Reflectorites
I am trying to clear my email before my exam next week.
Therefore, after this I won't be able to respond for a
week at least.
On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 11:24:15 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
[...]
>CL>I would possibly be convinced by some incredibly magical revelation,
>>some big genie in the sky doing fantastic things with a wave of the hand;
>>but I'd probably think I was dreaming. I guess I just have a built-in
>>prejudice in favor of naturalistic explanation. ID explanation is more parsimonious
>>and much easier, but it doesn't do anything for me. I like to puzzle out
>>particulars; the one big all-inclusive answer is boring to me.
RW>In case anyone should think that Cliff is representative of philosophical
>naturalists in having a "built-in prejudice in favor of naturalistic
>explanation", I'd like to point out that I don't share his prejudice.
Well Richard is sure doing a good *imitation* of one who does share
Cliff's "built-in prejudice in favor of naturalistic explanation"!
RW>I reject the ID explanation precisely because it is *less* parsimonious.
It is interesting that a naturalistic evolutionist, Cliff says that ID is more
parsimonious and another NE, Richard says it is the exact opposite.
But at least we have here a non question-begging argument at last! Let's
see how far it goes before it degenerates into good, old-fashioned "built-in
prejudice in favor of naturalistic explanation"!
RW>If there was a designer, then there must have been a *first* designer, and
>that first designer must have (a) evolved by naturalistic means, (b) sprang
>into existence ex nihilo, or (c) existed for all eternity (whatever that
>means).
All three are possible within ID.
RW>(a) still requires a process of naturalistic evolution, and, in the absence
>of evidence to the contrary, it's more parsimonious to assume that evolution
>occurred here on Earth than that it occurred somewhere else and that living
>organisms were then artificially created on Earth.
Agreed. But ID, in its most basic form, does not actually rule out NE.
Todd Moody is some form of NE.
What Richard is really saying is that *even if there was* a designer, he
would not be open to believe it. Sounds awfully close to prejudice to me!
Personally I think Richard is kidding himself. His evident rage against IDers
like me, calling me "irrational", etc, is not based on a mere fine point of
parsimony.
Richard does not think my ID position *could be true* but slightly less able
to be believed. It is clear from his tone that Richard thinks my ID position
is so utterly, ridiculously *wrong*, that I must be either stupid, crazy or
dishonest to believe it!
RW>There's no reason for
>scientists to a priori rule out the latter, and it's possible to imagine
>evidence that would make it the more parsimonious theory: for example, we
>might find the remains of an ancient alien civilization, with records of how
>they had created and/or manipulated organisms on Earth.
See above. So on his own admission, Richard agrees that ID could be right
after all. Then why does Richard give every *appearance* of one who does
"a priori rule out" ID?
RW>The most parsimonious explanation is not simply the one which can be stated
>in fewest words. It's the one which leaves least unexplained. (b) and (c)
>are far from parsimonious, because they leave entirely unexplained that
>which we want to explain--the origin of conscious beings.
Richard here confuses ID with religion. ID is not about *ultimate*
explanations. It is simply about whether there is detectable evidence for
design in nature.
So whether the designer was: a), b). or c) is beyond the scope of ID.
But the fact that Richard escalates it into *ultimate* origins, the sphere of
religion (and atheism), shows that Richard's real objection is *religious*,
i.e. anti-religious.
So in the end Richard is like Cliff, with a "built-in prejudice in favor of
naturalistic explanation", but at least Cliff is self-aware enough to admit it!
RW>As far as science
>is concerned, you can't get any more unparsimonious than that, since science
>is all about explaining things.
If this was all "science" was there would be no real problem, because
"science" would frankly admit that since it cannot penetrate the event
horizons of unique origin events, ID and Christian theism might well be
true (and therefore naturalistic origin theories like Darwinian evolution
might well be false).
But in fact "science" is not like that at all. "Science" these days does
*everything it can* to *actively oppose* ID and Christian theism, ridiculing,
abusing and marginaliing its proponents at every opportunity.
"Science" in fact arrogates to itself all the trappings of the medieval church,
claiming that either it knows *ultimate* reality, or if it doesn't, it knows
what *isn't*!
RW>That's why science will never settle for such an "explanation".
Richard might even sincerely believe that. But the fact that the vast
majority of leading scientists are atheists, just might have something to do
with it also!
RW>Even if a big genie in the sky made himself known to
>us in a convincing way and claimed to have popped into existence ex nihilo
>one day, I doubt that most scientists would accept that claim, though they
>might well accept his claim to have created life on Earth.
This would not be ID. This would be special revelation.
But I will now take off my ID hat and put on my Christian theist hat!
"Most scientists" (and presumably Richard) believe that the universe either
"(b) sprang into existence ex nihilo, or (c) existed for all eternity...". So
why exactly is it unbelievable that a Creator "(c) existed for all eternity"
and caused the universe to "(b) sprang into existence ex nihilo"?
Especially since there are *big* problems with matter having "(c) existed
for all eternity" - even atomic nuclei eventually decay after hundreds of
billions of years, and that is a mere microsecond compared to eternity.
And if matter decays over time, and it has been existing for all eternity,
it would already have come and gone by now.
So the atheist would therefore have to try to come up with some explanations
for this, and immediately his so-called "parsimonious" theory becomes
*less* "parsimonious" than the Christian theist's theory.
And there are even bigger problems with the universe having "(b) sprang
into existence ex nihilo", ie. out of literally *nothing at all*. It is probably
*unbelievable* for the human mind to accept that this whole universe,
could pop into existence out of literally *nothing* at all. And as soon as the
atheist tried to explain this, again his theory would immediately become
*less* "parsimonious" than the Christian theist's theory.
