On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 19:24:04 +0000, glenn morton wrote:
[...]
>>GM>Well, Stephen, for one, being a christian, I am more interested in
>>>Christianity having a good apologetical defense. While I have muslims
in my
>>>extended family and have a deep respect for them, I do not believe
their
>>>religion to be correct and thus, I don't have to deal with their
>>>apologetical problems.
>SJ>Glenn is getting confused with ID and Christian Apologetics. I am interested
>>in Christian Apologetics too, just like I am interested in Christian Evangelism,
>>and Christian Missions. But these are all separate spheres, although they
>>are all important and connected.
GM>So the ID movement has nothing to do with Christianity then?
Yes. The ID movement has *nothing* to do with Christianity. ID is a
*scientific* theory. As I have said, there are members of the ID movement
who are not Christians, and there are even some who are not followers of
any religious.
Christianity, along with any other theistic religion, can use the findings of
ID in its own theology and apologetics. For example, as part of it's natural
theology (General Revelation), and as part of its argument against atheism.
>SJ>ID is a valuable part of Christian Apologetics, but only a part of it.
>>There is a lot more to Christian Apologetics than ID. ID is a part of Christian
>>Apologetics but Christian Apologetics is not a a part of ID.
>>
>>ID is about establishing there is a God. Christian Apologetic is about
>>establishing the *Christian* God.
GM>So, once again, the ID movement doesn't care about what God/alien created
>life. Is that correct?
Yes and no. The claim that aliens created life on Earth could not be ruled
out under ID, but it would clearly not be the ultimate explanation, because
it would not explain the origin of the aliens.
Nor would such a theory explain the fine-tuning of the universe.
So, the theory that aliens created life, while unable to be ruled out under
ID, would be regarded as an inadequate explanation.
>SJ>ID uses the facts of nature. Christian Apologetic uses the facts of nature
>>(General Revelation) and the facts of Scripture (Special Revelation).
>>
>>ID could be taught in science classrooms under the US Constitution but
>>Christian Apologetics never could. ID is the counterpart to Materialism-
>>Naturalism, which is by default taught in science classes.
GM>Or are you saying that ID is a way to get creation taught in the class
rooms?
Only in its most general sense. ID is not necessarily committed to any
particular theory of *how* the Designer executed His designs. Only that: 1.
He did design; 2. execute His design, and; 3. the footprints of that
execution is scientifically detectable.
As for 2., execution of design, a range of supernatural mechanisms would
be compatible with ID.
>SJ>ID proper has only been going, in its modern form, since 1991 and non-ID
>>has almost all the money and university posts! It is *unreasonable* for
>>Glenn to expect ID to compete with modern non-ID science on equal terms
>>right away.
GM>I hear this argument from the YEC side also. They don't need money, they
>need ideas. All it takes is a good thinker to propose a scenario.
>Apparently they either lack one of those, or they lack a desire to get
>involved in suggesting scenarios.
No. The first thing is to establish the scientific legitimacy of ID at the
philosophical level. This may take quite some time, but it is happening.
Then when public funding is made available, then ID can start scientific
research in earnest, which would be publishable in normal mainstream
scientific journals like NATURE and SCIENCE.
>SJ>But also, Glenn assumes that ID must come up with something *different*
>>regarding "the past history of the earth". This is not necessarily so. There
>>will be a lot of things that ID and Naturalism don't differ much on. The age
>>of the Earth is one of them.
GM>And evolution I presume is also one of them?
ID would not necessarily differ with Naturalism on the actual facts of
"evolution", ie. change over time, common ancestry, etc.
ID would differ with Naturalism on the potential range of available
explanatory mechanisms (ie. ID could explain by a range of supernatural
mechanisms whereas Naturalism cannot); and therefore conclusions.
>SJ>ID's prime role at this moment in its history is establishing the very
>>possibility of Design, i.e. philosophical. Modern science denies even
>>the possibility of ID. That battle has to be fought first. The research programs
>>will come along in due course, when the legitimacy of Design is established
>>and public funds are allocated to carry out research into Design.
GM>ACtually this isn't true. As I pointed out to Mike this morning astronomers
>and physicists are clearly engaged in a discussion of design as is
>evidenced by the many discussions of the implications of the Big Bang and
>the anthropic principle. Penrose writes:
>
>in order for the universe to start out in a big bang with WEYL=0
>so that the second law could be in existence, the odds of this
>happening are quite small when phase space is considered.
>"This now tells us how precise the creator's aim must have been:
>namely to an accuracy of
> 10^123.
> one part in 10
>This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even
>write the number down in full, in the ordinary denary notation;
>it would be '1' followed by 10^123 successive '0's!.
>p 344 Roger Penrose The Emperor's New Mind (New York: Penguin
>books 1991)
>
>Sounds to me like this world class scientist is talking about design and a
>creator!
This is a good point. But Penrose is a Platonist, so he may not agree that
there really was a Designer.
Individual scientists are considering design, but it is not yet a legitimate
scientific explanation which would be written up in mainstream scientific
journals or taught in public schools and universities.
ID can, and does, draw on the works of such individual scientists as part of
its overall case to achieve scientific legitimacy.
>SJ>A prime area of research IMHO will be the origin of life and molecular
>>machines. If plausible scenarios can be worked out which uses Intelligent
>>Design legitimately, and fits all the facts, then ID will be established as a
>>superior paradigm to Naturalism. Then all else will follow up the line.
>>
>>But all this will take time, maybe several generations.
GM>So we must wait several generations before we know if they have anything?
>This is what I have suspected all along. No amount of laggerdliness is to
>be counted as evidence against ID. They can for a hundred years claim to be
>the right answer without so much as showing a single explanation for
>anything. Wow, I wish my bosses were so forgiving.
