I'll have no problem accepting Stephen's comments and in fact I do not
doubt that IDer's, if they are Christian, do in fact regard the "canvas" as
being designed. Dembski's quote shows that well. Thanks for keeping me
honest, Steve. But, really, my point is made even more pointedly by the
distinctions that Stephen makes. You see, rather than argue as Stephen has
accused me in the following quote:
>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).
I want to to argue that in one sense nothing arises "naturalistically (i.e.
as the result of either law and chance) and that everything is
designed--even the flop of hair on my head or the arrangement of the sand
on the seashore or the particular arrangement of gas molecules in the room
at this particular point in time. This is what IDer's object to because
then there is no difference between the special instance of design that
supposedly cannot be explained naturalistically and the special instance of
design that can be explained naturalistically. The want to use the term
design to only apply to the former case.
I don't have the time to find the old email where my ID discussion partner
at the time--it may have even have been Stephen Meyer or Bill Dembski. But
the upshot of the discussion was this very point. They did not want me
calling everything "designed" because that takes the sting out of their
special instance of design. I still believe that the heart of this debate
lies in our attempt to treat God as human designer. We fail to see him as
the sovereign Lord over every detail of creation. No human designer
sustains the very being of his/her designed thing. No human designer gives
to the designed thing the very properties that the designed thing needs.
We're not dealing with artifacts here the way we would think about an
archeological dig or SETI.
Now I've often said that I'm willing in principle to accept a miraculously
designed thing if I thought the evidence pointed to that, I still maintain
that. (Although I don't think that there is any Biblical-theological reason
to expect it in origins except wrt origin of human beings.) What irks me
most about IDers is their appeal to passages like Romans 1 and Psalm 19 as
suggesting their enterprise as if the heavens didn't declare the glory of
God until Mike Behe told us about the irreducible complexity of molecular
motors or as if God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine
nature--were not clearly seen until Steve Meyer told us about the
information content of DNA. Give me a break! These passage are talking
about the canvas as a whole and the creation was doing its thing long
before our detailed knowledge of biology came about. And these passages are
not simply talking about knowledge that mankind didn't understand (at the
time) as if the ancient psalmist was wowed into confessing God as creator
but we wouldn't be today because we know alot more about stars than he did.
TG
>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
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
grayt@lamar.colostate.edu http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 03 2000 - 18:02:56 EDT