Reflectorites
Now that I have finished this post, I am more than ever convinced that
"FMAJ1019" is in fact Pim van Meurs, as Stan Zygmunt sugested:
--------------------------------------------------------
Re: Definitions of ID
From: SZYGMUNT@EXODUS.VALPO.EDU
Date: Thu Sep 07 2000 - 14:12:20 EDT
[...]
Im just guessing, but it seems to me that the
"one-liner" style of responses we have been getting
on this reflector from user FMAJ109@aol.com
are very similar to the comments of Pim van Meurs,
who posted regularly until sometime last year.
Am I right, FMAJ109? If not, then perhaps you
could introduce yourself.
--------------------------------------------------------
and which AFAIK FMAJ109 has not denied.
Pim's specialty was a plethora of brief `spoiler' posts that doubled up on
every message I sent in response to other people's posts, and which I found
consumed all my time in trying to answer (which may have been the main
idea).
Moreover, it turned out that Pim did not even believe what he wrote, but is
in fact a Christian "believer" who does "like to play the devil's advocate":
--------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 5 Aug 1998 09:17:58 -0700, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>Yep I am a believer although I do like to play devil's advocate every now and then.
>
>
>
>----------
>From: mullerd@chplink.CHP.EDU[SMTP:mullerd@chplink.CHP.EDU]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 1998 12:02 PM
>To: evolution@calvin.edu
>Subject: Introducing the Science&Research Foundation
>
>
> Pim,
>
> I would like to ask a question of you that is somewhat
> personal, however appropriate for this discussion.
>
> I'm curious as to what position you speak from. I've been
> on this list for several years and it has been my
> understanding that you were a nonbeliever.
>
> Yet, you confuse me when you state to Ron Chitwood, "So
> let's not confuse the issues by ignoring that which God is
> showing us." You speak as if you are a genuine believer.
>
> Dan Muller
-------------------------------------------------------
In the end I had to put a filter in my emailer to filter out Pim's `noise'
So unless FMAJ109 can assume me that he definitely is not the person who
previously went by the name of "Pim van Meurs" on this Reflector, I may
start filtering out his posts, unless they increase in quality and reduce in
quantity.
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000 23:18:13 EDT, FMAJ1019@aol.com wrote:
>FJ>True but it's obvious where the ID movement wants to take it.
>SJ>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?
FJ>Most of these ID'ers fall in the category of a Christian God.
Even granted that the Jewish IDers would agree with the category of a
Judeo-Christian God, and leaving aside the fact that at least one IDer is an
"agnostic", my point was "where could the ID movement take it after
design has been empirically detected in nature"?
The ID movement's job would be done and if they took it any further by
claiming the designer was the "Judeo-Christian God" they would be going
beyond their evidence and probably internally self-destruct.
In any event from that point on the theologians, apologists and
philosophers in the various religious viewpoints represented in the ID
movement would take up the evidence for design that the ID movement
had demonstrated and run with it independently of the ID movement.
>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.
FJ>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?
ID would have settled the question of whether design is *real* or only
apparent as the Darwinists claim. If FJ thinks that is unimportant, that is
OK by me.
But then what is he arguing against ID for?
>FJ>If they only
>>realized that since it does not identify the designer
>
>SJ>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>Including nature as the designer? Lacking independent evidence of the
>designer what does ID have to offer that presently science does not offer?
Science at present only offers *apparent* design. ID would show that
design is *real*.
>FJ>natural forces could
>>be the designer making ID nothing more than "nature did it".
>SJ>If design is detected and someone wants to claim that "natural forces
>could be the designer" they are welcome to make their case.
FJ>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.
Even if that was true (which it isn't), so what? Most of science involves
"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.
Evidence *has* been given. That is what scientists like Jerry Coyne and
others are critiquing.
>SJ>There *has* been "evidence" given for empirically detectable design in
>nature-Mike Behe's irreducible complexity proposal for example.
FJ>And since natural pathways leading to IC systems have been shown, IC seems to
>be dead in the water.
FJ contradicts himself. He just claimed that "no evidence has been given"
for design and now he says that Behe's "IC systems" had been critiqued and
"natural pathways leading to IC systems have been shown" (they haven't
BTW). Which is it?
FJ>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?
Darwin claimed IC as a test of his theory. IF Darwinists want to avoid
falsification by claiming unknown, future "evolutionary mechanisms" that's
fine. It just shows that ID is falsifiable and Darwinism is not.
>SJ>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.
FJ>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.
