Reflectorites
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 22:14:42 -0600, Chris Cogan wrote:
[continued from part 2/3]
CC>Third, it's hypocritical to an *extreme* degree for a *Christian* (which he
>claims to be) to be demanding *evidence* for *anything*, since, by
>definition, Christianity is based on *faith*, not cognitive contact with
>reality..
Chris here just shows his ignorance of what is unique about Christianity
compared with other religions. Christianity is based on real-world *facts*,
i.e. that Jesus Christ really did rise from the dead. The Apostle Paul said
that if this central fact of Christianity was not true then Christianity itself is
not true:
"And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your
faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God,
for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he
did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not
raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been
raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins." (1 Cor 15:14-17).
That is in fact precisely *why* there is a creation-evolution and Bible-
science conflict. If "Christianity" had no "contact with reality there would
not be anything to have a conflict over!
CC>In fact, *rational* proof of the existence of God would be, at
>best, essentially irrelevant to Christianity, even if it were possible.
Chris confuses "rational *proof* of the existence of God" (my emphasis)
and rational *belief* in the existence of God.
CC>Thus, Johnson's demand, "Show me. I want to see it," is ludicrous. Has he
>seen his alleged designer? If he claims he has, can he prove it was a
>designer that he saw? Did he *see* the designer create the various species
>that he claims did not evolve? Has he *observed* the designer tinkering with
>the genes of bacteria to make butterfly genes? If so, precisely when and
>where did he observe this remarkable event? Or does he claim to have
>*observed* some designer creating butterfly genes de novo? Again, if so,
>when and where? Can he provide the details so that *others* may duplicate
>these remarkable observations.
Chris's overreaction to Johnson's request: "Show me. I want to see it" only
confirms Johnson's point that to a philosophical materialist (like Chris),
evidence for evolution is unnecessary and it is "ludicrous" to even ask for
it.
Chris' attack on the Christian God here simply confirms that the real
problem is Chris' basic metaphysical assumption that there is no God.
CC>Scientific progress is often a matter of competing theories. Pure
>naturalistic evolutionary theories are one category of such competing
>theories. They compete not only with each other, but also with
>non-naturalistic theories, such as Johnson's. They compete in terms of how
>well they work to logically *imply* empirically observable facts based on
>*other* observed facts, and in terms of other epistemological principles
>(such as Occam's Razor, mentioned above). Johnson's theory posits a vast new
>metaphysical level of reality, an alleged designer, and a vast array of
>facts not in evidence even in a *much* weaker sense than what he demands of
>evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory starts from empirically observable
>facts (such as the fact that genetic information *does* increase, in
>laboratory experiments (just as he demands), and logically interpolates and
>extrapolates other facts, according to a small set of testable causal
>principles (i.e., principles that have empirical implications that are not
>implied by other theories).
One of Johnson's main point is that the rules of science have been created
by philosophical materialists, and so "non-naturalistic theories, such as
Johnson's" (ie. Intelligent Design) are ruled out of court as unscientific
before evidence for they can even be considered.
Chris' wielding of "Occam's Razor" (falsely BTW) to disqualify ID before it
can even present its evidence, is a case in point.
CC>Third, it's hypocritical to an *extreme* degree for a *Christian* (which he
>claims to be) to be demanding *evidence* for *anything*, since, by
>definition, Christianity is based on *faith*, not cognitive contact with
>reality..
Chris here just shows his ignorance of what is unique about Christianity
compared with other religions. Christianity is based on real-world *facts*,
i.e. that Jesus Christ really did rise from the dead. The Apostle Paul said
that if this central fact of Christianity was not true then Christianity itself is
not true:
"And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your
faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God,
for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he
did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not
raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been
raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins." (1 Cor 15:14-17).
That is in fact precisely *why* there is a creation-evolution and Bible-
science conflict. If "Christianity" had no "contact with reality there would
not be anything to have a conflict over!
CC>In fact, *rational* proof of the existence of God would be, at
>best, essentially irrelevant to Christianity, even if it were possible.
Chris confuses "rational *proof* of the existence of God" (my emphasis)
and rational *belief* in the existence of God.
