>Reflectorites
>
>On Tue, 02 May 2000 11:52:12 -0500, Susan Brassfield wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>SJ>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).
>
>SB>the idea's been around for 200 years!!! Creationists have hardly kept it a
>>secret.
>
>I presume Susan is referring to William Paley's argument from design?
>Well, although it was published in 1802, it fell out of favour, not IMHO
>through any great fault in it. I am halfway through reading Paley's "Natural
>Theology" and it is a *great* book!
>
>But while there have always been individuals who have kept the design
>argument alive (e.g. R.E.D. Clark), the modern ID *movement* has only
>been in existence for 10-15 years.
Johnson has popularized it as a new line of rhetoric, but if the idea had
any *scientific* merit, it might not have "fallen out of favor" in the 19th
century.
>>>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.
>
>>SJ>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.
>
>>SJ>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."
>
>SB>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.
>
>That's like saying that if the canvas a painting is painted on is designed
>then
>one can't detect the painting itself is designed!
one can distinguish the picture of the tree and the canvas itself and the
paint *from the tree*. You can say the picture of the tree, the canvas, and
the paint are designed--by humans--and the tree is not. IF the canvas, the
paint, the tree, and the picture of the tree, etc. are *all* designed, then
there is no backdrop against which to distinguish the designed thing.
>The whole ID movement's argument is about detecting the "painting" level
>of design, superimposed on the "canvas" level of design.
the the painting and the canvas are obviously designed--by humans-- and are
easily distinguishable from the "nondesigned" world. If the universe and
everything in it are "designed" we can't point to something that's *not*
designed. Everything just is as it is.
>SB>I think this clearly exposes the
>>entirely religious underpinnings of design.
>
>My own experience contradicts this. As I have documented in testimony on
>my web page, I was originally an atheist from a totally non-Christian
>background. In my late teens I became a theist by just looking up at the
>night sky. The impression of design was overwhelming, and I said to myself
>"there *must* be a God! But I remained a true agnostic. That is I believed
>there was a God but there was no way of knowing anything more about
>Him.
I agree that "design" and "god" are intimately linked as you have shown.
Design is not science, it's religion. It's ok with me if you believe all
that stuff, just don't try to make it *science.* The idea that *everything*
is designed (by the Judeo-Christian god of course) saves Genesis the
indignity of trying to be a science text and restores its original message.
>SB>You must *believe* that
>>everything is designed because there's no way to prove it.
>
>That goes without saying. But equally Susan must believe that nothing is
>designed because she can't prove that either.
I don't believe that anything is designed by an intelligence, that is true.
It is a bald belief. You may take comfort in the fact that I don't believe
in lots and lots of gods--I don't single yours out. However, *I* am not
science. Design is undetectable by science because it is *religion* as you
illustrated above.
>SB>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.
>
>I agree that in general religious beliefs should not passed off as
>science. But
>having said that, there are two problems there:
>
>1. Some "religious beliefs" are also the subject of "science". For example,
>the *origin* of things is the subject of the Christian religion's beliefs
>and it
>is also the subject of science's beliefs; and
>
>2. Scientists don't restrain their *non*-"religious beliefs".
>Evolutionists are
>often pontificating about and sometimes ridiculing "religious beliefs". In my
>Biology class my two lecturers made known they were atheists (why?) and
>they continually interject snide comments about God and religion.
because you and your co-religionists are always attacking them. They waste
a lot of time defending themselves from religious nit-picking and outright
propaganda, distortions and misrepresentations. Yep. They don't care for
you much, even when they sometimes are Christians themselves.
>>SJ>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.
>
>SB>hmm . . . how does this statement jibe with your statement above "Actually
>>I don't think that *any* "ID proponents adhere to #2"."
>
>I am not sure what the problem is. Perhaps Susan can clarify?
your two statements seem to conflict. Canvases and paintings contrast
themselves with the natural world. Therefore I thought you were saying
Dembski believed that some things were natural and not designed.
>>SJ>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":
>
>SB>it is well known that Gray was religiously uncomfortable with Darwin's
>>theory. So what?
>
>Actually Gray was very comfortable with "Darwin's theory". He actually
>was the major promoter of it in the USA. It was the later anti-design spin
>that Darwin put on his theory that Gray didn't agree with.
hmm. . . it's been a while since I've read Darwin's biography, but I don't
think it had anything to do with "Darwin's anti-design spin." Darwin was
terrified of you creationists. That's why he waited to the last possible
moment to publish his book. Even after he published *Origin* his subsequent
books mostly stuck to describing the results of his experiments and
observations. Grey and the creationists of Darwin's day drew their own
"spin." Gray may have been scientificly pretty much OK with Darwin's
theory--he was Darwins good friend and an honest scientist--but he was
sharp enough to figure out the religious implications himself and he didn't
like them.
