Steve C:
> People on this reflector seem to divide the world into
>materialists and nonmaterialists. Kind of a black and white view of
>things, I think.
Bertvan:
I'll try to break myself of that habit.
Steve C:
>I explained in an earlier exchange that I am a complementarian. I believe
>that the world was designed and created by an intelligent being. Yet, I
>also believe that reality (as you put it) cannot be fully understood by
>science. Science can inform us about the physical world and its workings,
>but doesn't inform us about things it is not equipped to deal with. These
>are things like purpose and ID and the physiology of angels. These aspects
>of reality are best understood using other ways of knowing, not by
>science. Decartes talked about internal and external ways of knowing, and
>I think that this division of knowledge of reality is useful.
>I think that people who claim that science disproves God and purpose are
>guilty of making claims that are not warranted. If evolution, for
>instance, has a random component to it, they cannot legitimately claim that
>this removes all need for God in understanding reality. They would be more
>accurate to say that the appearance of randomness is consistent with an
>idea that God does not exist. But the appearance of randomness is fully
>compatible with the notion that God does exist and uses the randomness to
>His advantage. There is no way that science can tell us which of these two
>notions is correct.
>In other words, it is inappropriate to say that science proves a certain
>metaphysical world viewpoint. It does not because it does not address
>questions of metaphysics. As I have said before, we need to keep our
>physics and metaphysics better separated. This is the complementarian view.
Bertvan;
While not identical to my thoughts, I can find little with which to disagree
in any of that. I would only suggest that "if God does exist and uses the
randomness to His advantage", whatever is the "will of God" would not be
random. I am puzzled why you actively oppose ID? Some people's version of
ID is not that different from your view of reality. Why do you believe
science would be harmed if some scientists work under the assumption that the
universe is the result of a rational design -- each piece an essential part
of the whole. Many IDs propose scientific methods to investigate the details
of the design - the same methods used by those who believe no design exists,
that nature is the result of accidental, random processes. It is my
conviction that no plausible "theory of evolution" presently exists. While I
am skeptical of most YEC claims, I can't see where their speculations do any
more harm that those of Darwinists (random mutation and natural selection).
Steve C:
>I believe that humans have free will and are able to choose. As for the
>rest of what you write, I thinkg that you are confusing the existence
>of alternative responses with choice. I'll illustrate with a simple
>example; cells can either divide or die. The "decision" here can either be
>stochastic (random) or instructive (affected by the environment)--e.g.,
>certain hormones can remove the random "decision" and induce either death
>or growth. I wouldn't call this intelligence even though cells have the
>ability to respond to the environment. This response is quite passive and
>I think that a component of choice would be that it is an active process.
Bertvan:
Here we have a disagreement, one which may never be resolved, but one that
could distinguish Darwinists from IDs. You apparently believe humans
exercise choice, but the rest of nature only exerts passive response to the
environment. I'm still curious where you draw the distinction - primates?
mammals? Etc. Take your example of "cells can divide or die". We speak of
a human "will to live" which varies from individual to individual. Do you
entertain the possibility that such a quality could affect the "real world of
molecules", or do you discount it completely? (Your choice, since it
probably can't be proved or measured.) If you do acknowledge it, do you
consider it restricted to humans? Primates? Mammals? Etc. Take the act of
symbiosis as another example. It the experiments cited by Tedd, most of the
bacteria died, but some formed symbiotic relationships. A Darwinist might
say it was random event, IDs might keep looking for some pattern defining
those who died and those who joined in a symbiotic relationship.
Meiosis is another example. Darwinists are content to call it random, IDs
might keep looking for some difference between the DNA that is discarded and
that which is passed on to the next generation, some difference which could
include purpose. Darwinists might declare which sperm fertilizes the egg to
be a random event. It sure doesn't appear random to me. It looks like a
contest that might well include purpose.
Steve C:
>Would you consider Dawkins' and Doolittle's concept of the selfish gene as
>an example of the sort of intelligence you refer to?
Bertvan:
You have shocked me to the core by making me realize I could be in agreement
with Dawkins on something.
>Bertvan
>http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 22 2000 - 18:27:29 EDT