On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 18:13:21 -0500, John E. Rylander wrote:
>SJ>In March 1999 Howard posted to the ASA
>>Reflector his questions about defintions of design and saying that ID
>>was based on an "artisan metaphor".
>>
>>Then after *two months* of intensive debate, Howard comes on to the Calvin
>>Reflector and asks the same questions and again says that ID was based on
>>an "artisan metaphor"!
>>
>>If this is "trying...to move the conceptual conversation forward" I would
>>hate to see Howard trying to slow something down!
JR>Maybe he doesn't think the responses he got were sound.
If Howard thought the responses he got from *leaders* of the ID
movement like Dembski after *two months* of debate on the ASA
Reflector were so unsound that he starts of a thread on the Calvin
Reflector with the same questions as though nothing had happened, then it
is a reasonable assumption by the ID movement that *no* response from
them would ever satisfy Howard.
>SJ>When I posted Howard's questions on the ID list I am on, the response
>>was things like:
>>
>>"Howard just keeps on doing this, no matter what you tell him"
>>and "It's abottomless pit."
>>
>>In short, the perception from the ID side is that Howard just wants the ID
>>debate to go around endlessly in circles getting nowhere.
JR>I suspect it's just that he doesn't think he's gotten good answers yet.
>We've all been in that situation, right?
See above. If Howard "doesn't think he's gotten good answers yet" when
he has debated *leaders* of the ID movement like Dembski, then it's a
reasonable assumption by the ID movement that Howard will *never*
"think he's gotten good answers"!
>>JR>E.g., with a broad notion of "design" nearly -every- Christian
>>believes in Intelligent Design.
>SJ>Since theistic evolution Asa Gray said denial of design is "tantamount to
>>atheism", I would have thought that *every* Christian *must*
>>believe in some form of Intelligent Design!
JR>I would agree (depending on what degree of unorthodoxy one allows with one
>still being Christian), using the terms in their ordinary, broad meaning.
>But certainly not in any of many narrower senses of the terms. I mean, on a
>broad meaning of the terms, Howard and every other EC/TE I know of believes
>in intelligent design.
One would never realise it, from their writings. Indeed, since they attack
thise who espouse Intelligent Design, a reasonable assumption would be that
EC/TEs really don't believe in Intelligent Design.
>>JR>Given that ID isn't meant to include everything from
>>>evolutionary creationism/theistic evolution on the one hand to YEC on the
>>>other, the definition must be narrowed to capture what is proposed by ID
>>>theorists.
>SJ>I disagree. ID does not exclude EC/TEs or YECs. The other list I am on
>>has IDers who range from TEs to YEcs and everything in between.
>>Indeed, it even includes people who are not even theists. The only thing
>>that ID would exclude are people who are hostile to the advancement of ID.
>>....
JR>I guess I don't know what ID means anymore then. All the pro-ID stuff that
>I am familiar with is explicitly at odds with EC/TE, usually relying on the
>standard (and I think usually overstated) criticisms of evolutionary theory
>(fossil gaps, assumes atheism, no mechanism for macroevolution, etc.), more
>recently relying on Behe's thesis that irreducible complexity necessitates
>un-evolvability (a thesis that seems to me mistaken).
The problem is mainly on the EC/TEs side. They want to dogmatically rule
out any intervention by God and have Him solely working through natural
processes. The ID side agrees that God works through natural processes
but refuses to rule out that God could also have worked interventionally.
Indeed, Behe is a case in point. He accepts the evidence for common
descent (as I do) but does not see that as ruling out God working
supernaturally through natural processes.
JR>Now, if I understand you, you're saying that ID is compatible with basically
>any Christian theory of creation -- every one I listed, anyway.
Yes. That should be obvious if TE/ECs paid attention to what Johnson and
other ID leaders said, for example:
"I believe that a God exists who could create out of nothing if He wanted
to do so, but who might have chosen to work through a natural
evolutionary process instead. I am not a defender of creation-science..."
(Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial," 1993, p14)
instead of viewing them through "Inherit the Wind" filters as crypto-YECs,
as Howard did when he launched his attack on Phil by implying that Phil
was, the same as a fundamentalist scientific creationist:
"Although the rhetoric Phillip E. Johnson employs in his article "Creator or
Blind Watchmaker?" (FT, January 1993) differs in some details from that
of the "scientific creationists" of North American Christian fundamentalism,
the effect of his pronouncements is the same." (Van Till H.J., "God and
Evolution: An Exchange: Howard J. Van Till - Phillip E. Johnson", First
Things, June 1993.
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9306/johnson.html)
JR>I have no problem with this, but then I don't know what all the fuss is
>about.
The "fuss" is mostly on the TE/EC side. It is the *TE/ECs* who first
attacked Phil Johnson when he appeared on the scene. The first edition of
Darwin on Trial had almost nothing about TEs in it. It was only after
attacks by all the TE leaders that Johnson knew that there was something
deeper behind TE, namely Theistic Naturalism, and he was forced to
defend himself.
JR>I -suspect- you're taking ID in too broad a sense, though, given the
>other stuff I've read earlier.
I am *living proof* that what I say is correct. I am a member of the ID
movement in good standing (even with YECs), even though I quite openly
accept common descent. So is Mike Behe for that matter.
JR>My own suspicion is that something like what
>Howard says is right: "ID" as it's usually used (by Christians anyway)
>implies (and, as you've pointed out, is strongly motivated by) "episodic
>creationism."
Of *course* ID has a strong component of what Howard pejoratively calls
"episodic creationism." Apart from it being what Genesis 1 depicts
(whether one interprets it literally or symbolically), the hostility of TE/ECs
to IDers and therefore the lack of participation by TE/ECs in the ID
movement, automatically means that that would be the case.
The challenge is for leaders of the TE/EC movement to drop their hostility
to IDers and accept that what Howard calls "episodic creationism" is a
*legitimate* part of an ID research program.
JR>(I'm not referring to his comments about an artisan metaphor,
>the concept having outlived its usefulness, etc. -- those are not in my mind
>connoted, let alone denoted, by "episodic creationism.")
Good. We may be making *some* progress!
JR>This would explain
>why published IDers consider it very important to reject methodological
>naturalism
IDers "reject methodological naturalism" as begging the whole question,
especially in the area of *origins*. Why should it be assumed by ID that
there is no God (or at least that He hasn't intervened supernaturally)?
This would only make sense if ID knew in advance that there is no God
or that he hasn't intervened supernaturally!
JR>focus on irreducible complexity as an objection to evolutionary
>theory, etc.
Well, since Darwinism claims to have killed off ID:
"Paley drives his point home with beautiful and reverent descriptions of the
dissected machinery of life, beginning with the human eye, a favourite
example which Darwin was later to use and which will reappear throughout
this book. Paley compares the eye with a designed instrument such as a
telescope, and concludes that 'there is precisely the same proof that the eye
was made for vision, as there is that the telescope was made for assisting
it'. The eye must have had a designer, just as the telescope had. Paley's
argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best
biological scholarship of his day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly
wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living
organism, is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in
nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way.
A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and
plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind's eye.
Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin
discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence
and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no
mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no
foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in
nature, it is the blind watchmaker." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker,"
1991, p5);
and Darwinism has claimed that it would be falsified if it could be shown
that a complex organ had arisen not by a gradual, stepwise process:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could
not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (Darwin C., "The
Origin of Species," 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p170)
then it makes sense for ID to try to falsify Darwinism in this way:
"Darwin knew that his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection
carried a heavy burden: ... [same Darwin quote as above] ... It is safe to say
that most of the scientific skepticism about Darwinism in the past century
has centered on this requirement. From Mivart's concern over the incipient
stages of new structures to Margulis's dismissal of gradual evolution, critics
of Darwin have suspected that his criterion of failure had been met. But
how can we be confident? What type of biological system could not be
formed by "numerous, successive, slight modifications"? Well, for starters,
a system that is irreducibly complex. By irreducible complexity I mean a
single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that
contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the
parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." (Behe M.J.,
"Darwin's Black Box," 1996, p38)
Only if Darwinists want their theory to be beyond scientific testing, should
this be resisted by Darwinists (including the theistic variety).