>>>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*.
>
>>SJ>Indeed. And they do.
>
>SB>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?
>
>It is not so much that "Darwinian evolution" itself which "make them" (i.e.
>Christian theists) "so uncomfortable" but the atheistic spin that has
>increasingly been put on the theory by Darwin and his followers.
no. The "atheistic spin" was put on by YOU. Science says nothing about
religion. It is the religionists that decided the thing was "atheistic."
>Besides, atheists have no option but to believe in some form of evolution.
that's not true. How would you oblige anyone to believe anything? That's
just your assumption showing that evolution is "atheist."
>But if one believes in an "omnipotent" God then one is free to believe other
>alternatives, if that's what the evidence points to.
:-) and even if the evidence doesn't point there.
>[...]
>
>>SJ>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."
>
>SB>the whole creationist agenda is to preserve the absolute fact of the
>>Genesis creation.
>
>That might be the *young-Earth* "creationist agenda" but it is not *the*
>"creationist agenda". Old-Earth/Progressive creationists don't have an
>agenda "to preserve the absolute fact of the Genesis creation", at least
>not in the Biblical literalist sense.
So you say. Most Biblical inerrantists identify some parts of the Bible
that they think are "metaphor" or "poetry." That all of you don't agree on
which parts are hard scientific fact and which parts are poetry is among
you guys. I don't really care. No part of the Bible gets to be taught
instead of science.
>SB>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.
>This makes out that Johnson and Behe and the ID movement (and me)
>started out as YECs and became IDers. But they (and I) have never been
>YECs and those who are YECs in the ID movement are still YECs.
so what?
>SB>That's why ID in its modern version is so attractive.
>
>I am glad Susan thinks the ID movement is "attractive"! :-)
>
>SB>It's tremendously more vague than "Creation science" which actually made
>>some scientific claims that could be tested (and were then immediatly
>>proved false).
>
>I have no argument with the latter. But ID, being a more general theory or
>paradigm is no more "vague" than its opposite: anti-ID.
there is no "anti-ID" Science is unable to address ID. It's religion.
>SB>If *everything* is designed, then ID can't be tested for and
>>therefore can't be disproved. It must simply be believed.
>
>If that is the case then its opposite that: "1. nothing is designed by an
>intelligent agent" which Susan says "obviously is the naturalistic
>evolutionist position" equally "can't be tested for and therefore can't be
>disproved" and "must simply be believed".
Science must *presume* that nothing is designed. It can only study things
it can detect or infer from facts.
>SB>You can claim it
>>is science and complain that evolutionary biologists deliberately ignore
>>it--as Johnson does.
>
>First, Susan has just confirmed that "evolutionary biologists deliberately
>ignore it", i.e. the "canvas" level of design, by her claim that it "is the
>naturalistic evolutionist position" that "nothing is designed by an
>intelligent
>agent"
It would (or should) be impossible to distinguish between "nothing is
designed" and "everything is designed" (that's why I said most IDers say
"some things are designed. It gives them room to stand.).
>>SJ>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.
>
>SB>you haven't talked to my mother recently!!! it's all exactly scientific
>>history! :-)
>
>This is interesting. It could perhaps explain some things?
possibly! :-) However, when I was a child she was Catholic and not
fundamentalist protestant as she is now.
>SB>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.
>
>Susan is starting to believe her own propaganda. There is no one AFAIK,
>certainly no leader, in the "Intelligent Design" movement who wants
>"Genesis...taught as science in public schools."
oh, really? Then why did the Kansas School Board bother? What were the
Alabama, Louisiana and Oklahoma legislatures thinking when they tried to
have creationist "warnings" put in textbooks?
>Indeed, I am not even sure the ICR any longer wants "Genesis...taught as
>science in public schools."
yes, they do. Ever seen or heard of a book called "Of Pandas and People"?
It's creationist propaganda and the fight is constantly on to get it used
as an "alternative" textbook in public schools.
>All that the "Intelligent Design" movement wants for now is for the
>philosophical underpinnings of evolution and its many problems to be
>brought out into the open for discussion.
and distract attention away from the fact that there is no such thing as
science without the naturalistic assumption. So what would science
*without* the naturalistic assumption look like? What would the world look
like if you got your wish? I haven't been able to figure that out and
haven't gotten a clear answer from you are from my reading of Johnson.
