Reflectorites
I thought I had already sent this. Apologies for the delay. Even more
apologies if you got it twice!
On Wed, 17 May 2000 13:21:10 -0500, Susan Brassfield wrote:
[...]
>SJ>As Susan's own "rhetoric" shows, in the area of evolution, "scientific merit"
>>comes a poor second to philosophical prejudice.
SB>I have a strong prejudice in favor of factual evidence. None is possible
>with ID. There is only air, most of it hot.
Susan's "None is possible with ID" proves my point! As far as
Susan is concerned, it would not matter what "factual evidence" ID
put forward (and they are putting some, e.g. Behe's "Darwin's Black
Box"), Susan would always reject it as "only air, most of it hot".
Fortunately, it is not necessary for ID to convince die-hard atheists
like Susan. It is only necessary to show the *general public* that: 1)
their intuitive belief in design does have "factual evidence"
supporting it; and 2) the anti-designists have little or no "factual
evidence" supporting *their* position, just philosophic "air, most of it
hot"!
>SJ>The simple fact is that
>>Paley's argument has never been refuted, but was just ignored:
>>"But exactly where, we may ask, was Paley refuted?..."
>(Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box," 1996, p.213).
SB>that Behe said it isn't exactly compelling. This is just
>argument by assertion.
Behe actually provides evidence in his book to support his
"assertion". But it would make no difference to atheists like Susan.
No matter what evidence is put forward, it is simply rejected by
Susan outright, in *her* atheist "argument by assertion."
[...]
>SJ>Maybe Susan should go into an art gallery and have a look around, but don't
>>tell anyone she can't tell the difference between the painting on the
>>walls and the paintings on the walls!
SB>The paint, the canvas and the walls are all designed by humans. I can
>distinguish walls from cliffs.
It makes no difference to ID theory who did the designing: whether
humans, aliens, human time-travellers, or the Christian God.
That Susan can "can distinguish walls from cliffs" and also "walls
from" paintings is sufficient for my point that humans can
distinguish intuitively between different levels of design.
All Dembski is doing is putting this intuition on a sound
mathematical, scientific basis.
>SJ>Susan still hasn't grasped the fact that there can be different *levels* of
>>design, which are easily distinguished from each other. Leonardo's fresco
>>"The Last Supper" is painted on a monastery wall. Now an intelligent
>>human designer had designed that wall, but we can tell the difference
>>between that level of design and Leonardo's, fresco.
SB>"levels" of design? are you serious? The walls, the painting and the canvas
>are all equally designed!
I am glad Susan *finally* admits it! But they are also *differently*
designed. That all is designed does not mean that different levels of
design cannot be distinguished.
>>>SJ>The whole ID movement's argument is about detecting the "painting" level
>>>>of design, superimposed on the "canvas" level of design.
>>SB>the the painting and the canvas are obviously designed--by humans-- and are
>>>easily distinguishable from the "nondesigned" world.
>SJ>It is only Susan's materialistic-naturalistic *philosophy* which says that
>>the world is "nondesigned". The Christian theist's philosophy says that
>>the world is *designed*.
SB>do you think I really meant that? or do you think I may have meant
>"undesigned by humans" (since that was what I was talking about.)
Yes, of course I mean that. *Every* Christian theist (including
Theistic Evolutionists) would have to acknowledge that "the world is
*designed*". As I have quoted the great Theistic Evolutionist Asa
Gray, the outright denial of design (i.e. at the level of the "world")
would be tantamount to atheism.
[...]
SB>And thank
>you again for confirming the religious origin of the design "theory"
First, Susan is not even following the argument! When I am talking
the `painting' level of design, I am talking about ID theory. When I
are talking about the `canvas' level of design I am talking about
Christian theism. Christian theism must assert that everything (i.e.
at least the `canvas' level) is designed. ID theory does not have to
assert that everything is designed. It voluntarily restricts itself to
*empirically detectable* design at the `painting' level.
Second, I might add that Susan, as an strong atheist, must assert
that *nothing* is designed. That's why she has to put quotation
marks around "theory" as in design theory. To Susan, there simply
*cannot* be any such things as a genuine scientific theory of
design.
Third, as I have pointed out many times, my own experience amply
refutes Susan's "religious origin of the design theory" claim. I was
originally an atheist from a non-Christian home and became a theist
by looking at the Milky Way. But I was not "religious" and in fact did
not become a Christian until 1-2 years later. If anything, design was
the origin of my religion, not the other way around.
