On Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:15:00 -0500, darren.coltman@zurichus.com wrote:
>>DC>I would be interested to see an explanation from the
>>>religious literature of how: 1) God could build up the evident
>>>design of the Bombardier Beetle, and 2) the evidence that He
>>>actually did.
> SJ>The "religious literature" makes no claim AFAIK as to how
>>"God could build up the evident design of the Bombardier
>>Beetle." It is the claim of *Darwinism* that "the design of the
>>Bombardier Beetle" was built up by "random mutation and
>>natural selection". I simply ask to see the *evidence* for that
>>claim.
>>
>>If I receive no plausible answers to my questions, then I will take
>>it as a evidence that "Darwinian mechanisms of random mutation
>>and natural selection could" *not* "build up the evident design of
>>the Bombardier Beetle".
DC>I'm not really interested in Darwinism, though.
Well, since "Darwinism": 1) is the dominant theory of evolution,
taught compulsorily to my children with my taxpayer's money; and
2) claims to be the only materialistic-naturalistic theory, even in
principle, which can account for life's complex design without a
Designer:
"I want to persuade the reader, not just that the Darwinian world-view
happens to be true, but that it is the only known theory that could, in
principle, solve the mystery of our existence... A good case can be made
that Darwinism is true, not just on this planet but all over the universe
wherever life may be found." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker,"
[1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.xiv)
Therefore, I *am* "really interested in Darwinism"!
But I would however be "really interested in" what alternative to
"Darwinism" that Darren has which can explain the "the evident
design of the Bombardier Beetle"!
DC>It is too easy to criticise other people's theories
Apart from the fact that real science should *encourage* criticism of
its "theories", the "other people's theories" in this case happens to
be *Darwinism* the reigning scientific theory of evolution, taught in
most (if not all) schools and universities with taxpayer funding, of
how life supposedly arose without the need for a Creator.
DC>and yet not put forward any of your own.
Actually I have put forward some of my own theories in the 4 years
I have been on the Reflector. Perhaps Darren has not been on the
Reflector that long?
But I do not need to put forward my own theory of how the
Bombardier Beetle arose. It is perfectly in order for me to criticise a
scientific theory without putting forward my own theory:
"Courtroom experience during my career at the bar taught me to attach
great weight to something that may seem trivial to persons not skilled in
argumentation-the burden of proof. The proponents of a theory, in science
or elsewhere, are obligated to support every link in the chain of reasoning,
whereas a critic or skeptic may peck at any aspect of the theory, testing it
for flaws. He is not obligated to set up any theory of his own or to offer
any alternative explanations. He can be purely negative if he so desires."
(Macbeth N., "Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason", 1971, p5)
DC>So far your arguments are along the lines of: My theory, God
>did it: An unknown/unknowable entity using unknown means
It is *not* my "argument" that "God" is "An unknown/unknowable
entity" who "did it...using unknown means".
But how does Darren *know* that "God" is: 1) "An unknown/unknowable
entity; and 2) used "unknown means"? One would presumably
have to know something about "God" to know that He was
"unknown/unknowable"?
DC>>Alternative theory 1: Show me the evidence, if not my theory
>wins by default Alternative theory 2: Show me the evidence, if not
>my theory wins by default...etc
Darren seems to have a problem even being asked to "show me
the evidence". I would have thought that is a perfectly reasonable
request of a scientific theory? Is Darren claiming that we should
believe Darwinism (or Darren's theory, whatever that is) without
being shown the "evidence"?
DC>All I want you to do is expand on _your_ theory i.e.
If Darren already knows what my theory is, and rejects it out of
hand as involving "God..." an allegedly "unknown/unknowable
entity", then what would be the point of expanding on my theory?
DC>1) _how_ did God make the Bombardier Beetle (with his
>hands, out of clay, out of dust into which he breathed life?),
First Darren says that "My theory" is that "God did it: An
unknown/unknowable entity using unknown means", but now a few
paragraphs later, he asks me specify "how...did God make the
Bombardier Beetle"!
Perhaps Darren could clarify his position on whether if "God did" it
could be, at least in principle, by *known* means"?
DC>2)>where is the physical evidence (apart from 'it says it in the
>Bible'), that it was actually him who did it?
What "physical evidence" does Darren have in mind?
DC>And as an aside, maybe 3) why design something that
>causes pain, suffering and ultimately death to another creature
>you designed?
This is the "argument from evil". But it is not an argument against
*design* itself. A Designer could design a world where there was a
limited degree of "pain, suffering and ultimately death".
If a certain degree of "pain" is necessary for an animal to survive,
and some animals must eat other animals to maintain an ecological
balance, then there must be some degree of "pain, suffering and
ultimately death".
Indeed the Bible claims in Psalm 104 that the lion eating its prey is
getting its food from God and that this ecological balance reflects
God's *wisdom*:
"You bring darkness, it becomes night, and all the beasts of the forest
prowl. The lions roar for their prey and seek their food from God. The sun
rises, and they steal away; they return and lie down in their dens. Then man
goes out to his work, to his labor until evening. How many are your works,
O LORD! In wisdom you made them all..." (Psalm 104:20-24)
So what is Darren's alternative "design"? That everything live
forever?:
"Suppose, then, that animals never ate one another but always died
naturally. Would their suffering be less than it is? It certainly would not.
The wounded and the infirm would linger on indefinitely in joyless
existence, only to die of starvation when physically incapable of finding
their food. But suppose animals were immortal - what then? The answer
comes that over-multiplication would soon bring universal death from
starvation. Alternatively, if the were immortal but had no progeny,
accidents, frost or drought night cause the species to die out. However we
regard the matter, the conviction grows that the actual state of affairs that
we find in nature is the only possible one -short of one in which, by special
miracle, God healed every broken wing or brought a special dish of food to
every animal unable to fend for itself-a possible state of affairs, no doubt,
but hardly one conducive to character-making in man or beast." (Clark
R.E.D. "The Universe: Plan or Accident?", 1961, pp214-215).
DC>I have heard one side of the argument. Now I'd like to hear
>yours.
See above. Darren's evident aim is to get me to put forward the
*whole* of my "side of the argument", while he puts forward very
little of his. This is good tactics on his part because under those
conditions he could not lose. Unfortunately for him, I was not born
yesterday!
My proposal is that we *both* put forward our respective arguments
step-by-step in tandem. I have given Darren some of my "side of
the argument", and asked Darren to clarify aspects of his.
When Darren has responded to my requests for clarification of his
"side of the argument" (indeed when Darren has actually stated
what *is* his "side of the argument"), then I will put forward more of
my "side of the argument"!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented." (Dr. William
Provine, Professor of History and Biology, Cornell University.
http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/1998/slides_view/Slide_7.html)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------