Reflectorites
On Mon, 08 May 2000 16:05:35 -0500, Susan Brassfield wrote:
[...continued]
[...]
>>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).
>SJ>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.
SB>there is no "anti-ID" Science is unable to address ID. It's religion.
As previously stated:
1. ID is *not* "religion". There are members of the ID movement who are
religiously agnostic.
2. science *can* "address ID". There are whole branches of science whose
main task is to identify the products of intelligent design (e.g.
archaeology, SETI, forensic science).
3. science does "address ID". ID movement books like "Darwin on Trial"
and "Darwin's Black Box" have been reviewed in mainstream scientific
journals.
In fact in my current Biology textbook there is an interview with
Dawkins who discusses Paley's design argument and says that Darwin
showed that Paley was wrong:
"My reason for beginning The Blind Watchmaker was Paley. He really saw
the magnitude of the problem of adaptation when most people just didn't
see how elegant, how beautiful, apparent design in life is. Paley saw that,
and Darwin saw that. And Darwin was introduced to it at least partly by
Paley. All undergraduates at Cambridge had to read William Paley. He at
least put the question right. So the only thing Paley got wrong, which is
quite a big thing, was the answer to the question. And nobody got the right
answer until Charles Darwin in the nineteenth century." (Dawkins R.,
"Interview," in Campbell N.A., Reece J.B. & Mitchell L.G., "Biology,"
1999, p.412). Now if it is claimed that science showed that *real* design
was wrong and that it is only "apparent design", then science has (and is)
addressing ID.
>>SB>If *everything* is designed, then ID can't be tested for and
>>>therefore can't be disproved. It must simply be believed.
>SJ>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".
SB>Science must *presume* that nothing is designed.
Why?
And how does archaeology and SETI fit within those criteria?
SB>It can only study things it can detect or infer from facts.
That's OK by the ID movement.
>>SB>You can claim it
>>>is science and complain that evolutionary biologists deliberately ignore
>>>it--as Johnson does.
SJ>>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"
SB>It would (or should) be impossible to distinguish between "nothing is
>designed" and "everything is designed"
Even if this were true, it would make "everything is designed" empirically
equal to "nothing is designed".
But in fact those who say that "nothing is designed" produce evidence for
their claim (i.e. the argument from evil, imperfect designs, etc), while those
who claim that "everything is designed" produce evidence for their claim
(the various arguments for design, theodicies, etc).
SB>(that's why I said most IDers say
>"some things are designed. It gives them room to stand.).
Susan needs to distinguish between the different `canvas' and `painting'
levels of design. But I have no problem with IDer's who are only claiming
that "some things" (i.e. at the `painting' level) "are designed". Since
some IDers are agnostics, they do not need to affirm that there is design
at the `canvas' level.
[...]
>>SB>you haven't talked to my mother recently!!! it's all exactly scientific
>>>history! :-)
>SJ>This is interesting. It could perhaps explain some things?
SB>possibly! :-) However, when I was a child she was Catholic and not
>fundamentalist protestant as she is now.
I could exploit this, but I wont. Suffice to say that in 30 years as a Christian
I have observed that many children from overly strict Christian homes have
an visceral aversion to Christianity when they become adults. But the
problem was with their parents, not with Christianity. One doesn't have to
be Sigmund Freud to understand that it is easier for the child to blame
Christianity (and Christians), than their parents whom they love.
>>SB>...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.
>SJ>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."
SB>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?
The "Kansas School Board" and the "Louisiana and Oklahoma...`warnings'
are to do with the lack of scientific evidence for *macroevolution* not
about "Genesis" being "taught as science in public schools."
>SJ>Indeed, I am not even sure the ICR any longer wants "Genesis...taught as
>>science in public schools."
SB>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.
In fact I've got it. First, it doesn't about "Genesis" or the Bible. It
is strictly about the scientific evidence for and against evolution, and
"intelligent design" as an alternative.
Second, "Of Pandas and People" is not "an `alternative' textbook". It
explicitly states it is intended as a *supplemental* text, to be read along
with, rather than instead of, the normal biological textbooks:
"The authors and publisher want you to use this book as a supplement, not
a substitute, for your biology text; it cannot replace the main textbook. But
without Of Pandas and People, you would miss a lot of interesting science.
We hope you finish this book respecting good scientists of all persuasions;
we do. The subjects here are treated in depth, and digging deeper brings
richer rewards. Your textbook provides a lighter treatment of a broader
range of topics. Wander back and forth between the two, using each to
enrich the other." (Davis P. & Kenyon D.H., "Of Pandas and People,"
1993, p.ix).
>SJ>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.
SB>and distract attention away from the fact that there is no such thing as
>science without the naturalistic assumption.
It may be that ID could even fit within this demarcation criterion. All
that ID claims is that there are effects of intelligent causes in nature which
can be empirically detected apart from effects of unintelligent causes:
"What is science going to look like once Intelligent Design succeeds?