Now FJ is getting mixed up between ID and design in general. ID is a
*special case* of design, namely those things which cannot be anything
other than designed (i.e. which have no plausible naturalistic explanation).
>>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 critiqued it.
FJ>Perhaps we differ in opinion on what is considered scientific. Creation
>science has been critiqued but that hardly makes it scientific.
FJ is getting mixed up between "scientific" and wrong. If "Creation science
has been critiqued" on scientific grounds then that "makes it scientific",
even if it's wrong.
>SJ>Again I assume that FJ is getting mixed up with "scientific case" being
>"made" and it being proven.
FJ>Not really.
FJ does not state *why* it is "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).
FJ>I am glad to hear this. Mixing ID and faith seems quite dangerous.
Why? All that ID aims to show is that design in nature is *real*, not just
apparent. How could that be "dangerous" to religious "faith"?
>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.
FJ>I could not have hoped for more.
No doubt.
>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.
FJ>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.
What evidence has FJ for this assertion?
In any event, who cares? If design is shown by the ID movement to be real,
then it will be irrelevant what the "sociopolitical motives" of those who
showed it was.
>SJ>Both "Christianity" and "science" are able to accommodate to its
>practitioners holding to a diverse range of sociopolitical views.
FJ>True but that is not what we are talking about.
Then what *is* FJ "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.
FJ>What task? Showing that natural forces can design nature? What would ID add
>to our scientific knowledge?
ID would "add to our scientific knowledge" that intelligent causation in
natural history is *real*, not just apparent as the Darwinists maintain.
>>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 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.
FJ>1. Since design can include natural forces why would Darwinists deny it?
The fact is they *do*!
The reason is that Darwinism depends *absolutely* on the unproven and
unprovable assumption that *all* mutations in the 3.9 billion year history of
life have been random with respect to adaptive improvement. If it is
established that there has been intelligent causation in the history of life,
then Darwinism's central assumption would be shown to be false.
FJ>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.
See above.
The real question is are there any leading "Darwinists" who *don't* "deny
design"?
>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".
FJ>You are confusing Dawkin''s thesis with Darwinism.
This is the usual `scorched earth' ploy to make out that Dawkins is some
sort of fringe figure. He is in fact one of the world's leading exponents
of Darwinism, and has been appointed the Oxford Professor for the Public
Understanding of Science.
In my Biology course the textbook has a two-page interview with Dawkins
at the start of its section on "Mechanisms of Evolution".
If FJ knows of any other "Darwinism" which is not "Dawkins' thesis"
then let him state what it is.
And he should not bother quoting Gould, because he concedes the
main point to "Dawkins' thesis":
"Since the ultras are fundamentalists at heart, and since fundamentalists
generally try to stigmatize their opponents by depicting them as apostates
from the one true way, may I state for the record that I (along with all
other Darwinian pluralists) do not deny either the existence and central
importance of adaptation, or the production of adaptation by natural
selection. Yes, eyes are for seeing and feet are for moving. And, yes again,
I know of no scientific mechanism other than natural selection with the
proven power to build structures of such eminently workable design. "
(Gould S.J., "Darwinian Fundamentalism," New York Review of Books,
June 12, 1997.
http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWfeatdisplay.cgi?1997061234F@p3)
>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:
FJ>Ah, but that is not denying design, merely that design can be detected.
Darwinists do in fact deny design, but it is sufficient for my purposes that
FJ concedes that Darwinists are "denying...merely that design can be
detected." The ID movement claims 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). "
FJ>Indeed, there you go. You seem to destroy your own assertion.
No. FJ is still getting mixed up with "design" in general and ID in
particular.
Besides, I said "*if* Darwinian evolution was proved to be true".
>SJ>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".
FJ>Note the difference between Darwinism and Darwinists...
>A common confusion.
There is no "difference". What the leading "Darwinists" say that
"Darwinism" *is* Darwinism. If FJ has his own private definition of what
"Darwinism" is, he is welcome to it. I am only interested in debating the
*public* mainstream definitions of "Darwinism" that is held and promoted
by leading Darwinists like Dawkins.
>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! "
FJ>No, that is determined by the data and the explanatory power of the theory.
There would be no problem if "Darwinian...evolution" was only
"determined by the data". But as FJ's own post shows, Darwinists have
erected elaborate philosophical and epistemological rules that ensure that
Darwinism remains in power *irrespective* of "the data".
[...]
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 : Tue Sep 12 2000 - 18:22:43 EDT