JR>(Given that you're more up on this than I, let me ask you: are there any
>thought leaders in the ID community who explicitly reject Behe's thesis
>which is [if I understand it] that irreducible complexity necessitates
>unevolvability? I'm curious; I hope the answer is yes.)
Why should they? See above. This is *precisely* the test of Darwinism
that Darwin himself proposed (and his latter day disciple Dawkins)
has reaffirmed:
"Darwin wrote (in The Origin of Species): ... [same Darwin quote as
above] ... One hundred and twenty five years on, we know a lot more
about animals and plants than Darwin did, and still not a single case is
known to me of a complex organ that could not have been formed by
numerous successive slight modifications. I do not believe that such a case
will ever be found. If it is - it'll have to be a really complex organ, and, as
we'll see in later chapters, you have to be sophisticated about what you
mean by 'slight' - I shall cease to believe in Darwinism." (Dawkins R., "The
Blind Watchmaker," 1991, p91)
To want to preserve something called "evolvability" that is immune from
scientific testing, is pseudoscience.
JR>P. S. Thanks for listing Hodge's defn.
John deleted Hodge's definition, so I am replacing it so we can see what he
is talking about:
"By design is intended,-(1.) The selection of an end to be attained. (2.) The
choice of suitable means for its attainment. (3.) The actual application of
those means for the accomplishment of the proposed end." (Hodge C.,
"Systematic Theology," [1892], James Clark & Co: London UK, 1960,
Vol. I, reprint, p216)
JR>But doesn't his notion include in
>part 3 what would ordinarily be meant by fabrication or manufacturing?
This is too specific, and if I accepted John's "fabrication or manufacturing"
sub-definition, I would no doubt have Howard accuse me of adopting the
"artisan metaphor"!
A better term for this final stage of design is to call it the *realisation*
stage.
JR>That
>is, wouldn't accomplishment of either the 1st, or 1st and 2d, or even (more
>strangely) the 2d alone, -without- the 3d part would constitute intelligent
>design in the ordinary sense of the term?
ID might agree that the primary meaning of design would be
conceptualisation. But it would see no reason to restrict design to only the
first one or two stages and leave out the *realisation* of design stage,
especially since that is the only way we mere mortals are ever going to see
design?
JR>Why not use a dictionary defn:
>Design: "Make or work out a plan for; devise;";"Conceive or fashion in the
>mind; invent"; "Intend or have as a purpose". (These are from my online
>dictionary. None of the verb defns included the concept of manufacturing
>the designed object.)
I don't know about Johns's "online dictionary", but the Webster on-line
dictionary at: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary), includes in the
definition of "design" [as a noun] "to create, FASHION, EXECUTE, or
CONSTRUCT according to plan" (my emphasis):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main Entry: 1design
Pronunciation: di-'zIn
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, to outline, indicate, mean, from Middle French & Medieval Latin; Middle French
designer to designate, from Medieval Latin designare, from Latin, to mark out, from de- + signare to mark --
more at SIGN
Date: 14th century
transitive senses
1 : to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : DEVISE, CONTRIVE
2 a : to conceive and plan out in the mind <he designed the perfect crime> b : to have as a purpose :
INTEND <she designed to excel in her studies> c : to devise for a specific function or end <a book
designed primarily as a college textbook>
3 archaic : to indicate with a distinctive mark, sign, or name
4 a : to make a drawing, pattern, or sketch of b : to draw the plans for
intransitive senses
1 : to conceive or execute a plan
2 : to draw, lay out, or prepare a design
- de£sign£ed£ly /-'zI-n&d-lE/ adverb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note here that the realisation of design is given as the *primary* meaning
of "design". In fact, when the verb option is selected, it gives exactly the
same definitions as the verb.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"It takes a while to realize that the 'thousands' of intermediates being
referred to have no obvious relevance to the origin of lions and jellyfish and
things. Most of them are simply varieties of a particular kind of creature,
artificially arranged in a certain order to demonstrate Darwinism at work,
and then rearranged every time a new discovery casts doubt upon the
arrangement." (Hitching F., "The Neck of the Giraffe: Or Where Darwin
Went Wrong," Pan: London UK, 1982, p27)
--------------------------------------------------------------------