>>SJ>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:
>
>SB>St. Paul was also heavy into Greek thought. So what?
>
>Again I fail to understand Susan's point.
A lot of his writings were saturated with Greek (ie pagan) philosophy which
he much admired. The "soul" is obviously modeled on Plato's "essential
essence."
>[...]
>
>SB>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.
>
>I have no problem with that. I call myself a "creationist." The problem I
>have is with Susan's continual confusing of "creationist" with *young-
>Earth* "creationist", ie. ignoring that there are "old-Earth/progressive
>creationists." She does it so often, after I have pointed out her error
>that I
>am beginning to think that it is deliberate.
other than the fact that I just don't care about the distinctions, it is
deliberate. "Creationist" is someone who wants that evil atheist science
ignored and the Bible in its place.
>SB>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!
>
>Theistic evolutionists, as described above by Susan sounds like a very
>convenient belief for those Christians to have. Imagine, something as
>important as God making the living world and yet it having "no theological,
>ethical, or moral implications for" them!
For them, God not only made the world, but evolution and the Big Bang as
well. As I said above, science merely observes His handiwork. Genesis is a
discription of how humans properly relate to a deity. NOT a science text.
>>SJ>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.
>
>SB>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.
>
>Science was practiced for centuries without assuming "Materialistic-
>naturalism". The only valid reason for "Materialistic-naturalism" being
>"required for science" would be if "Materialistic-naturalism" was ultimately
>*true*.
Science didn't truly exist before the Enlightenment and the invention of
the scientific method.
>If it is possible that there is a God and that He could have intervened in
>and/or guided the origin and development of life, then it is *absurd* to
>assume in advance that He didn't.
no its not. It is *undetectible*. Even if one completely assumes that he
did. It would still be undetectable and therefore irrelevant.
>SB>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.
>
>Yes we have. It's simple. Don't assume in advance that you know what
>*must* have happened, just because it is what you would *like* to have
>happened, but have an open mind to *all* logical possibilities.
"God did it" is not a logical possibility.
>Science should be "a search for truth, no holds barred" (Ratzsch D.L.,
>"The Battle of Beginnings," 1996, p.168)
"God did it" *Automatically* "bars some holds." It prevents further
investigation. After all you might discover that "nature did it." However,
if you might decide that God is the author of all of nature. If you decide
that, then science is left unmolested to investigate where it will.
>>>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.)
>
>>SJ>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:
>>
>>>"...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)
>
>SB>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.
>
>The Greek and Roman idea of "gods" was pretty low. It was not the same as
>the Jewish concept of the one and only true God.
Stephen, that is one of the weakest darned arguments I've ever seen come
out of your keyboard!
>I read somewhere that the Roman emperors did not really believe that they
>were a god - it was just politics, except maybe Nero who *was* mad.
Jesus was a Jewish carpenter. He probably believed it. He was mistaken.
>But if they *really* thought they were God, in the Jewish sense of the one
>and only true God, then they were fruitcakes in my book.
>
>Jesus, was a Jew who strongly but indirectly claimed to be God (Bill is
>right on that at least), and his Jewish follower's understood Him to be God.
>If He wasn't God then He was a fruitcake.
Or he was a sincere man who was mistaken.
>SB>Christ could have similarly been mistaken
>
>If Jesus was mistaken about Himself being God, then He was simply a
>fruitcake. Anyone who went around today mistakenly claiming they were
>God (in the Judeo-Christian sense) of the one true God, would be
>committed to a mental asylum.
You've never heard the phrase "thou art God?" It's implied in the Hindu
"shanti."
>SB>and it would not damage the rest of his message at all.
>
>Of course it would. Every time one got to something they didn't like, they
>would just assume that Jesus was mistaken. So it would not really Jesus
>they were following but *themselves*! They might as well dispense with
>the pretext they are following Jesus and honestly admit that they are just
>trying to live good lives according to current community standards.
why, because you have a personal, extremely narrow definition of Christian?
>SB>It's my understanding his godhood was decided by vote 400 years after
>>he died, anyway.
>
>Susan's "understanding" is simply wrong. Jesus "goodhood" is clearly
>evident in the New Testament writings which were completed by ~100 AD.
>The great church councils (e.g. Nicea 325 AD, Constantinople 381 AD,
>Ephesus 449 AD, and Chalcedon 451 AD, merely ratified what the
>majority of the Christian community had always believed, from the New
>Testament writings.
Right, they voted.
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 : Mon May 08 2000 - 17:07:26 EDT