To answer this question we need to be clear what we mean by
Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is not repackaged creationism,
nor religion masquerading as science. Intelligent Design holds that
intelligent causation is an irreducible feature of the bio-physical
universe, and furthermore that intelligent causation is empirically
detectable. It is unexceptionable that intelligent causes can do things
which unintelligent causes cannot. Intelligent Design provides a
method for distinguishing between intelligent and unintelligent causes,
and then applies this method to the special sciences."
(Dembski W.A., "The Explanatory Filter," The Real Issue, 16 May 1997.
http://www.origins.org/mc/resources/r19602/dembski.html)
So if intelligent causes are empirically detected in nature, science could
still claim they were naturalistic intelligent causes (e.g. extraterrestrials,
time-travellers, or even an intelligent universe).
Behe actually covers some of these possibility in "Darwin's Black Box":
"Francis Crick also thinks that life on earth may have begun when aliens
from another planet sent a rocket ship containing spores to seed the
earth...The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that
he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable
obstacle, but he wants a naturalistic explanation. For our present purposes,
the interesting part of Crick's idea is the role of the aliens, whom he has
speculated sent space bacteria to earth. But he could with as much
evidence say that the aliens actually designed the irreducibly complex
biochemical systems of the life they sent here...Designing life, it could be
pointed out, does not necessarily require supernatural abilities; rather, it
requires a lot of intelligence....there is no logical barrier to thinking that an
advanced civilization on another world might design an artificial cell from
scratch. This scenario still leaves open the question of who designed the
designer-how did life originally originate? Is a philosophical naturalist now
trapped? Again, no. The question of the design of the designer can be put
off in several ways. It could be deflected by invoking unobserved entities:
perhaps the original life is totally unlike ourselves, consisting of fluctuating
electrical fields or gases; perhaps it does not require irreducibly complex
structures to sustain it. Another possibility is time travel, which has been
seriously proposed by professional physicists in recent years...Perhaps,
then, biochemists in the future will send back cells to the early earth that
contain the information for the irreducibly complex structures we observe
today. In this scenario humans can be their own aliens, their own advanced
civilization....Most people, like me, will find these scenarios entirely
unsatisfactory, but they are available for those who wish to avoid
unpleasant theological implications." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box,"
1996, p248).
SB>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.
I thought I had already answered this before. The first thing is that if
science admitted intelligent design it would not necessarily have to cease
being naturalistic (see above).
Second, one immediate change would be that "Biologists" would not have
to "constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed..." (Crick
F.H.C., "What Mad Pursuit," 1990, p.138). In my Biology textbook cited
earlier Dawkins raves on how great apparent design is. Presumably even
Dawkins would have to agree that if design was shown to be *real* then
that would be even better.
Third, the `culture war' that science has spending a lot of time, money and
energy fighting with creationists for decades, might be defused to the
benefit of the whole culture generally. This `war' is hurting science in
that it is tending to alienate it from general public, the majority of whom
believe in design. This could affect science in at least two ways: 1) some
young people who might otherwise make excellent scientists might decide
not to enter science; and 2) science depends on the general public for
much of its funding and if a large slice of the public feels that science is at
`war' with them they may elect to have their taxes spent elswehere.
Fourth, even if the acceptance of the reality of design made no practical
difference to science, if design was true it would be worth knowing it so
that science could be more complete. Science these days is spending
megabucks on things that may have little or no practical benefit, just so
it can obtain a more complete picture of reality.
As an analogy, consider automotive engineers working for Ford Motor Co.
They can certainly know all about how Ford motor cars work now, without
knowing anything about Henry Ford. Indeed, it might even be better for
them as engineers who are still trying to learn how Ford cars work in the
here and now that they not have to know about Henry Ford, because
that might introduce unnecessary complications at that stage.
But it would be false to conclude that because knowing about Henry Ford
might complicate their task as engineers in learning about how Ford Cars
work, therefore Henry Ford never existed! The fact that humans have
limitations which force them at first to concentrate on only small chunks of the
big picture, and that this has proved to be more successful than trying to
learn it all at once, does not mean that ultimately Henry Ford would not
eventually have to be included, in order to have a complete explanation
of the Ford motor car.
BTW the analogy with Henry Ford is not far-fetched. Francis Crick himself
has likened the production of proteins by the cell to Henry Ford's assembly
line:
"The cell is thus a minute factory, bustling with rapid, organized chemical
activity. Under suitable molecular controls, enzymes busily synthesize
lengths of messenger RNA. A ribosome will jump onto each messenger
RNA molecule, moving along it, reading off its base-sequence and stringing
together amino acids (carried to it by tRNA molecules) to make a
polypeptide chain which, when finished, will fold on itself and become a
protein. Nature invented the assembly line some billions of years before
Henry Ford. Moreover, this assembly line produces many different highly
specific proteins, the machine tools of the cell, which themselves shape and
reshape the organic chemical molecules in order to provide raw material for
the assembly lines and also all the molecules needed to build the structure
of the factory, provide it with energy, dispose of the garbage and a host of
other functions. " (Crick F., "Life Itself," 1981, pp.70-71).
[continued...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ Email: sejones@iinet.net.au
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Web: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Warwick 6024 -> *_,--\_/ Phone: +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, Western Australia v "Test everything." (1 Thess. 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 13 2000 - 06:57:04 EDT