Reflectorites
On Fri, 4 Aug 2000 00:46:10 -0400, Steven P Crawford wrote:
[...]
SC>Allow me to respond in just a few areas, ones which I perceive to be the
>most significant. Please interpret this post as a reluctant one on my
>part. I see you as a friend and an ally, and I think it's unfortunate
>that we should get into a debate. I can see though that, even though we
>agree over the essence of life's design and the One who is responsible
>for it, you are a purist who feels he must correct inaccuracy -- in
>whatever source. That's ok. So am I.
Steven posted something about ID that was clearly wrong and as a long-
standing member of the ID movement, who owns and has read almost all
its literature, I pointed it out. I cannot see how that makes me a "purist".
SC>(1) When I concede that I my beliefs are not scientific, it is primarily
>due to the "ought" of science. As I wrote before, I agree with the
>traditional scientific approach that science "ought" to explain natural
>phenomena by means of natural causes, laws, processes, etc. This
>procedure should be pushed as far as it possibly can go. This does not
>mean that I think science "can" do so across the board, but my beliefs
>about science's inability do not affect how I think science "ought" to
>work. I've said all this before.
Well I disagree with that limited view of "science". That might be OK in
the case of the normal, ongoing operations of the natural world, but it is
question-begging to apply it to unique *origin* events.
SC>As a result of this basic presupposition of mine, I cannot conclude that
>my ideas regarding design of living things are "scientific." To be
>"scientific" is to discover physical laws, processes, causes, etc., that
>explain the occurrence of a given phenomenon. In short, a theory is
>"scientific" when it satisfies what science "ought" to do. I do not make
>any claims that I have done so in the case of origins, and neither does
>the ID movement (correct me if I'm wrong)..
I disagree with Steven's definition of "science" which makes a materialistic-
naturalistic conclusion almost inevitable, whether it is true or not.
Closing one's mind off in advance as to what "science" should be is IMHO
fundamentally *anti*-science. In my view one of the defining qualities of
science is to be permanently and radically open to the *evidence*.
And if the *evidence* points to design, then science should accept it has
been wrong all these years and accept that design is real. Setting up rules to
rule out design in advance is IMHO anti-science.
SC>My perception of ID is that it wants to change the rules of science so
>that it can lay claim to the label "scientific." This is so even though
>the ID theory gives no explanations how life could have occurred, finds
>no natural causes for life's existence, and even claims that science may
>not fulfill its goal of discovering natural processes in the case of
>life's formation (again, correct me if I'm wrong). It may be just a huge
>misunderstanding on my part, but if we say that science cannot find a
>natural explanation for the advent of life, then no truly "scientific"
>theory exists regarding such events
Steven *is* "wrong" in the above, but I don't have the time to correct him. I
suggest he start reading some ID material and *quoting* from what it says
if he wants to make a point about what the ID movement actually does claim.
SC>This is why I'm not afraid to concede that my ideas regarding life's
>origins are not "scientific." It was a huge mistake on the part of the
>"scientific" creationists to claim their theory was "science."
Disagree. Although I am not a YEC, I do not believe that it was a "mistake
on the part of the `scientific' creationists to claim their theory was
`science.'" Their claim *was* "science", it was just *wrong* "science".
SC>They did
>so even though the Bible itself clearly says that creation is strictly a
>matter of "faith" (Heb 11:3).
Hebrews 1:3 does not actually say that. It says that:
"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's
command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was
visible." (Heb 11:3).
It is talking about the original ex nihilo creation of the universe, the
how of which is a matter of "faith" for the atheist too.
But Hebrews 11:3 is not all that the Bible says about creation. Romans
1:19-20 also says that the evidence of design is "plain" to all humans
from what has been made" (i.e. the `made-edness' of things):
"since what may be known about God is plain to them, because
God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world
God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have
been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so
that men are without excuse." (Rom 1:19-20)
The ID movement believes that the case for this evident design in nature
should be able to be made with scientific rigour.
SC>They were skewered for such claims and
>have never recovered. I see ID making the same mistake, all because they
>have self-defined notions of what "science" should be like.