Fourth, it would not matter if "the design theory" did have a
"religious origin". It is the Genetic Fallacy to rule something out as
being true, because of its source. But in fact design theory is not
necessarily of "religious origin". It is true that the majority of IDers
are "religious". But not all of them are. There is a philosopher Todd
Moody (whose name I can now mention) who is an agnostic and
yet an active and valued member of the ID movement. Indeed, the
presence on this very List of Berthajane, an agnostic, arguing for
design, is sufficient evidence that ID is not necessarily of "religious
origin".
[...]
>SJ>My experience refutes that. I knew nothing of "religion". I was convinced
>>*intellectually* of design. So are many (if not most) people who are not
>>religious. Look at Berthajane. She is an *agnostic* yet she believes the
>>universe is designed. Only a tiny minority of hard-core philosophical
>>materialists deny design.
SB>no one denies *human* design.
I said "Berthajane...believes the universe is designed".
SB>BTW if you had witnessed a volcano wiping out
>every man, woman, and child in a town would you have said "there *must* be
>a god!" The natural world is evil (from the point of view of humans) as
>well as beautiful. Or are volcanos only lightly designed?
No. From my Christian theist perspective, *everything* is designed,
including volcanoes. Volcanoes serve a valuable purpose and if it
was not for them releasing pressure, the Earth would probably
explode.
Volcanoes become active gradually and people who chose to live
near them have only themselves to blame if it eventually erupts and
they are killed.
Besides, the presence of "evil" is only a problem for the *goodness*
of the design. It is not a problem for the design itself. Since the ID
movement makes no claims about the goodness of the Designer, it
is not an argument against ID if the design appears "evil".
The argument from "evil" is a problem for *Christian theism*, which
claims that the Designer is both good and all-powerful.
Indeed, "evil" only has meaning within a theistic system with an absolute
standard to compare against. On Susan's own atheistic system there really
can be no such things as "evil" - things just *are*:
"By raising the question of pain and death in a moral context, an antitheist
betrays a glaring contradiction in his understanding of reality if at the same
time he denies God's existence. If this is not a moral universe, why position
the question morally? ... if this is a moral world, the question actually
becomes self-indicting. The antitheist is on the painful horns of a moral and
logical dilemma. If the question is meaningful for him to raise, then it is
also self-indicting-the implication is that this is a moral universe....
Conversely, if the question is meaningless, because evil is not an
appropriate category in a purely materialistic and Godless world, then the
critic lives in contradiction by positioning his criticism of God in moral
terms. One way or the other, either the question or the questioner self-
destructs." (Zacharias R.K., "Can Man Live Without God," 1994, p.48)
But Christian theism has an adequate explanation for natural "evil" like "a
volcano wiping out every man, woman, and child in a town".
Basically it is that according to Genesis 2-3, man was originally in a state of
nature like he still now is, but innocent. Man was free to obey or disobey
God, and he chose the latter. If he had chosen the former, God would have
lifted man out of the state of nature such that man would live forever. But
as it is man remained in a state of nature, subject to all the evils of nature.
But in that state of nature, man could still obey God and by God's grace
eventually escape his state of nature through death.
So, in his present rebellious state of nature, such natural evils as volcanoes
killing humans is to be *expected*, otherwise Christianity would *not* be
true. Mind you, for a brief period after the Exodus, God showed that if a
whole society obeyed Him, He would keep them from such natural evils,
even while in a state of nature. But the Israelites eventually disobeyed God
and went their own way.
I do not expect that Susan or the other non-Christians will accept this and I
would not be at all surprised if they rejected it with a ROTFL. Indeed, I
would be surprised if they didn't! In fact, I would not even be surprised if
some (or even all) Christians on this List reject it.
But d it is IMHO what Genesis 2-3 *really* teaches, as well as it is AFAIK
the *only* adequate answer to evil, and it is also fully in accord with all the
known scientific facts.
>>SB>It's ok with me if you believe all
>>>that stuff, just don't try to make it *science.*
>SJ>It is not a case of me *making* it "science". If it is really true that
>>an Intelligent Designer: 1) at one level designed the laws and constants
>>of the universe to make life's continuation possible; and 2) at another
>>level introduced new information at strategic points to originate and
>>progressively develop life, then that *is* a proper subject for
>>"science".
