Reflectorites
[...]
From: Cliff Hamrick
Date: 28 Aug 00 10:30:04 +0000
I can't remember whether I have welcomed Cliff to the Reflector, so in case
I haven't, a welcome to the Reflector from me to Cliff!
Maybe Cliff could tell us a bit more about himself and where he is coming
from? I understand from Baylor University's web pages that he is he is a
"Lab Coordinator" in the "Biology" Department:
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.baylor.edu/~Biology/Faculty.html
Mr. Cliff Hamrick Lab Coordinator, Biology 1105/1106
----------------------------------------------------------------
>BV>ID allows the possibility of a god, but does not require one.
CH>I've heard this argument from IDers before. ID is all about God. .
This is simply not so. ID is only about detecting *design* not the
*designer*. It is the Intelligent *Design* movement, not the Intelligent
*Designer* movement!
There are *two* separate questions: 1) is there empirically detectable
evidence for design in nature? and if so; 2) who (or what) is the designer or
designers?
The first question: "is there empirically detectable evidence for design in
nature?", is the primary focus of the ID movement. If it turns out to be
true, it will be the public property of all mankind and equally supportive of
all religions and philosophies which maintain there is design in nature.
The second question: "who (or what) is the designer or designers?" is a
matter for theology (not only Christian)and philosophy to take further.
If design is able to be empirically detected then that will be a great help to
Christianity in its struggle with those philosophies which deny design, like
materialism, naturalism and Darwinism. But many centuries of Natural
Theology has shown that there is no way that Christianity can *prove*
from nature alone that any designer(s) so detected must necessarily be the
Christian God.
CH>This
>notion of aliens breeding life and then depositing it on Earth does not fit
>into the ID paradigm.
It might help to re-state the context in which this ID "aliens" claim was
made. Mike Behe was pointing out that even if design was empirically
detected, there would be several `escape clauses' for non theists. They
could maintain that the designing was done by extraterrestrials (as the
scientific theory of Directed Panspermia maintains), or by time-travellers
from the future:
"The phrase intelligent design seems more urgent and quickly
invites questions about who the designer might have been. Will
persons with philosophical commitments against the supernatural be
painted into a corner by the theory? No. The human imagination is
too powerful. ... Francis Crick ... thinks that life on earth may have
begun when aliens from another planet sent a rocket ship containing
spores to seed the earth. ... It is not a very big leap, though, to say
that a civilization capable of sending rocket ships to other planets is
also likely to be capable of designing life. ... 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. ... 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, pp.248-249)
So Behe was not suggesting that such Directed Panspermia type positions
would be very robust or would attract a lot of adherents, but only that they
*would* be available to those who did not wish to draw the inference that
the designer(s) was the Christian God.
In that sense such positions would therefore "fit into the ID paradigm". No
one is claiming that this would ever be a mainstream ID view. But if design
was detected and the "ID paradigm" became the normal scientific
paradigm, then non-theists who wished to believe in Directed Panspermia
like theories could still "fit into" that "ID paradigm".
CH>In that paradigm, the only logical question is 'Who
>designed the aliens'? And then, "Who designed the designer of the
>aliens"?
See above. ID is only about detecting *design*. If and when design is
detected, the *next* question would be who was the designer(s)?
If someone wants to then claim that the designer(s) of life on Earth was
"aliens" then that would be *one* possible view within the "ID paradigm".
But then those holding that position would have to defend it against
questions like "Who designed the aliens"?
Those IDers like me who maintain that the Designer was the Christian God,
would, of course, have no such problem.
CH>Within the ID paradigm, this question has to asked over and over
>until we reach the first race of aliens of the universe. Then we have to ask
>'Who designed them?" Within the ID paradigm, the notion of life arising
>through purely naturalistic means can't happen, so God must have created
>them.
See above. These philosophical/theological speculations are *premature*.
ID must first show that design is empirically detectable!
CH>ID is all about God. If the aliens could arise through naturalistic
>means, then why didn't life on Earth and every other planet before it arise
>through the same means?
See above. ID is *not* "all about God". ID is all about *design*.
Speculating about who or what the designer(s) is, is simply premature at
this stage. It may be that ID will fail to show that design is empirically
detectable in nature.
If someone wants to argue that life on Earth was designed by aliens and
that "the aliens could arise through naturalistic means" they can.
Such a case would be philosophically weak (as Crick & Orgel's Directed
Panspermia is weak), but it could not be ruled out of court within the "ID
paradigm".
CH>Of course, the fact that almost all of the main proponents of ID (Johnson,
>Dembski, Meyer, Pearcey) are evangelical Christians should give it away.