CC>Thus, Johnson's demand, "Show me. I want to see it," is ludicrous. Has he
>seen his alleged designer? If he claims he has, can he prove it was a
>designer that he saw? Did he *see* the designer create the various species
>that he claims did not evolve? Has he *observed* the designer tinkering with
>the genes of bacteria to make butterfly genes? If so, precisely when and
>where did he observe this remarkable event? Or does he claim to have
>*observed* some designer creating butterfly genes de novo? Again, if so,
>when and where? Can he provide the details so that *others* may duplicate
>these remarkable observations.
Chris's overreaction to Johnson's request: "Show me. I want to see it" only
confirms Johnson's point that to a philosophical materialist (like Chris),
evidence for evolution is unnecessary and it is "ludicrous" to even ask for
it.
Chris' attack on the Christian God here simply confirms that the real
problem is Chris' basic metaphysical assumption that there is no God.
CC>Scientific progress is often a matter of competing theories. Pure
>naturalistic evolutionary theories are one category of such competing
>theories. They compete not only with each other, but also with
>non-naturalistic theories, such as Johnson's. They compete in terms of how
>well they work to logically *imply* empirically observable facts based on
>*other* observed facts, and in terms of other epistemological principles
>(such as Occam's Razor, mentioned above). Johnson's theory posits a vast new
>metaphysical level of reality, an alleged designer, and a vast array of
>facts not in evidence even in a *much* weaker sense than what he demands of
>evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory starts from empirically observable
>facts (such as the fact that genetic information *does* increase, in
>laboratory experiments (just as he demands), and logically interpolates and
>extrapolates other facts, according to a small set of testable causal
>principles (i.e., principles that have empirical implications that are not
>implied by other theories).
One of Johnson's main point is that the rules of science have been created
by philosophical materialists, and so "non-naturalistic theories, such as
Johnson's" (ie. Intelligent Design) are ruled out of court as unscientific
before evidence for they can even be considered.
Chris' wielding of "Occam's Razor" (falsely BTW) to disqualify ID before it
can even present its evidence, is a case in point.
CC>When intellectual criminals like Johnson can come up with a theory that can
>do *half* as well as naturalistic evolutionary theory did in 1859, when
>Darwin's theory was first published, *then* he should start talking about
>whether his theory is preferable to such theory -- and then only if he can
>also show that such a theory *requires* his non-naturalistic components,
>that the principle of naturalistic sufficiency is false, that, *despite*
>Occam's Razor, such non-naturalism really *is* rationally justified.
See above. Chris contradicts himself. He said earlier that "naturalistic
evolutionary theories...compete...with non-naturalistic theories, such as
Johnson's" but here Chris rules all "non-naturalistic theories" out of court
by the misuse of demarcation criteria like "Occam's Razor", so that "non-
naturalistic theories" *cannot* compete with "naturalistic evolutionary
theories":
"The deployment of flawed or metaphysically tendentious demarcation
arguments against legitimate theoretical contenders has produced an
unjustified confidence in the epistemic standing of much evolutionary
dogma, including "the fact of evolution" defined as common descent. If
competing hypotheses are eliminated before they are evaluated, remaining
theories may acquire an undeserved dominance. (Meyer S.C., "The
Methodological Equivalence of Design & Descent", in Moreland J.P., ed.,
"The Creation Hypothesis", 1994, p100)
CC>Johnson's answer to Quinn's next question is simply irrelevant. Yes,
>computer software requires intelligence. But there is no viable analogy (at
>least not one that helps Johnson's case) between computer software and the
>development of genetic information.
The fact that DNA can be used as a component in a computer, shows that there
is in fact a very close "analogy...between computer software and the
development of genetic information":
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/01/13/dna.computer.ap/index.html
CNN ... Scientists create 'DNA computer' January 13, 2000 ... Scientists
have created a "DNA computer" from strands of synthetic DNA they
coaxed into solving relatively complex calculations, according to a report
in today's issue of the journal Nature .... Conventional computing is driven
by computer chips, but that technology is fast approaching the limits of
miniaturization. Scientists dream of using the vast storage capacity that
enables DNA and its chemical cousin RNA to hold the complex blueprints
of living organisms. ... Smith's team, on the other hand, tethered the DNA
to a solid surface. ... The Wisconsin researchers coded DNA strands to
contain all possible solutions to a problem...After years of work, his team
made several of the computers, each composed of about 100 trillion
synthetic DNA strands that repeatedly solved the problem, though with
human help. ... Smith and his colleagues began by arranging the synthetic
DNA's genetic coding -represented by the letters A, T, C and G -- in
different combinations that represented the numerical solutions to the
problem. ... Laura F. Landweber, an assistant professor of biology at
Princeton University, is leading a team working to exploit RNA's
computing potential. Her team recently fashioned RNA strands that
processed complex problems similar to those that chess players encounter.
