Reflectorites
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:47:51 -0700, Terry M. Gray wrote:
[...]
TG>By my consideration everything is divinely designed. ID'ers don't like this
>because it takes the apologetic sting out of their argument. In my opinion
>that exposes the motive for the whole enterprise.
[...]
This is simply false. IDers do not deny that everything is designed. IDers
are simply trying to focus on those specific instances of design which
cannot easily be explained naturalistically (ie. as the result of law and
chance).
Dembski uses the analogy of a painting on canvas to make a distinction
between different levels of design:
"In its treatment of design, this book focuses not so much on whether the
universe as a whole is designed but on whether we are able to detect design
within an already given universe. The universe provides a well-defined
causal backdrop (physicists these days think of it as a field characterized by
field equations). Although one can ask whether that causal backdrop is
itself designed, one can as well ask whether events and objects occurring
within that backdrop are designed. At issue here are two types of design:
(1) the design of the universe as a whole and (2) instances of design within
the universe. An analogy illustrates the difference. Consider an oil painting.
An oil painting is typically painted on a canvas. One can therefore ask
whether the canvas is designed. Alternatively one can ask whether some
configuration of paint on the canvas is designed. The design of the canvas
corresponds to the design of the universe as a whole. The design of some
configuration of paint corresponds to an instance of design within the
universe. Though not perfect, this analogy is useful. The universe is a
canvas on which is depicted natural history. One can ask whether that
canvas itself is designed. On the other hand, one can ask whether features
of natural history depicted on that canvas are designed. In biology, for
instance, one can ask whether Michael Behe's irreducibly complex
biochemical machines are designed. Although design remains an important
issue in cosmology, the focus of the intelligent design movement is on
biology. That's where the action is. It was Darwin's expulsion of design
from biology that made possible the triumph of naturalism in Western
culture. So, too, it will be intelligent design's reinstatement of design within
biology that will be the undoing of naturalism in Western culture."
(Dembski W.A., "Intelligent Design," 1999, pp.13-14).
Terry's whole argument on IDers alleged "motive for the whole enterprise"
therefore fails as based on Terry's own misunderstanding of what ID is in
fact saying.
This misunderstanding probably arises and persists among the Theistic
Evolutionist/Evolutionary Creationists (TE/ECs) like Terry because they
deny that here is anything in the natural world which did not arise
naturalistically (ie. as the result of either law and chance).
Therefore they need to portray IDers as claiming that not "everything is
divinely designed" when the real problem is that TE/ECs maintain that
there is *only* the "canvas" level of design. TE/ECs simply rule out on
naturalistic philosophical grounds that there can also be a "painting" level
of design superimposed on the "canvas". IDers OTOH don't deny that the
"canvas" is designed. They simply affirm that there also may be a "painting"
level of design which can be empirically detected by scientific methods.
To avoid this type of misunderstanding, it would be a help if those making
a criticism of ID, at least quoted something that a leading IDer has written
on a topic under discussion, rather than just making it up off the top of the
critic's head. That way, at least we would be debating something that IDers
could be held accountable for.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Matter does not need special instructions to manufacture snowflakes or
sodium chloride. These forms are within its power. Not so with organic
forms. Thus living forms transcend all other natural forms, not merely
because of their unique activities (see Chapter 2) but also because the laws
of physics and chemistry alone cannot produce them. What does produce
them? What cause is responsible for the origin of the genetic code and
directs it to produce animal and plant species? It cannot be matter because
of itself matter has no inclination to these forms, any more than it has to the
form Poseidon or to the form of a microchip or any other artifact. There
must be a cause apart from matter that is able to shape and direct matter. Is
there anything in our experience like this? Yes, there is: our own minds.
The statue's form originates in the mind of the artist, who then
subsequently shapes matter, in the appropriate way. The artist's mind is the
ultimate cause of that form existing in matter, even if he or she invents a
machine to manufacture the statues. For the same reasons there must be a
mind that directs and shapes matter into organic forms. Even if it does so
by creating chemical mechanisms to carry out the task with autonomy, this
artist will be the ultimate cause of those forms existing in matter. This artist
is God, and nature is God's handiwork."(Augros R. & Stanciu G., "The
New Biology: Discovering the Wisdom in Nature," New Science Library,
Shambhala: Boston, MA, 1987, pp.190-191)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 02 2000 - 01:36:13 EST