>Reflectorites
>
>On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 16:53:25 -0500, Susan Brassfield wrote:
>
>SB>Naturally, I've been thinking about ID a lot over the last few months. My
>>original opinion--that it's propaganda with no visible means of
>>support--has remained unchanged, but I had an idea about it recently and I
>>thought I'd share it with the list.
>
>From ID's perspective, it is a major achievement that its critics are even
>thinking about it! Of course as a committed atheistic evolutionist, Susan
>has no alternative but to think that ID is "propaganda with no visible means
>of support" (see below).
the idea's been around for 200 years!!! Creationists have hardly kept it a
secret.
>SB>There are three main ideas about intelligent design: 1. nothing is designed
>>by an intelligent agent; 2. some things are designed by an intelligent
>>agent and some things are formed by natural forces; 3. *everything* is
>>designed by an intelligent agent.
>>
>>#1 obviously is the naturalistic evolutionist position.
>
>See my comment above!
>
>SB>It seems that most
>>of the ID proponents adhere to #2 and I've always been a little astonished
>>at that.
>
>Actually I don't think that *any* "ID proponents adhere to #2". All ID
>proponents, and indeed all Christian theists, AFAIK, believe that ; "3.
>*everything* is designed by an intelligent agent."
in that case how is anyone supposed to detect design? If EVERYTHING is
designed, there is no way to detect it. There's no way to compare something
designed to something not designed. I think this clearly exposes the
entirely religious underpinnings of design. You must *believe* that
everything is designed because there's no way to prove it. That's fine. I
have no problem with religious beliefs as long as they are not passed off
as science. Or as long as no one attempts to substitute these religious
beliefs for science in public schools.
>As Dembski's illustration of the design of "canvas" and "painting" below
>helps to clarify, the debate between "ID proponents" and other theists is
>about *levels* of design, not design itself:
>"ID proponents" in the main, argue that the Designer has designed in
>natural history at *both* the "canvas" and "painting" levels. Theistic
>Evolutionists, do not deny that the Designer has designed but they usually
>deny He has designed at the "painting" level.
hmm . . . how does this statement jibe with your statement above "Actually
I don't think that *any* "ID proponents adhere to #2"."
>It was the great Theistic Evolutionist, Asa Gray, and early friend and
>confidante of Darwin, who said that the outright denial of design was
>"tantamount to atheism":
it is well known that Gray was religiously uncomfortable with Darwin's
theory. So what?
>SB>You'd think that a group of people who want their god to be
>>omnipotent would say that he/she/it had designed *everything*.
>
>Indeed. And they do.
ok. In that case why does Darwinian evolution make them so uncomfortable?
Wouldn't it be perfectly obvious that God was in charge of evolution? That
an investigation of evolution, for a Christian, would be an investigation
of God's handiwork?
>SB>It finally
>>occurred to me that creationists *can't* take that position because that
>>means that everything simply is as it is. God made the Big Bang, evolution
>>and all the rest and the natural sciences merely examine God's handiwork.
>>That doesn't leave Genesis as a science text.
>
>I don't understand Susan's point here. I am a creationist who
>believes that God has "designed *everything*" and I have no
>problem with "the Big Bang". I don't even have a problem with
>"evolution" if it was true. And I don't regard "Genesis as a science
>text."
the whole creationist agenda is to preserve the absolute fact of the
Genesis creation. Creationists have, indeed, (some of them anyway--this
certainly doesn't include Gish or Hovind) been forced to change tactics as
facts became more and more undeniable. That's why ID in its modern version
is so attractive.
It's tremendously more vague than "Creation science" which actually made
some scientific claims that could be tested (and were then immediatly
proved false). If *everything* is designed, then ID can't be tested for and
therefore can't be disproved. It must simply be believed. You can claim it
is science and complain that evolutionary biologists deliberately ignore
it--as Johnson does.
>SB>I mean, the whole point of creationism is to not only keep Genesis as
>>literally true, but to preserve the idea of original sin, the fall, and the
>>ultimate redemption from sin by the sacrifice of Jesus.
>
>This is probably the main motivation behind *young-Earth* "creationism".
>Old-Earth creationists still believe in "original sin, the fall, and the
>ultimate
>redemption from sin by the sacrifice of Jesus," but they don't believe that
>"Genesis" is "literally true" in the sense of the days being 24-hours, etc.
you haven't talked to my mother recently!!! it's all exactly scientific
history! :-) at least for most creationists such as the people trying to
get disclaimers in science text books, get evolutionary evidence suppressed
in public schools, etc. They don't give a flying flip about philosophical
underpinnings of science. They want Genesis (and no other creation myth, of
course) taught as science in public schools. And if some claptrap about
"Intelligent Design" gets that goal accomplished, great.