That the YECs were proved wrong does not mean that ID will be proved
wrong. ID is a lot different from YEC. YEC started with the Bible (and a
dubious interpretation at that) and tried to fit nature into its narrow
framework.
ID is not concerned with the Bible at all. ID is simply concerned with the
evidence of design in *nature*.
Steven sounds like a lot of modern Christian who are afraid of "making" a
"mistake". *Real* science is all about being willing to make mistakes and
learning from those mistakes.
SC>I say again:
>if we don't fulfill what science "ought" to do, then we're not being
>"scientific."
Agreed. Steven just differ on "what science `ought' to do". Or more
exactly Steven and I differ on what the ID movement "`ought' to do".
If Steven wants to start a branch of science which tries to work out
who the Designer is, he is welcome to do so. But I don't think he
will get very far until he can show scientifically that there is even
*design*.
SC>(2) I find the claims of ID to be nothing less than mind boggling. You
>seem to allow all the following:
>
>-- Things are designed, but they may not have a designer.
>-- Things are designed, but they could have arisen naturally.
>-- Things are designed, but this does not rule out evolution.
>-- Earth things are designed, but other things may not be
> even though they might display the same characteristics.
*ID's* claim is that there is detectable evidence for design. Claims about
who or what the Designer is, are not part of ID. Why is that so "mind
boggling"?
SC>It seems to me that ID'ers have defined a notion called "design." But
>then they have placed so many qualifications, provisos, and stipulations
>on this definition that the term has been emptied of all meaning.
Actually the boot is on the other foot. At least those Christian who claim
that design is detectable believe in a God who makes a real, empirically
detectable difference in nature. Steven seems to be among those Christians
who believe in the sort of "invisible gardener" creator that atheist
philosopher Anthony Flew claimed Christians believed in:
"The following parable, formulated by philosophers Flew and
Wisdom (New Essays in Philosophical Theology [1955]), is a good
statement of the view that God-claims are too vague to be sensible
and offer no adequate empirical evidence in heir behalf:
`Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the
jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds.
One explorer says, " Some gardener must tend this plot." The other
disagrees, "There is no gardener." So they pitch their tents and set a
watch. No gardener is ever seen. "But perhaps he is an invisible
gardener." So they set up a barbedwire fence. They electrify it.
They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H. G.
Wells's The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though
he could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some
intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever
betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet
still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener,
invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, a gardener who
has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly
to look after the garden which he loves." At last the Sceptic
despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how
does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive
gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no
gardener at all?'"
(Montgomery J.W., ed., "Christianity for the Tough Minded," 1982, p.29).
SC>It some ways it is so broad as to include anything. In other ways it is so
>restricted as to include nothing.
See above on Steven's alternative which seems to be of an "invisible gardener"
Designer?
Steven's criticism is of his own straw man version of ID. Steven's first task
is to read some ID material and then come back with actual quotes of what
leading IDers are *actually* saying.
While I am happy to help Steven (or anyone) to understand ID, I haven't
got the time to keep debating Steven's (or anyone else's) straw man
*misunderstandings* of ID.
SC>(3) You cannot claim "design" and then say that it has no necessary
>implications. To say that "design" does not imply a designer is to
>contradict everything we know about design. This is not being very
>"scientific."
I do not say that "`design' does not imply a designer". ID clearly does
"imply" some sort of designer. But who or what the Designer is, is outside
of ID.
SC>To then say we cannot reason as to the design of the designer is to empty
>"design" of its so-called scientific content.
No one is claiming that "we cannot reason as to the design of the
designer". But the ID movement does not claim that that is its role.
The ID movement sees its role as demonstrating that design in nature
is empirically detectable.
Who or what the designer (or designers) is another question.
SC>If design is "scientific,"
>then we are completly within the confines of science when formulating
>hypotheses regarding the "design" of the designer.
Not necessarily. "Design" can be a detectable effect of the natural world,
but cause of the design, i.e. "the designer", might be outside of the natural
world.
SC>The possibilities of
>designed designers or undesigned designers are completely scientific
>hypotheses if the very notion of "design" is "scientific."
Not necessarily. "Design" can be scientific but the "designer" beyond the
scope of any scientific method.