SB>how do you distinguish between levels?
The fact is that human beings *do* easily "distinguish between such
levels". The problem of how to put this intuitive distinction between
the `canvas' and `painting' levels of design is what Bill Dembski is
trying to do.
SB>Complexity? Even rocks are complex at the molecular level,
Rocks are not "complex at the molecular level". They are simple
*ordered* structures.
The difference between non-living and living things is that the former have
just order and/or complexity but the latter have a *specified* complexity:
"Molecules characterized by specified complexity make up living things.
These molecules are, most notably, DNA and protein. By contrast,
nonliving natural things fall into one of two categories. They are either
unspecified and random (lumps of granite and mixtures of random
nucleotides) or specified but simple (snowflakes and crystals). A crystal
fails to qualify as living because it lacks complexity. A chain of random
nucleotides fails to qualify because it lacks specificity. (Orgel, 1973). No
nonliving things (except DNA and protein in living things, human artifacts
and written language) have specified complexity. For a long time biologists
overlooked the distinction between these two kinds of order (simple,
periodic order versus specified complexity). Only recently have they
appreciated that the distinguishing feature of living systems is not order but
specified complexity. (Yockey, 1977). The sequence of nucleotides in
DNA or of amino acids in a protein is not a repetitive order like a crystal.
Instead it is like the letters in a written message. (Bradley W.L. & Thaxton
C.B., "Information & the Origin of Life," in Moreland J.P., ed., "The
Creation Hypothesis," 1994, pp.207-208)
SB>so are they more or less designed than humans?
From my Christian (not necessarily my ID) perspective, *everything* is
designed. Therefore "rocks" and "humans" are *both* "designed".
But the question is are "rocks" and "humans" different *levels* of design?
Were they realised by different *modes* of design? I personally would
answer "yes" to both questions.
SB>There's only about 2 or 3% genetic difference between humans and everything
>else alive.
No. There is "about 2-3% "genetic difference between humans and"
chimps, but not "between humans and *everything* else alive"!
SB>So are we (humans) more or less designed and how do you tell?
See above.
[...]
>SJ>It is not the ID movement's claim that the Designer was necessarily "the
>>Judeo-Christian god". It is a *Christian* claim that the Designer was "the
>>Judeo-Christian god". Some IDers are not Christians.
SB>it's true, there are a few non-Christian ID proponents.
So what then becomes of Susan's claim that "design theory" is of
"religious origin"?
SB>If you don't much
>about science or the scientific method or the evidence which supports
>evolution, then the ID rhetoric is quite persuasive.
Many IDers of course *are* scientists (e.g. Mike Behe, Jonathan
Wells).Other IDers are philosophers of science (Bill Dembski, Paul
Nelson), or experts in "evidence" (Phil Johnson). *All* of them know
a *lot* about "the evidence which supports evolution". Indeed, they
probably know more about "the evidence which supports evolution"
than most biologists.
It is in fact the ID movement's official position that *both* "the
evidence which supports evolution" and "the evidence which" does
not "support evolution" be taught in schools and universities.
BTW I am pleased that Susan at least concedes that "the ID
rhetoric is quite persuasive"! Although "rhetoric" is used by Susan
in a pejorative sense, there is nothing inherently bad about it. The
primary definitions are: "1 : the art of speaking or writing
effectively..."; "2 a : skill in the effective use of speech..."; and "3 :
verbal communication". (http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=rhetoric).
There is of course also a bad definition of "rhetoric as "insincere or
grandiloquent language," which no doubt Susan means, but that
does not fit ID at all.
Indeed, ID is trying to present *evidence* by "speaking or writing
effectively". If anyone is using "rhetoric" in a bad sense, it is ID's
*opponents*.
[...]
>>SB>saves Genesis the
>>>indignity of trying to be a science text and restores its original message.
>SJ>Who is arguing that "Genesis" is "a science text"? The great Christian
>>Reformer John Calvin in his commentary on Genesis wrote regarding Genesis
>>1:6, "Let there be a firmament": ....He who would learn astronomy, and
>>other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere." (Calvin J., "A Commentary on
>>Genesis," [1554], ..., p.79).
>>
>>The fact is that Susan, like Clarence Darrow, *wants* creationists to all be
>>Genesis literalists in order for her to ridicule them so that their
>>arguments could be ignored:
SB>why, that would be ad hominem :-)
It is unclear to me whether Susan is saying that it would be *her*
"ad hominem" or whether I am making an "ad hominem".