While Smith's team produced a chemical computer that tackled a problem
with 16 possible solutions, the Princeton RNA computer searched through
512 possible answers, she said. ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sure the readers of Silicon Valley Magazine will appreciate Johnson's
point in the article that:
"Here's the evidence. Think of the computer and the experience we all
have with the computer. You understand that the computer is not just
matter, not primarily. It contains silicon, plastic, but that's not what makes
it a computer. It's the design, the software-it's why Bill Gates is so rich.
And the software is the product of human intelligence. To arrange the
letters into a meaningful set of instructions, you need the intelligence of the
software designer." (http://www.svmagazine.com/2000/week03/features/Story02.html)
CC>Further, as he probably knows but does
>not want the *reader* to know, there is a type of programming called
>"genetic" programming because it *does* use random mutation (or, more
>generally, random variation) and selection to produce information. Trial
>programs are generated randomly. The ones that come closest (by dumb
>mechanical test) to doing what is needed are saved, and used as the basis
>for another generation of programs that are variations on these. Again, the
>unintelligent selection process is applied to determine which programs will
>survive to reproduce and provide the basis for the next generation of
>variations.
Chris here defeats his own argument. That computer "genetic"
programming can simulate biological "random mutation...and selection to
produce information" shows that there *is* a "viable analogy...between
computer software and the development of genetic information".
CC>The end result of this process of random variation and selection is a
>program that has the information (computer instructions) needed to carry out
>the required operation. Intelligence goes into designing the *environment,*
>but not into the *process*. Of course, what evolutionists suggest is that
>*physical* evolution occurs in functionally similar environments that
>occurred and occur naturally. If such an unintelligent *process* can create
>information in one case, why can't essentially the same unintelligent
>process create information in other cases? What we observe is that it *does*
>create information in other cases.
If human intelligent designers program the "process" then they are by
definition *designing* the process. And if the process doesn't work the first
time to produce the desired outcomes, then they keep redesigning the
computer program until it does:
"Dawkins did not say in his book, but his simulation must have assumed a
high reproduction rate (N=100 or higher). This is higher than real species
can produce. For a sexual species to accomplish this, the females must give
at least 200 progeny each. ... Dawkins did not say, but he must have
chosen the mutation rate to optimize the speed of evolution. If he had
chosen a low mutation rate, (such as 10^-8 as in humans) then the
simulation would require roughly 50 million generations. On the other
hand, if he had chosen too high a mutation rate, then it would cause error
catastrophe and the target phrase would never be reached. Dawkins picked
the mutation rate that produced the fastest evolution. Dawkins' readers got
the impression he casually threw the computer simulation together and
speedy evolution just happened automatically. In reality, Dawkins carefully
designed his simulation to favor rapid evolution. One could hardly design a
simple, easily understood simulation that is faster. His computer simulation
aids the illusion that evolution is simple in concept, inevitable, and fast."
(ReMine W.J., "The Biotic Message", 1993, p233).
CC>[Footnote: The term "create" in this context is misleading. I'm using it
>only because Johnson did. Information is never truly created, but random
>variation *is* the variation of information, so, in effect, mutation and
>variation are force-feeding information into the replication process.
>Sometimes it cancels out information already present, resulting in offspring
>that have *less* genetic information than their parents did. But,
>*observationally*, sometimes the genetic information in the offspring's
>genome *is* greater than the information in the parent genome(s).
If Chris admits that "Information is never truly created" by "random
variation" and "mutation", then he has just conceded Johnson's point that:
"there is no scientific factual evidentiary basis to believe that the Darwinian
mechanism-mutation and selection-has ... the power to create genetic
information."
CC>Where *does* such information in the genome come from? It comes from the
>almost constant ebb and flow of the environment, the chaotic "stirring" of
>both external and internal environments by heat, cosmic rays, mechanical
>movement, chemicals occurring in food, water, and air, by the evolved
>process of recombining genes, which allows the micro-accidents of the moment
>to largely determine many of the details of the resulting genomes (which is
>why siblings from the same parents are often *very* different, even if they
>are the same gender and born at the same time). In short, there is a
>*constant* flow of information through an organism (if it is alive and
>functioning), and this information influences the replication process and
>sometimes causes the resulting offspring genome to have more information
>than the parent genome(s) did.]