>I must say at this point that the Bible does not actually use the words "the
>fall" and "original sin". These concepts were probably introduced into
>medieval Christian theology by Augustine, who had a Greek Platonic
>background. They are no so much wrong as inexact:
St. Paul was also heavy into Greek thought. So what?
>SB>If God made
>>*everything* and the natural sciences are true as scientists have
>>discovered them, then that might leave you as a theist, but it doesn't
>>leave you as a Christian--exactly. (Of course, you can remain Christian and
>>be an evolutionist.
>
>Again, I don't follow Susan's point here. She seems to think that there are
>only two categories of "Christians": young-Earth creationists and theistic
>evolutionists. She seems to be ignoring old-Earth/progressive creationists.
I tend to lump all Christians who fight evolution tooth and nail in spite
of the huge amount of evidence supporting it under the general term
"creationist." You guys can decide amoung yourselves what kind of
creationist you are. Theistic evolutionists--people who know evolution is
true and that it has no theological, ethical, or moral implications for
Christians--are not creationists in my book. I don't mind if people have
religion. Heck, I've got a lot of them as you can see if you've been to my
website!
>The only disagreement I have is with the materialistic-naturalistic
>*philosophy* of most leading scientists. IOW I don't disagree with the
>*facts* "as scientists have discovered them" but I do disagree with their
>materialistic-naturalistic *interpretation* of those facts.
you are assuming that evolution has something to do with religion. It
doesn't. "Materialistic-naturalism" is required for science. There's no way
to conduct science without that assumption. Or, at least, neither you nor
Johnson has come up with any viable suggestions as to how one would go
about conducting science without that assumption.
>SB> I know Unitarians who are atheists and who think of
>>themselves as Christian because they follow the example and leadership of
>>Christ--they merely think the man, Christ, was mistaken about the existence
>>of a deity.)
>
>I am glad that Susan recognises the absurdity of this position. These so-
>called `Christians' haven't faced up to the fact that Jesus was either who He
>said He was, namely God, or else he was a complete fruit-cake:
>"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that
>people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral
>teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we
>must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things
>Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic
>- on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg- or else he would
>be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and
>is, the Son of God: or else a madman or some thing worse. You can shut
>Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can
>fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any
>patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not
>left that open to us. He did not intend to." (Lewis C.S., "Mere
>Christianity," 1977, p52)
both you and Lewis are presenting a false dichotomy. Alexander the Great
was far from a lunatic or a fruitcake and believed in the literal existence
of Zeus and Aphrodite--he also believed (or said he did) that he, himself
was a god. Most of the Roman emporors believed they were either gods or
descended from gods. They were mistaken, obviously. Christ could have
similarly been mistaken and it would not damage the rest of his message at
all. It's my understanding his godhood was decided by vote 400 years after
he died, anyway.
>SB>I don't have any idea where all this leads, but I had a feeling a few of
>>you might have some comments!
>
>I thank Susan for this thought-provoking post.
you are welcome!
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"Zircon dating, which calculates a fossil's age by measuring the relative
>amounts of uranium and lead within the crystals, had been whittling away
>at the Cambrian for some time. By 1990, for example, new dates obtained
>from early Cambrian sites around the world were telescoping the start of
>biology's Big Bang from 600 million years ago to less than 560 million
>years ago. Now, with information based on the lead content of zircons
>from Siberia, virtually everyone agrees that the Cambrian started almost
>exactly 543 million years ago and, even more startling, that all but one of
>the phyla in the fossil record appeared within the first 5 million to 10
>million years. "We now know how fast fast is," grins Bowring. "And what I
>like to ask my biologist friends is, How fast can evolution get before they
>start feeling uncomfortable?" (Nash J.M., "When Life Exploded", Time,
>December 4, 1995, p74.
>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/archive/1995/951204/cover.html)
>Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
also from the above article:
"Every few weeks, it seems, a new piece of the puzzle falls into place.
Just last month, in an article
published by the journal Nature, an international team of scientists
reported finding the
exquisitely preserved remains of a 1-in.- to 2-in.-long animal that
flourished in the Cambrian
oceans 525 million years ago. From its flexible but sturdy spinal rod, the
scientists deduced that
this animal--dubbed Yunnanozoon lividum, after the Chinese province in
which it was
found--was a primitive chordate, the oldest ancestor yet discovered of the
vertebrate branch of
the animal kingdom, which includes Homo sapiens. "
Susan
----------
For if there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing
of life as in hoping for another and in eluding the implacable grandeur of
this one.
--Albert Camus
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 02 2000 - 12:54:04 EDT