If the latter, my statement is a statement of fact as to Susan's
*position*. It is not intended as a personal attack on Susan herself.
SB>Ideas should be considered *where ever*
>the come from (like talk.origins). I'm no Clarence Darrow, but I noticed
>recently we *have* been arguing along the same lines.
Interesting that Darrow was just a lawyer! Not even a professor of
law. Just a lawyer. In fact he apparently was at law school for only
*one* year:
"Darrow attended law school for only one year before being
admitted to the Ohio bar in 1878."
(http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/0/0,5716,29269+1+28805,00.html)
But he got ahead by having the right friends: "Through his
friendship with Judge John Peter Altgeld, afterward governor of
Illinois, Darrow was appointed Chicago city corporation counsel in
1890."
He was also pretty good at keeping his name in the public spotlight
by defending high-profile cases: "In the famous trial of John T.
Scopes at Dayton, Tenn. (July 10-21, 1925), Darrow defended a
high-school teacher who had broken a state law by presenting the
Darwinian theory of evolution."
What he lacked in legal expertise, he seems to have made up by
rhetoric (i.e. "insincere or grandiloquent language" sense): "His
courtroom pleas were filled with allusions based on his wide
reading"! :-)
SB>"To say that a certain scheme or process shows order or system, one must
>have some norm or pattern by which to determine whether the matter
>concerned shows any design or order.
This is questionable. Humans intuitively recognise "design" without
comparing it with any "norm or pattern". But if there is any "norm or
pattern" it is in human's own works of design.
SB>We have a norm, a pattern, and that is
>the universe itself, from which we fashion our ideas.
This is just atheistic begging of the question. Since to atheists in "The
Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be" (Sagan C., "Cosmos,"
1981, p.4), then it *must* be to them that it is from 'the universe itself" that
"we fashion our ideas".
SB>We have observed this
>universe and its operation and we call it order.
Darrow contradicts himself. He previously said that: "one must have
some norm or pattern by which to determine...design or order." Yet
here he says "We have observed this...and we call it order." How
could we "we call it (the universe) order" in the first place if we had
to already have "some norm or pattern" before we did so?
SB>To say that the universe
>is patterned on order is to say that the universe is patterned on the
>universe. It can mean nothing else." ("The Delusion of Design and Purpose,"
>Clarence Darrow, from "The Story of My Life")
See above. Darrow trips himself up on his own circular reasoning.
Maybe he should have stayed at law school for a few more years! :-)
>SJ>And if "Design is undetectable by science" the someone should tell
>>archaeologists and SETI researchers!
SB>archaeologists can compare an axe handle to tree limb and detect which one
>is designed.
Well, that is "Design" which is *detectable* "by science"!
[...]
>SJ>Well, first, no one in my "Biology class" was "attacking them". And if they
>>keep on "pontificating about and sometimes ridiculing `religious beliefs'"
>>then of course "religionists" are going to attack them.
SB>actually until the religious fundamentalists started to get political in
>the late 70s and early 80s.
As Numbers points out, the first move was by science in the late 1950's
after Sputnik. The US Government's launched a crash program to increase
the level of scientific literacy as part of the Cold War. The scientific
materialists seized their opportunity. Evolution which was previously only
taught in colleges and universities to intending biologists, was now to be
taught in schools:
"This policy of "neutrality based on silence" began to crumble in the late
1950S, after the Soviet Union in 1957 successfully launched Sputnik, the
first artificial satellite to circle the earth. An embarrassed United States
sought to regain world leadership in science and technology by pouring
millions of dollars into improving science education. Backed by generous
funding from the National Science Foundation, a group of biologists in the
American Institute of Biological Sciences established a center at the
University of Colorado, the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS),
to produce state-of-the-art biology texts. Responding in part to complaints
from leading biologists that "one hundred years without Darwinism are
enough," the BSCS authors wove evolution into their material as "the warp
and woof of modern biology." After extensive testing in over a thousand
schools, the BSCS in 1963 issued three versions of its tenth-grade text,
each identified by the dominant color of its cover: blue, yellow, or green.
Before long nearly half of the high schools in America were using these
books or other curriculum materials developed by the BSCS-and
introducing hundreds of thousands of high-school students to their apelike
ancestors. ...these controversial texts created a furious backlash against the
very theory they were designed to promote." (Numbers R.L., "The
Creationists, 1993, p.238).