And that is just for starters. Once we get into the *fantastic* fine-tunedness
of the universe for life, the atheists "parsimonious" theory has to start
postulating infinite numbers of unobservable universes, all with different
laws of physics in order to explain just this one.
So if the atheist's "parsimonious" explanation for the origin of the universe
quickly becomes un-"parsimonious", then why would an atheist like
Richard continue believing it anyway?
Maybe here's why:
[...]
RW>All of us here who are familiar with Stephen's nonsense know this to be
>untrue. He is *not* able to follow logical arguments!
It is good to know, that *despite all appearances to the contrary*, Richard
does not have a "built-in prejudice in favor of naturalistic explanation"! ;-)
On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 09:31:07 -0700, billwald@juno.com wrote:
[...]
>CL>I would possibly be convinced by some incredibly magical revelation,
>>some big genie in the sky doing fantastic things with a wave of the
>>hand; but I'd probably think I was dreaming.
BW>I am a creationist
I must say this is a bit of a surprise that Bill now describes himself as a
"creationist". When Bill first joined the Reflector, he described his position
as only "leaning towards theistic evolution":
------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, 15 Apr 2000 00:28:07 -0700, billwald@juno.com wrote:
[...]
>I'm leaning toward theistic evolution - God started the ball rolling but
>doesn't need to micro-manage. <G>
[...]
------------------------------------------------------------
So have Bill's views changed, so much that he not only
accepts "theistic evolution" but even *creation*?
If no, then in what sense is Bill now a "creationist"?
BW>but I do not believe ID is detectable apart from
>direct revelation.
"Direct revelation" is not ID. If we had "direct revelation" in nature (e.g.
"made by God" stamped on DNA, we would not need to bother with ID.
As an ex--policeman Bill might appreciate an example. A detective
patiently gathers clues to find out if a dead body was the result of a murder
or suicide (both design) or natural causes (chance or law).
But if he finds a suicide note, in the victim's own handwriting, he will
probably not bother gathering any more evidence. This is not a perfect
analogy (the victim could have been forced to write the note by the
murderer, but even then it is design). The detective would probably not
consider natural causes (i.e. the victim had a heart attack under the strain of
preparing to kill himself!).
The point of my analogy is that ID is detective work, in the *absence* of
"direct revelation".
BW>All the "proofs" I have seen boil down to a mis-use of
>probablily and statistics.
What "proofs" exactly has Bill seen for ID that "boil down to a mis-use of
probability and statistics"?
And what "proofs" for ID has Bill seen *by the ID movement* that
"boil down to a mis-use of probability and statistics"?
In particular has Bill read Dembski's "The Design Inference"? Or at
least read his papers on the web? He has a web page at www.arn.org.
BTW, as Dembski's title above indicates, ID does not claim that there
are "proofs" for ID, just *inferences*.
BW>Consider the problem of old paintings done by dead people. Recently there
>was a story about a particular painting. For a hundred years it had been
>hanging in a museum as a work of (can't think of his name) but now some
>new experts have decided it is a forgery. To me, this is primarially
>evidence that art is a scam. If the forgery isn't noticed by experts for
>100 years then there isn't any substantial difference in painting skill
>between the great painting master and the forger. The forger might be the
>superior artist.
This is no argument against ID. *Both* the painting and the forgery
are designed, and easily detectable as such. The issue of detecting who
exactly the author was is beyond the scope of ID, i.e. generic ID
(GID).
BTW, if Bill is so anti-design that he even rejects "art" as "a scam",
on what evidential basis was he once "leaning toward theistic evolution",
i.e. "God started the ball rolling" let alone now claiming he is "a
creationist"?
BW>So even when the intelligent designer signs his work we can't
>differentiate between the official artist and the imposter. Isn't that
>the current state of this debate?
See above. ID has no "official artist", because ID, i.e. GID, makes no
claims about the identity of the designer(s).
The identity of the designer might be an issue for *Christian* ID (CID),
but not generic ID.
Generic ID's program is merely to show there is empirically detectable
evidence of intelligent causation in nature.
If there is empirically detectable evidence of *either* "the official
artist" *or* "the imposter" that would be sufficient for GID's purposes.
BW>In any list of historical events
>(evolution is a historical event) there is no way to seperate God's
>direct intervention from "stuff happens" except by the moral outcome. And
>if we blame satan for bad moral outcomes the situation gets worse.
[...]
GID has no official mode of how the Designer realised His design.
Intelligent causation could be by "direct intervention" or working through
natural processes.
Also, GID makes no claims about "the moral outcome". A handaxe found
in an archaeological dig is intelligently designed, whether it was used for
chopping wood or the heads off enemies!
The question of whether the design was caused by God or "satan" is a
question for CID, not GID.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"The basic structure of my argument is this. Scientists, historians, and
detectives observe data and proceed thence to some theory about what
best explains the occurrence of these data. We can analyse the criteria
which they use in reaching a conclusion that a certain theory is better
supported by the data than a different theory that is, is more likely, on
the basis of those data, to be true. Using those same criteria, we find that
the view that there is a God explains *everything* we observe, not just
some narrow range of data. It explains the fact that there is a universe at
all, that scientific laws operate within it, that it contains conscious
animals and humans with very complex intricately organized bodies, that
we have abundant opportunities for developing ourselves and the world,
as well as the more particular data that humans report miracles and have
religious experiences. In so far as scientific causes and laws explain some
of these things (and in part they do), these very causes and laws need
explaining, and God's action explains them. The very same criteria which
scientists use to reach their own theories lead us to move beyond those
theories to a creator God who sustains everything in existence."
(Swinburne R.G., "Is There a God?," Oxford University Press: Oxford UK,
1996, p.2. Emphasis in original.)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 13 2000 - 17:35:53 EDT