Glenn, like a lot of scientists lacks historical sense. He seems to think that
current scientific theories and attitudes just popped into existence fully
formed in one generation. I have already pointed out that Darwinism took
about 80 years to become established.
ID must indeed make its case or be consigned to the trash can of history.
But the speed at which ID progresses is a matter for the ID movement to
decide, not its critics. ID will not be rushed into premature claims. ID is
making good progress and that if sufficient for now.
>SJ>Darwin in his Origin
>>said that his theory would not take hold until all the existing scientists died
>>off and he was right. Darwinism did mot really take hold until the 1930's,
>>70 years after Darwin. ID might take as long, or even longer to become
>>established. Those who complain that ID is not doing anything lack
>>historical perspective. I am 53 and I doubt if I will live to see ID's triumph.
>>But I do expect to see ID steadily making progress.
GM>You have amazing faith in ID.
I would correct the "triumph" bit. I am not as optimistic as some that ID
will "triumph" in the sense of become the ruling paradigm in science. But I
do think that ID will gain a place at the `high table' of mainstream science.
However there are many strong forces against it and ID itself has its own
potential internal problems.
I personally think that ID is the *truth* and that's why I support it.
Whether it is successful is an important, but secondary issue with me.
>>GM>Thus
>>>they, like the YECs will be relegated to the sidelines of science. Until
>>>Christians finally figure out that there is a need for a workable scenario
>>>the 10% will always have sway. The game is being played and we are
not even
>>>on the field!
>SJ>See above. Glenn is still fixated about YEC. YEC is becoming a side-issue
>>even among the YECs. Read Ashton's "In Six Days". It's supposed to be
>>about YEC but it's all about ID. It has quote after quote by Behe and he
>>believes in common ancestry and an Old Earth! IMHO YEC will just fade
>>away as a major issue and ID will take its place.
GM>Maybe the YECs will fade, but the ID movement has all the earmarks of
>another YEC. YEC for years has told its members that the future will bring
>the answers. Maybe this is being hung up with YEC, but when I see the same
>things, I wonder.
This is faulty thinking, and at best an argument from analogy. That YEC
and ID have some similarities is neither here nor there. What are their
*differences* is also important.
YEC has reinvented itself in the direction of ID, following court cases
where it was ruled that Biblical creation could not be taught in schools.
But YEC has probably gone as far as it can go. Many YECs realise this and
are heading strongly in the direction of ID. But YECs will have to leave
their YEC distinctives (eg. age of the Earth; death before the Fall; Flood
geology, etc) at the door when they enter ID.
This is not to say that YECs can't still be YECs, but those arguments
belong in Christian apologetics, not ID.
[..]
>SJ>Glenn is getting confused about different levels of ID. There can be
>>ID theories at the cosmological and biological levels. While someone
>>could argue, as Crick does, for an "alien-designer concept", he still
>>has to explain the aliens! And the aliens could not be responsible
>>for the fine-tuning of the universe. While the "alien-designer concept"
>>could not be ruled out under ID to explain life on Earth, it could not
>>compete with the "God-designer concept" as a more comprehensive
>>theory of design.
GM>Maybe the aliens are the ancient Roman Gods. They are eternal and thus
>require no explanation!
ID is not really concerned about the identity of the Designer. If some IDer
wants to think that He was Zeus or that He was the Christian God, that is
not an issue for ID.
[...]
>>GM>No, it doesn't have to be better. It is another false rabbit trail that
>>>will lead nowhere. THey don't tell us what actually happened in the past
>>>and that is the game that must be played. And by the way, I am a member of
>>>the ID movement because I believe in a Designer. But if I stop there, then
>>>I haven't done a thing.
>SJ>See above. Glenn is still fixated about YEC issues. The age of the Earth
>>is not an ID issue:
GM>Stephen, you can't read. I didn't say a thing about the age of the earth.
>Are you fixated on that?
Apologies to Glenn. After I sent this I realised that this part of the
argument Glenn was not talking about the age of the Earth.
OK. ID does "tell us what actually happened in the past" in the sense that it
claims that it happened by the plan and execution of an Intelligent
Designer, and such execution left scientifically detectable footprints.
This may produce different scientific explanations. For example, ID will be
able to produce viable scenarios for the origin of life and irreducibly
complex molecular machines that non-ID science cannot.
[...]
>>GM>We simply can't prevail until we present a workable scenario of past
>>>history!
>SJ>See above. The "past history" of the Earth is simply not an ID issue.
>>Glenn is demanding that ID address something that is a non-problem to
it.
GM>Now we get to the truth. ID doesn't care that what they say about the past
>is true or not. The past history of the earth is not an ID issue. So if the
>past history isn't an ID issue Stephen, why do they claim to know that an
>intelligent designer created life IN THE PAST? The above is a silly claim
>on your part.
See above. I was still thinking of "`past history' of the Earth" in the YEC
context, ie. the age of the Earth. My apologies.
ID *is* concerned about the past history of the Earth as explained above,
inasmuch as it contains the scientifically detectable footprint of the
Designer.
But ID has not particular interest in *how long* the past history of the
Earth was.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Another, and equally important, explanation for Darwin's success as the
propounder of evolution is to be found in his equivocation on the central
issue of selection versus direction. The issue had long been recognized as
cardinal in any theory. Those who had taken either side unequivocally,
whether that of Lamarck or of his opponents, had failed, though their
failure was political. But Darwin confused the alternatives on all possible
occasions. The confusion helped greatly in dealing with untrained
opponents who did not notice the blurring of the issue. Darwin's success
makes his choice in this dilemma seem deliberate and disingenuous. But it
was no doubt unconscious, like most of his more important reasonings."
(Darlington C.D., "The Origin of Darwinism", Scientific American, Vol.
201, May 1959, p64)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------