Note that Cliff says "almost all" and leaves out two of "the main
proponents of ID", namely Michael Behe who is a Roman Catholic and
Jonathan Wells who is a Moonie!
In fact considering that "the main proponents of ID" are only seven: Phil
Johnson, Mike Behe, Bill Dembski, Paul Nelson, Jonathan Wells, Stephen
Meyer and Nancy Pearcey, the fact that 2/7th = 28% of them are not
"evangelical Christians", does "give it (i.e. Chris' case) away"!
The fact that *most* of the main proponents of ID (and indeed IDers in
general) are probably "evangelical Christians" only shows that "evangelical
Christians" are more likely to believe in the sort of Designer who is
empirically detectable.
But since: 1) not all IDers are "evangelical Christians" - in fact some
leading IDers are Jewish (Berlinski and Spetner) and one (Todd Moody) is
not even a *theist*:
"Thus the ID movement has become a "big tent," attracting people
from a variety of religious backgrounds. CRSC fellow David
Berlinski, who has published Commentary articles critical of
Darwinism, is Jewish. In Kansas, board supporters included local
Muslims and a group of Hare Krishnas, who showed up at a
meeting wearing saffron robes. Even agnostics who believe the
universe is in some sense teleological have teamed up with the ID
movement--figures like Michael Denton, author of the influential
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. His most recent book, Nature's
Destiny, argues that purpose pervades the universe at all levels.
"The power of ID is precisely its minimalism," says Todd Moody,
an agnostic and professor at St. Joseph's University in
Philadelphia. "It travels light, with no theological baggage."
(Pearcey N., "We're Not in Kansas Anymore," Christianity Today,
May 22, 2000. http://www.arn.org/docs/pearcey/np_ctoday052200.htm)
and 2) not all "evangelical Christians" support ID (some YECs like Ken
Ham are even *opposed* to ID); it is clear that ID does not *entail*
evangelical Christianity.
CH>Though all of these people coyly pay lip service to the notion of some
>designer other than God, they all admit that the designer is God.
First, these "main proponents of ID" do not "pay lip service to the notion
of some designer other than God." As pointed out above, the mention of
"some designer other than God" was only in the context of conceding that
if ID was detected, it could not *require* belief in the Christian (or indeed
*any* God).
Second, these "main proponents of ID" do not "all admit that the designer
is God." Those who are Christians all *believe* "that the designer is [the
Christian] God" but they also "all admit that" they cannot *prove* that "the
designer is [the Christian] God."
CH>If you honestly believe that the designer could be anything but God, then
>the leadership of the ID movement is using you for their own ends.
No one is using anyone. The fact is that if Berthajane (or anyone) wants to
believe that the universe was designed, she (they) is (are) welcome within
the ID movement.
What Cliff seems to be wanting is that the 80% or more of the population
who believe in *some* form of design in nature should have no right to
join together in common cause?
This `divide and conquer' strategy has worked well in the past for the 10%
or less who don't believe there is *any* form of design in nature.
Cliff, in his Metaviews post that Susan copied to the Reflector, used the
demonstrably false epithet "Intelligent Design Creationists" to refer to the
ID movement. The strategy no doubt is to try to marginalise ID in the
public's mind as just another version of young-Earth creationism.
Therefore I assume that Cliff's claim that somehow Berthajane is being
used by the ID movement (*how* exactly he does not say) is an attempt to
justify this patently false epithet?
CH>I'm
>not against ID because it allows for the possibility of a God.
ID doesn't especially "allow for the possibility of a God". The defining
quality of ID is that it "allows for the possibility of" *design* in nature.
CH>I don't have
>problems with the possibility of a God. In fact, I'm certain that there is
>one.
Great! But presumably Cliff is "certain" that there is a "God" based on
*evidence*? And if it is based on evidence, presumably it is, at least
partially, based on the evidence of *design* in nature?
If this is the case: 1) why is Cliff so opposed to those who try to put on a
sound empirical base this evidence of *design* in nature? and 2) why isn't
Cliff writing similar public critiques of those, like his fellow Darwinists
Dawkins, Dennett and Provine who do *not* "allow for the possibility of a
God" and in fact strenuously *deny*, on the basis of their Darwinism, that
there is a "God"?
CH> But, I do have problems with people distorting science and the truth
>to manipulate people and the society they live in.
From Cliff's Darwinist perspective, no doubt it *seems* that IDers are
"distorting science and the truth to manipulate people and the society they
live in."
