FJ>True but it's obvious where the ID movement wants to take it.
SE: 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?
Most of these ID'ers fall in the category of a Christian God.
SJ: 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.
The problem is that even if design could be reliably detected, and the
evidence suggests that it cannot, it cannot exclude natural forces as the
designer. What task would ID have accomplished?
FJ>If they only
>realized that since it does not identify the designer
SJL 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.
Including nature as the designer? Lacking independent evidence of the
designer what does ID have to offer that presently science does not offer?
FJ>natural forces could
>be the designer making ID nothing more than "nature did it".
SJ L If design is detected and someone wants to claim that "natural forces
could
be the designer" they are welcome to make their case.
Simple, ID does not identify the designer therefor the designer can be
natural forces.
It's a simple and powerful case that ID has limited offerings.
>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.
SJ: There *has* been "evidence" given for empirically detectable design in
nature-
Mike Behe's irreducible complexity proposal for example.
And since natural pathways leading to IC systems have been shown, IC seems to
be dead in the water. Even worse, IC is infered from the absence of
evolutionary evidence, not from independent data. Why not admit when
evolutionary mechanisms are unsupported by the data that we don't know yet?
SJ: I assume FJ is getting mixed up with "evidence" and proof? If FJ is ac
tually
claiming that this is not even "evidence" then maybe he could state what
he would accept as evidence that the ID movement could present.
Then anything could be considered evidence of design. Why just irreducible
complexity? Why not include regular complexity? Design is a placeholder for
"we don't know yet". At least in the case of biological design where no
independent evidence of design or designers exist to allow us to make a case.
>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.
SJ: A "scientific case has been made" and other scientists have critiqud it.
Perhaps we differ in opinion on what is considered scientific. Creation
science has been critiqued but that hardly makes it scientific.
SJ: Again I assume that FJ is getting mixed up with "scientific case" being
"made" and it being proven.
Not really.
FJ>And Christians are ecstatic about the
>possibilities it provides.
SJ: 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).
I am glad to hear this. Mixing ID and faith seems quite dangerous.
SJ: 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.
I could not have hoped for more.
FJ>The motives of the Discover institute for
>instance are quite clear but do not do a favor to Christianity or science.
SJ: That the Discovery Institute may have conservative sociopolitical
"motives" is neither here nor there. Stephen Jay Gould and Richard
Lewontin are (or were) Marxists.
And the relevance of this is? In case of the Discovery institute it seems
that the sociopolitical motives are more important than a scientific process.
You cannot force science to follow a timed path.
SJ: Both "Christianity" and "science" are able to accommodate to its
practitioners holding to a diverse range of sociopolitical views.
True but that is not what we are talking about.
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.
SJ: If ID detects *design*, then it will have accomplished its task.
What task? Showing that natural forces can design nature? What would ID add
to our scientific knowledge?
>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.
SJ: Since I don't know who FJ is, I for one will not accept his unsubstantia
ted
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.
1. Since design can include natural forces why would Darwinists deny it ? 2.
Since design can exists together with Darwinism, i.e. God created through
evolution why should Darwinism deny design? I am sure that there are
Darwinists who deny design just like there are design proponents who deny
Darwinism.
SJ: 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".
You are confusing Dawkin''s thesis with Darwinism.
SJ: 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:
Ah, but that is not denying design, merely that design can be detected.
SJ: 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). "
Indeed, there you go. You seem to destroy your own assertion.
SJ: But that is not what FJ said. He said that "Darwinism does not deny de
sign",
which js clearly false, or at best misleading, because all the leading
*Darwinists* claim that "Darwinism" *does* "deny design".
Note the difference between Darwinism and Darwinists...
A common confusion.
SJ: 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! "
No, that is determined by the data and the explanatory power of the theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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 - 23:18:33 EDT