Besides, even if "designed designers or undesigned designers" were
"completely scientific", it does not follow that that is the task of *the ID
movement* to pursue that question.
One of the characteristics of science is limiting itself to a narrow range of
questions within a discipline. The ID movement has set itself the task of the
first question: 1) is there detectable evidence for design?
If some other branch of science wants to look at the second question: 2.
Who or what is the designer(s)? then they are welcome to investigate that.
SC>We should be
>able to test the validity of such possibilities by scientific means, e.g.
>my using the finite age of the Universe to rule out designed designers.
That could be the task of that branch of science (or philosophy) which looks
at question 2. The ID movement has limited itself to the first question, is
there any detectable design *at all*?
Steven might be surprised that the mainstream science position is that
there is not *any* design *at all*.
SC>When you don't accept such a procedure, saying that it's beyond the realm
>of science, I see this as a self-contradiction.
There is no "self-contradiction" because the ID movement is only making
claims for *design*, not the Designer.
The Designer can be "beyond the realm of science" without design being
"beyond the realm of science".
SC>We cannot have it both ways.
Who is "we"? Such a `Fredian slip' shows that Steven is probably equating
ID with just another branch of Christian theology or apologetics?
SC>It comes across as a tacit concession that design may not be so
>scientific after all.
Maybe Steven's misderstanding of ID "may not be so scientific after all"!
I expect Steven to take on board what I am saying. If he continues to
ignore what I say that ID is and keeps claiming that ID is what *he* says
it is (or should be), then I will have to start ignoring his posts.
Steven may not be aware but just before (or as) he came on the Reflector
I had already announced I was cutting back on my messages, and only
answering posts that were new:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:49:49 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote:
[...]
>3. With the increase of posting by atheist/agnostics on this List, and the
>lack of posting by theistic evolutionists challenging them, this List has
>become something of a Jones vs The Rest! I am sure that this is not what
>the Owners of the List intended, and it is not what I intended, but most
>of the responses are addressed to me, and I have felt duty-bound to respond.
>
>I enjoy an argument (maybe too much so!) but I regard much of what is
>posted in responses these days as just going over the same old ground, and
>largely a waste of everybody's time. I suspect other creationist/IDers
>would post more often but they are intimidated by the abuse and ridicule
>they would probably receive from some on the evolution side.
[...]
>With second semester of my Biology degree looming, I will again have to
>cut back on the time I spend on the Reflector. Therefore, I am going back
>to my original policy of mostly only posting articles on Creation/Evolution
>issues.
>
>So from now on I will tend to ignore responses to my articles/posts unless
>they are: 1) from a new member or a less frequent poster; 2) offer support
>or *constructive* criticism; or 3) are saying something genuinely
>new.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I made an exception for Steven because he was a new member of the List.
But if his posts keep on saying the same thing, then there is no point
in me keeping on answering the same thing.
So this is probably my last post on this subject to Steven. I thank him
for his comments.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Darwin's own bulldog, Huxley, as Eldredge reminds us yet again, warned
him against his insistent gradualism, but Darwin had good reason. His
theory was largely aimed at replacing creationism as an explanation of how
living complexity could arise out of simplicity. Complexity cannot spring
up in a single stroke-of chance: that would be like hitting upon the
combination number that opens a bank vault. But a whole series of tiny
chance steps, if non-randomly selected, can build up almost limitless
complexity of adaptation. It is as though the vault's door were to open
another chink every time the number on the dials moved a little closer to
the winning number. Gradualness is of the essence. In the context of the
fight against creationism, gradualism is more or less synonymous with
evolution itself. If you throw out gradualness you throw out the very thing
that makes evolution more plausible than creation. Creation is a special
case of saltation-the saltus is the large jump from nothing to fully formed
modern life. When you think of what Darwin was fighting against, is it any
wonder that he continually returned to the theme of slow, gradual, step-by-
step change?" (Dawkins R., "What was all the fuss about?" Review of
Eldredge N., "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and
the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster, 1985, in Nature,
Vol. 316, August 1985, pp.683-684).
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 06 2000 - 17:52:38 EDT