This is just hand-waving. Chris needs to "Show me. I want to see it".
For example, Chris needs to show *how* "the almost constant ebb and
flow of the environment, the chaotic "stirring" of both external and internal
environments by heat, cosmic rays, mechanical movement, chemicals
occurring in food, water, and air, by the evolved process of recombining
genes" can produce a whale from a small, rodent-like land mammal in only
10 million years with only 10-15 species in between (see previous).
CC>Is Johnson's theory (i.e., "a supernatural being did it") really supposed to
>be any *better* than this? How then, does the positing of a supernatural
>designer explain and predict that, if you take a previously untested microbe
>and breed it in an environment that is uniformly hostile to it because of
>some factor (such as heat or reduced resources), such that the only
>available "solution" for the organism is to increase genetic information (so
>as to provide the organism with a means of dealing more effectively with the
>special environmental factor), it *will* increase genetic information? I
>predict, on the basis of evolutionary theory, that this will happen. What
>does positing an allegedly intelligent designer enable us to predict about
>such a case??
I am sure most people who are not philosophical materialists would answer
"yes" to Chris's question: "Is Johnson's theory (i.e., "a supernatural being
did it") really supposed to be any *better* than" Chris' theory "the almost
constant ebb and flow of the environment, the chaotic "stirring" of >both
external and internal environments by heat, cosmic rays, mechanical
>movement, chemicals occurring in food, water, and air, by the evolved
>process of recombining genes"!
CC>That's right: Nothing at all. Why? Because we don't have a causal principle.
>*All* we have is the alleged cause, but no defined and empirically
>verifiable causal mechanism by which it works.
As I have pointed out before, *intelligent cause" is a recognised "a causal
principle" within science (eg. archaeology, forensic science, SETI):
"The science we look to, however, needs to be unencumbered by
naturalistic philosophy. If we prescribe in advance that science must be
limited to strictly natural causes, then science will necessarily be incapable
of investigating God's interaction with the world. But if we permit science
to investigate intelligent causes (as many special sciences already do, e.g.,
forensic science and artificial intelligence), then God's interaction with the
world, insofar as it manifests the characteristic features of intelligent
causation, becomes a legitimate domain for scientific investigation. There's
an important contrast to keep in mind here. Science, we are told, studies
natural causes, whereas to introduce God is to invoke supernatural causes.
This is the wrong contrast. The proper contrast is between natural causes
on the one hand and intelligent causes on the other. Intelligent causes can
do things that natural causes cannot. Natural causes can throw Scrabble
(TM) pieces on a board but cannot arrange the pieces to form meaningful
words or sentences. To obtain a meaningful arrangement requires an
intelligent cause. Whether an intelligent cause operates within or outside
nature (i.e., is respectively natural or supernatural) is a separate question
entirely from whether an intelligent cause has operated..." (Dembski W.A.,
"Intelligent Design", unpublished manuscript, 1999, p105)
CC>Finally, notice that when it comes to evidence of evolution of bacteria to
>butterflies, Johnson demands to *see* it. But, when it comes to evidence of
>a preposterous and scientifically useless non-naturalistic "intelligent
>creator," he is only able to offer his *ignorance* of how evolution could
>produce butterflies from bacteria. His argument is, in short: "I don't
>understand how it could happen, therefore it did *not* happen, therefore an
>intelligent designer exists." Of course, nearly *all* arguments for such an
>intelligent designer's existence fall into the category of argument from
>ignorance, so this is nothing new. Nor is it new that ignorance of
>alternatives does not constitute proof of one's pet theory. What's important
>to notice here is the hypocrisy of Johnson's demand for *direct* physical
>observation of a process of evolution that took millions of years while
>simultaneously proclaiming that his *ignorance* of this very same process
>*proves* the existence of an "intelligent creator."
If Chris has the "evidence of evolution of bacteria to butterflies" then
why doesn't Chris simply show it to Johnson when he "demands to *see* it"?
If Chris doesn't have the "evidence of evolution of bacteria to butterflies",
then it is not a scientific fact but just a deduction from philosophical
materialism-naturalism.