SB>Biologists pretty much ignored religionist sniping as beneath notice.
Indeed! And this was their best strategy, since they were: a) in power and;
b) could not prove their case conclusively.
SB>However when fundamentalists tried to get laws
>on the books in Arkansas
The Arkansas (and indeed the whole) "Balanced Treatment" campaign was
misguided:
"The Arkansas statute was the work of unsophisticated activists who had
no idea how to attract support from outside their own narrowly
fundamentalist camp. As a result, they faced a powerful coalition of groups
eager to defend both science and liberal religion against religious
extremists. The coalition included not only the major associations of
scientists and educators, but also the American Civil Liberties Union and an
impressive array of individuals and organizations representing mainstream
Christianity and Judaism. The coalition also had the services of a first-class
team of trial lawyers donated by one of America's biggest and best law
firms. These specialists in "big-case" litigation knew how to select and
prepare religious and scientific leaders to give expert testimony that would
establish creation-science as an absurdity unworthy of serious
consideration. Orthodox science won the case by a light-year. (Johnson
P.E., "Darwin on Trial," 1993, p.113);
and even the ICR was opposed to it:
"Now, despite widespread publicity to the contrary, the Institute for
Creation Research has always tried to discourage a legalistic and political
approach to this issue (as has the Creation Research Society). History
shows that neither scientific nor religious principles can be effectively
legislated, and since there had been no legal restriction against teaching
creation anyway, most creationist scientists have felt rather strongly that, in
the long run, education and persuasion would accomplish more than
legislation and coercion...The Arkansas creation law resulted, of course, in
a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and, finally, a strongly negative decision
striking down the bill. Even more hurtfully, it resulted in a news media
circus and a great wave of bad publicity for the whole creationist cause."
(Morris H.M., "Evolution in Turmoil," 1982, pp.127-129).
SB>and elsewhere.
But one of those "elsewhere's", the Louisiana "Balanced Treatment" court
case, did serve a useful purpose in that a minority judgement by Justice's
Scalia, established the principle that while the "Bible" may not be "taught
as science", there is no reason why scientific arguments against evolution
should not be taught:
Louisiana's statute never went into effect because a federal judge promptly
held it unconstitutional as an "establishment of religion." In 1987 the
Supreme Court of the United States affirmed this decision by a seven to
two majority. The Louisiana law was unconstitutional, said the majority
opinion by Justice William Brennan, because its purpose "was clearly to
advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created
humankind." Not so, said the dissenting opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia,
because "The people of Louisiana, including those who are Christian
fundamentalists, are quite entitled, as a secular matter, to have whatever
scientific evidence there may be against evolution presented in their
schools, just as Mr. Scopes was entitled to present whatever scientific
evidence there was for it." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial," 1993, pp.6-7)
SB>to have the Bible taught as science,
>then the biologists started having to address the problem.
To try to "have the Bible taught as science" or teachings that are
*obviously* based on the Bible, e.g. young-Earth, Flood geology, etc., are
clearly in some sense at least an "establishment of" (a particular) "religion",
namely Christianity. I personally do not agree that the Bible should be
taught as science.
SB>Yep, they are mad.
If they were "mad" then, when they only had a bunch of `red-necked Bible
thumpers' to contend with, they must be now positively *apoplectic* that
they now have Phil Johnson, Mike Behe, Bill Dembski and the ID
movement to contend with! :-)
[...]
[continued]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The development of the metabolic system, which, as the primordial soup
thinned, must have "learned" to mobilize chemical potential and to
synthesize the cellular components, poses Herculean problems. So also
does the emergence of the selectively permeable membrane without which
there can be no viable cell. But the major problem is the origin of the
genetic code and of its translation mechanism. Indeed, instead of a problem
it ought rather to be called a riddle. The code is meaningless unless
translated. The modern cell's translating machinery consists of at least fifty
macromolecular components which are themselves coded in DNA: the
code cannot be translated otherwise than by products of translation. It is
the modern expression of omne vivum ex ovo. When and how did this
circle become closed? It is exceedingly difficult to imagine." (Monod J.,
"Chance and Necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern
Biology", [1971], Transl. Wainhouse A., Penguin Books: London, 1997,
reprint, p142).
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 29 2000 - 18:32:05 EDT