But the problem from my Christian evangelical perspective is Cliff's
*Darwinist* perspective, which is "distorting" *his* vision. From my
Christian evangelical perspective my suggestion to my fellow Christian
brother Cliff is to heed the words of his Lord to "first take the [Darwinist]
plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the
speck from your brother's [Christian IDer's] eye" (Mt 7:5).
CH> That's why I'm against ID.
Cliff might sincerely *think* that he is "against ID" for these reasons, but
his being a Darwinist (who happens also to be a Christian) is IMHO the
*real* reason he is against ID.
Darwinism *must* maintain that *every* genetic change in the entire 3.9
billion year history of life on Earth has been random with respect to
adaptive improvement. Since (barring the invention of a time-machine),
there is no possible way for Darwinists to *know* this, it must be
*assumed* as an article of *faith*.
Therefore, to keep this faith intact, Darwinists must absolutely rule out
even the *possibility* that there *could* be any evidence of intelligent
design in the history of life. But the only way they can *guarantee* that is
to rule out in principle the *existence* of an intelligent designer. That is
why Richard Lewontin wrote:
"Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a
Divine Foot in the door." (Lewontin R.C., "Billions and Billions of
Demons", Review of "The Demon-Haunted World," by Carl
Sagan, New York Review, January 9, 1997)
http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWarchdisplay.cgi?19970109028R@p6).
So from Darwin on, and including his contemporary disciples like Dawkins
and Dennett (see tagline), leading Darwinists have all admitted that if
evolution was assisted in any way by an intelligent designer it would be
*fatal* to Darwinism (and indeed to "evolution" as they understand it):
"The Duke of Argyll, for instance, accepted the evidence that
evolution had happened, but he wanted to smuggle divine creation
in by the back door. He wasn't alone. Instead of a single, once and
for all creation in the Garden of Eden, many Victorians thought that
the deity had intervened repeatedly, at crucial points in evolution.
Complex organs like eyes, instead of evolving from simpler ones by
slow degrees as Darwin had it, were thought to have sprung into
existence in a single instant. Such people rightly perceived that such
instant 'evolution', if it occurred, would imply supernatural
intervention: that is what they believed in. The reasons are the
statistical ones I have discussed in connection with hurricanes and
Boeing 747s. 747 saltationism is, indeed, just a watered-down form
of creationism. Putting it the other way around, divine creation is
the ultimate in saltation. It is the ultimate leap from inanimate clay
to fully formed man. Darwin perceived this too. He wrote in a letter
to Sir Charles Lyell, the leading geologist of his day:
`If I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of
natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish...I would give nothing
for the theory of Natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions
at any one stage of descent.'
This is no petty matter. In Darwin's view, the whole point of the
theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a non-
miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations. For
what it is worth, it is also the whole point of this book. For Darwin,
any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not
evolution at all." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker [Why the
Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design]," 1991,
pp.248-249).
Note Darwin's "at any *one* stage of descent".
Therefore if Cliff is a Darwinist (whether Christian or not) he *must* be
*absolutely* opposed to any and every movement (including ID and all forms of
Christian creationism, as well as true Theistic Evolution), which maintains
that there has been *some* intelligent causation in natural history.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Here, then, is Darwin's dangerous idea: the algorithmic level *is* the level
that best accounts for the speed of the antelope, the wing of the eagle, the
shape of the orchid, the diversity of species, and all the other occasions for
wonder in the world of nature. It is hard to believe that something as
mindless and mechanical as an algorithm could produce such wonderful
things. No matter how impressive the products of an algorithm, the
underlying process always consists of nothing but a set of individually
mindless steps succeeding each other without the help of any intelligent
supervision; they are "automatic" by definition: the workings of an
automaton. They feed on each other, or on blind chance-coin-flips, if you
like-and on nothing else. ... Can it really be the outcome of nothing but a
cascade of algorithmic processes feeding on chance? And if so, who
designed that cascade? Nobody. It is itself the product of a blind,
algorithmic process. As Darwin himself put it, in a letter to the geologist
Charles Lyell shortly after publication of Origin, "I would give absolutely
nothing for the theory of Natural Selection, if it requires miraculous
additions at any one stage of descent...if I were convinced that I required
such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as
rubbish..." (F. Darwin 1911, vol. 2, pp. 6-7) According to Darwin, then,
evolution is an algorithmic process." (Dennett D.C., "Darwin 's Dangerous
Idea: Evolution and The Meanings of Life," [1995], Penguin: London,
1996, reprint, pp.59-60. Emphasis Dennett's)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 30 2000 - 18:20:39 EDT