CC>But, if he didn't observe the process of evolution, does he claim to have
>observed the *non-evolutionary* history of life for the past few billion
>years. *Show* me. I want to *see* it. He doesn't seem to grasp that the very
>same observational limitations that make such direct observation of
>evolution over a period of millions or billions of years impossible are
>*exactly* the same limitations *his* theory faces; *he* has no more
>observational basis for his claim than does the most naive evolutionist
I am sure Johnson would be happy for evolutionists to admit publicly
"evolution over a period of millions or billions of years" faces "*exactly*
the same limitations *his* [Intelligent Design] theory faces". On that basis,
what reason (other than philosophy and coercive power) would evolution
be taught in schools and not Intelligent Design?
CC>But, he wants to have it both ways. For the simpler, minimalist theory that
>life evolved by a process of variation and replication, he wants complete
>observational evidence, but for his *own* theory, he wants to dispense with
>any evidence stronger than "I don't see how it evolution could work" (i.e.,
>his own ignorance, which he has steadfastly and willfully maintained against
>all attempts to educate him for many years now). For his *own* theory,
>Occam's Razor no longer applies, and it's perfectly okay to arbitrarily
>posit some supernatural realm populated by supernatural beings. I say, "Show
>me. I want to see it."
See previous for The true statement of Occam's Razor.
CC>Finally observe that at some points Johnson tries to pretend that he is not
>arguing for a belief in a Christian God, but then, at several other points,
>including at the end of the interview, he states the issue solely in terms
>of a belief in God. Talk about wanting to have it both ways!
Johnson *can* "have it both ways" because both can be true at different
levels. It's just the same as arguments in support of Naturalistic Evolution
are also arguments in support of both Darwinian Evolution and Lamarckian
Evolution.
In the same way Intelligent Design supports Christianity but does not
*uniquely* support Christianity. As I have pointed out before, there are
non-Christians who are members of the ID movement and even non-theists.
CC>But, he would be even more hypocritical to stick with the view that it's
>just a matter of competing scientific theories, because his real motive has
>nothing to do with science. He is simply trying to push science aside in
>order to promote religion. That's why the complete reversal on the issue of
>observational evidence when he switches from demanding complete
>observational evidence for the evolution of bacteria to butterflies, but
>relies solely on his *ignorance* (a *lack* of observational evidence) as his
>"evidence" for the existence of an intelligent designer. That's why the
>incredible pretense that non-naturalism has no more requirements for
>evidence than does naturalism (as if we did not all agree that the natural
>world exists). That's why, in general, he evades issue after issue, and lies
>through his teeth and his hat at nearly every step of the way.
Note how Chris *assumes* that philosophical materialism and "science" are
the same thing. As the article says, Johnson is trying to separate the two:
"We call our strategy the wedge." A log is a seeming solid object, but a
wedge can eventually split it by penetrating a crack and gradually widening
the split. In this case the ideology of scientific materialism is the apparently
solid log. The widening crack is the important but seldom-recognized
difference between the facts revealed by scientific investigation and the
materialist philosophy that dominates the scientific culture. What happens
when the facts cast doubt on the philosophy? Will scientists and
philosophers allow materialism to be questioned, or will they rely on
Microphone Man to suppress the facts and protect the philosophy?"
(Johnson P.E., "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds", 1997, p92)
CC>In short, Johnson is a dangerous man because he is a demagogue with
almost >no respect for the truth or reality.
The real problem is that Chris identifies "the truth or reality" with his basic
metaphysical assumptions, namely philosophical materialism.
If Christianity is true, then Johnson view of "reality" is "the truth". OTOH
if philosophical materialism is true, then Chris' view of "reality" is "the
truth".
No amount of name-calling by Chris will change that fact. In fact the more
he accuses those of us who do not share his basic metaphysical assumption
of philosophical materialism, as being "liars", the more we become
convinced that we are on the right track. We *know* we are not "liars" so
the more Chris says it, the more we become convinced that he and his ilk
are wrong and we are on the right track!
And Chris and his ilk will find out that as this debate gets more and more
out into the public square, his ad hominem arguments won't work anymore
and they are going to need to come up with convincing *factual*
arguments, or they are going to *lose*.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It
seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags,
minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of
changeover millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the
prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do
see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a
bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve
elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's
how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to
learn something about evolution." (Eldredge N., "Reinventing Darwin: The
Great Evolutionary Debate", [1995], Phoenix: London, 1996, p95).
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 15 2000 - 22:57:17 EST