Reflectories
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 01:12:58 EDT, FMAJ1019@aol.com wrote:
Welcome to "FMAJ" (hereinafter "FJ") to the Reflector from me.
Maybe FJ can tell us more about himself (for simplicity I will assume
that FJ is a male).
[...]
>CH>I've heard this argument from IDers before. ID is all about God. .
>SJ>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!
FJ>True but it's obvious where the ID movement wants to take it.
It is not "obvious" at all. The ID movement includes Christians
(Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox) as well as Jews and at least one
agnostic. Where *could* "the ID movement ... take it" after
design has been empirically detected in nature?
Besides, if design is reliably detected in nature, it will rapidly
become *much* bigger than the ID movement. In fact the ID
movement might even cease to exist, becase it would have
accomplished its task.
FJ>If they only
>realized that since it does not identify the designer
The ID movement *does* realise it. I have previously mentioned Fred
Hoyle's "Intelligent Universe" hypothesis as possibly within the ID
paradigm. The common bond of all members of the ID movement is
the belief in the existence (or at least the possibility) of empirically
detectable *design* in nature. It is *not* agreement on who is the
designer.
FJ>natural forces could
>be the designer making ID nothing more than "nature did it".
If design is detected and someone wants to claim that "natural forces could
be the designer" they are welcome to make their case.
>SJ>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?
FJ>There can be evidence of design, is there evidence of design in nature. So
>far no evidence has been given that shows this.
There *has* been "evidence" given for empirically detectable design in nature-
Mike Behe's irreducible complexity proposal for example.
I assume FJ is getting mixed up with "evidence" and proof? If FJ is actually
claiming that this is not even "evidence" then maybe he could state what
he would accept as evidence that the ID movement could present.
>SJ>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.
FJ>Right... In the mean time it is used before even a scientific case has been
>made to pretend that ID is scientific.
A "scientific case has been made" and other scientists have critiqud it.
Again I assume that FJ is getting mixed up with "scientific case" being
"made" and it being proven.
FJ>And Christians are ecstatic about the
>possibilities it provides.
Not really. Most "Christians" in my experience are not yet interested in ID
and some are opposed to it (including some in the YEC camp).
And there are a lot of Christians (maybe even a majority) who think that
Christians should just preach the gospel and not get involved in
philosophical issues.
FJ>The motives of the Discover institute for
>instance are quite clear but do not do a favor to Christianity or science.
That the Discovery Institute may have conservative sociopolitical
"motives" is neither here nor there. Stephen Jay Gould and Richard
Lewontin are (or were) Marxists.
Both "Christianity" and "science" are able to accommodate to its
practitioners holding to a diverse range of sociopolitical views.
FJ>What is so easily forgotten is that since ID does not identify a designer it
>cannot exclude a natural designer. So we have gotten nowhere.
If ID detects *design*, then it will have accomplished its task.
>SJ>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.
FJ>Darwinism does not deny design. A common fallacy.
Since I don't know who FJ is, I for one will not accept his unsubstantiated
assertions. Until FJ quotes from leading Darwinists stating that "Darwinism
does not deny design" I will assume that in this case FJ simply doesn't
know what he is talking about.
Apart from the "design without a designer" quotes I have just posted to
Cliff from leading Darwinist philosophers Susan Blackmore and Helena
Cronin, I submit the full USA edition title of Dawkins' book as evidence that
"Darwinism does" in fact "deny design":
"The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a
Universe without Design".
The fact is that the *defining* quality of Darwinism is the denial of the
*reality* of design and the claim that unintelligent natural forces can give
the *illusion* of the work of an intelligent designer:
"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does
not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.
Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress
us with the *appearance* of design as if by a master watchmaker,
impress us with the *illusion* of design and planning." (Dawkins
R., "The Blind Watchmaker," 1991, p.21. My emphasis).
Of course it may be that FJ simply means that even if the facts of
Darwinism were 100% true, it would still not rule out design, then I would
agree. I say as much on my web page testimony:
"I would have no problem even if Darwinian evolution was proved
to be true, because the God of the Bible is fully in control of all
events, even those that seem random to man (Prov. 16:33; 1 Kings
22:34). "
But that is not what FJ said. He said that "Darwinism does not deny design",
which js clearly false, or at best misleading, because all the leading
*Darwinists* claim that "Darwinism" *does* "deny design".
BTW after the above on my web page, I immediately add:
"But if the Biblical God really exists there is no good reason to
assume in advance that Darwinian (or any form of) naturalistic
evolution is true! "
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Finally, there is the question of natural selection. In one sense, the
influence of the theory of natural selection on sociology was enormous. It
created for a while, in fact, a branch of sociology. It seems now to be felt
that the influence on sociology of the doctrine of 'survival of the fittest' was
theoretically speaking, unfortunate, chiefly because it seemed to offer an
explanatory short cut, and encouraged social theorists to aspire to be
Darwin's when probably they should have been trying to be Linnaeuses or
Cuviers. As Professor MacRae points out, in sociology the principle
explains too much. Any state of affairs known to exist or to have existed
can be explained by the operation of natural selection. Like Hegel's
dialectic and Dr Chasuble's sermon on The Meaning of Manna in the
Wilderness, it can be made to suit any situation." (Burrow J.W., "Evolution
and Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory," [1966], Cambridge
University Press: London, 1968, reprint, p.115)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 18:14:25 EDT