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 11:48:57 -0700
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: "Scientific" position on philosophical questions
Bertvan: You seem to be urging me to offer some evidence or argument to =
challenge your=20
belief in an accidental universe. Why on earth would I want to do that? =
You=20
seem to believe in a random, accidental universe, are an atheist, and =
believe=20
free will is ultimately an illusion. "Random mutation and natural =
selection"=20
as an explanation of evolution is a logical conclusion for anyone with =
such=20
beliefs. =20
You are now confusing beliefs and science. If you want to claim =
scientifically that there is an intelligent
designer, after all that is the goal of the ID movement?, then you have =
to show why your hypothesis is
better than the far simpler and elegant hypothesis. You have to show how =
it explains better the observations and how it is a better hypothesis.
Bertvan: It is a consistent position, and you seem content with it. My =
only=20
objection to any of it is when someone tries to impose it upon others =
by=20
such intimidating tactics as declaring theirs is the only "scientific"=20
position.=20
So far it seems that it is.
Bertvan: There is no "scientific position" on the existence or non=20
existence of god.
Very good, so why address it then?
Bertvan: There is no scientific position on whether the laws of=20
nature are the result of random processes or the result of rational =
design.
So why complicate it then by adding something that cannot be addressed =
scientifically.
Bertvan: When I first read Johnson and Denton, I thought, "How nice! =
Someone finally=20
expressed some of the things I've always believed." I probably =
disagreed=20
with both about religion, but then I'm used to holding minority =
opinions. I=20
never became emotionally in the controversy until I saw that any =
challenge to=20
the most orthodox of Darwinism was met by bitter personal attacks upon =
such=20
challengers.
Bitter personal attacks? Or was it attacks on the flawed science and =
arguments of Johnson?
Bertvan: The truth is, even Young Earth Creationists pose no danger to =
science.=20
They do as long as they insist that their "science" should be included =
as science.
Bertvan: A belief in alien abductions poses no danger to science. The =
only=20
danger to science would lie in a passionate defense of some orthodox =
theory=20
because it fit the philosophical position of some vocal "defenders of=20
science"
There is no inherent danger in defending an "orthodox" theory, there is =
obvious danger in allowing religious belief and faith to dictate =
science. That's why YEC does pose a danger to science.
.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 22:01:28 PDT
From: Jason Bode <jason_bode@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Snicker Snack, went the Vorpal Razor
Chris,
>Perhaps your definition of "accidental" is different from mine. >You're
>still postulating a universe AND a designer. Clearly, of the >two theories,
>yours has the greater burden of proof. You're the one >making special
>claims about the universe and its origin. I'm simply >postulating a
>universe. PERIOD. If you want to call it accidental, >and then claim that
>this is a POSITIVE statement, you can do so, but >all I'm saying is that
>there is no evidence of design.
We both postulate a universe. Fine. But you're lumping a designer into the
exact same equation on my side, but neglecting to inject your postulation of
NO designer (i.e. accidental origin).
>Something is accidental if it LACKS design (or purpose, etc.). >You're
>asking for a proof of a negative
Yes I am. Assumptions BOTH ways need verification.
>Yes: Given two theories, one that postulates merely a universe and >the
>other that postulates the same universe AND a designer, the >design theory
>DOES have the burden of proof.
Except that again, you're forgetting something. The designer section is a
different field altogether. Whether there is a designer is not the same
theory as saying the universe exists.
>In science and philosophy, you don't get to PRESUME positive claims, >only
>negative ones. Additional "entities" are included only as >cognitive needs
>warrant (i.e., only as epistemologically required by >the data). Knowledge
>is cumulative; you don't simply take as true >any positive claim you want
>and concern yourself with evidence later >(if ever).
Ok, so my negative claim is that the order in the universe is NOT
accidental. Negative claim, therefore I can presume it. This is bad logic.
About any claim can be made negative or positive, depending on what you feel
like making negative claims about or refuting.
>In general, where is the specific evidence of design? You say you >"see"
>design where I see mere logically necessary causal ordering of >things and
>events. Fine: Tell us precisely what aspect of a >supposedly designed thing
>distinguishes it from ordinary causal >ordering of things and events. I,
>too, find the structures in nature >amazing, but as amazing as many of them
>are, I don't see DESIGN in >them; instead I see STRUCTURE, ORDER,
>exhibiting the causal nature >of what exists.
Sounds like an awfully positive claim to me. You say you "see" ordering of
things and events, where I say I see mere design.
>How do you eliminate order as such from a causal universe? It can't >be
>done.
Prove it.
>If things exist, they have identities.
Prove it.
>How do you, even INTENTIONALLY, PREVENT order of SOME kind from being
>present?
Well, since I would be designing that, it's impossible. It would be a
designed set of 'physics', created by me. So how do you, even intentionally,
prevent design of some kind from being present?
>I suggest that there is no possible universe that you could be put >in that
>you would not be able to see as designed, because (I >suggest) you
>automatically (or nearly so) "translate" order to >design (at least in
>certain contexts).
I suggest that you automatically translate design to order (at least in
certain contexts).
>Evolved life? Fine; WHY couldn't it evolve in a non-designed >universe?
>What would be missing from the basic physics of a non->designed universe
>that would prevent low-level "molecular" evolution >from occurring, and
>then, eventually, life?
>If the Full Universe (counting our local Big Bang as a mere neutrino->sized
>particle in the overall scheme of things) has "meta-laws" of >physics that
>allow for "universes" with differing laws of physics, >wouldn't SOME of
>those "universes" almost necessarily have >combinations of laws that would
>support and produce life?
Ok, evidence please. Full universe? Is there evidence of universes in
addition to the one I look at out of a telescope? And no, I don't think some
of those universes would "almost necessarily" be able to support life. You
are asserting this, prove it.
>But, out of all imaginable sets of laws of physics, there must be >millions
>of (at least technically) distinguishable sets of laws that >would support
>life. Further, if the basic metaphysics of Existence >happens to be of a
>certain kind, then it might not even be possible >for there to be set of
>laws of physics that DON'T support life >simply as a side-effect of what it
>is for a universe to exist at >all. I'd guess that this is the case, though
>I have no real argument >for it except the fact that I exist and therefore
>know that at least >one universe has laws that DO support life.
There must be huh? Why so? And your argument for all sets of physical laws
supporting life is about the same strength as you are accusing me of having.
Jason
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1511
********************************