Reflectorites
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 00:10:12 EDT, FMAJ1019@aol.com wrote:
[...]
FJ>But in the
>case of ID there are more problems than this, ID fails to show that natural
>designers can be excluded.
See above. ID fails to show that Big Bird's imaginary friend "can be
excluded" too!
If FJ has any examples of "natural designers" he can always post them. In
fact he should send them to SCIENCE or NATURE and win a Nobel,
prize!
Mind you he would destroy archaeology, forensic science, SETI and
Darwinism in the process, but what they heck?
>>FJ>Perhaps we differ in opinion on what is considered scientific. Creation
>>science has been critiqued but that hardly makes it scientific.
>SJ 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.
FJ>Pseudo scientific perhaps. Science is not merely any claim that can be
>disproven.
For his statement above to be meaningful, FJ would need to state non-
circularly what is the demarcation between "science" and pseudoscience is
then, which does not exclude disciplines that are regarded as scientific?
>>SJ>Again I assume that FJ is getting mixed up with "scientific case" being
>>"made" and it being proven.
>FJ>Not really.
SJ>FJ does not state *why* it is "Not really"!
FJ>Again I point out that you assumed.
FJ does not state *why* what I "assumed" was wrong.
>>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.
SJ>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"?
FJ>Because it is exactly that error in logic that seems to lead people to think
>that ID can show evidence of true design when in fact it cannot distinguish
>between an intelligent designer and apparant or natural designer.
See above. We await FJ's unveiling of this "natural designer".
FJ>Not to mention the problems in the reliability of the design itself.
>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.
SJ>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?
If Gould and Lewontin's left-wing "sociopolitical `motives'" have no
"relevance" in science then neither does the Discovery Institutes.
FJ>In case of the Discovery institute it seems
>>that the sociopolitical motives are more important than a scientific
>process.
What evidence does FJ have of this?
>FJ>You cannot force science to follow a timed path.
What does FJ mean by "a timed path"?
SJ>What evidence has FJ for this assertion?
FJ>Read the Wedge lately?
It is not clear to me what FJ means here.
SJ>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.
FJ>True but since it seems that ID is far from able to show that design is real,
>at least real in the sense they had hoped for,
In what "sense" would FJ accept that "design is real"?
FJ>the insistance to get ID into
>our schools makes the motives important.
What "insistence" is that exactly?
And why is it OK for FJ to attribute motives to people he does not know,
but shameful for me to do it:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:26:45 EDT, FMAJ1019@aol.com wrote:
[...]
FJ>Shame on you for this unfounded accusation. You are attributing motives
to people you do not know.
[...]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>>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?
SJ>ID would "add to our scientific knowledge" that intelligent causation in
>natural history is *real*, not just apparent as the Darwinists maintain.
FJ>It would add to our knowledge that something that we claim is designed might
>have an origin in natural forces as the designer? We already knew this.
Again, perhaps FJ could state what these "natural forces as the designer"
that "We already knew" that are not law and chance (or a combination of
the two) are exactly?
FJ>ID does not add anything to our knowledge.
FJ should speak for himself. If ID is detected empirically it will
revolutionise science and culture, more than the Copernican or Darwinian
revolutions did. It would be bigger than the discovery by SETI of
intelligent life on other planets.
FJ>You seem to jump to the conclusion
>that ID has shown that intelligence is needed and that nature cannot provide
>this intelligence.
See above. FJ is welcome to provide this evidence "that nature" (other than
chance and law) can "provide this intelligence".
FJ>So far design seems based on equivocation and wishful
>thinking more than on actual arguments.
No doubt it "seems" that way to FJ!
FJ>You claim that ID can exclude apparant design but I have shown you it cannot
>exclude a natural designer.
No, FJ hasn't yet.
FJ>So natural forces designed something, if you call
>it real design then you have a problem,
*I* don't "have a problem". I don't claim that "natural forces designed
something" in the sense of "real design". *FJ* is claiming it and *he* has "a
problem" because even the Darwinists would disagree with him.
FJif you call it apparant design then
>you have disproven your own thesis. Either way you seem to lose here.
No. It is the *Darwinists* who call it "apparent design".
The ID distinction is between unintelligent causes and intelligent causes. It
is the same distinction that archaeology, SETI and forensic sciences make.
>>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?
>SJ>The fact is they *do*!
FJ>Some do others hardly deny that 'design' exists, they merely doubt the value
>of design if it is unable to exclude natural designers.
See above.
FJ>That's what's really
>relevant. Even if Darwinists were to deny design, that is hardly evidence
>that this is based on a good reason.
So FJ now claims that the "Darwinists" when they "deny design" don't do
so "based on a good reason"?
>SJ>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.
FJ>Randomness is shown through observation. There are some cases where it seems
>that the organism can direct the 'randomness' but that is hardly a problem
>for Darwinism. Variation and selection is all that is needed.
No. "Variation" must be, according to Darwinism, "random with respect to
adaptive advantage":
"There is a fifth respect in which mutation might have been
nonrandom. ... It is only in this fifth respect, the 'mutationist'
respect, that the true, real-life Darwinian insists that mutation is
random. Mutation is not systematically biased in the direction of
adaptive improvement, and no mechanism is known (to put the
point mildly) that could guide mutation in directions that are non-
random in this fifth sense. Mutation is random with respect to
adaptive advantage, although it is non-random in all sorts of other
respects. It is selection, and only selection, that directs evolution in
directions that are nonrandom with respect to advantage."
(Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," 1991, p.312)
But Darwinists cannot possibly know that *all* mutations in the 3.9 billion
year history of life have been "random with respect to adaptive advantage".
They just *assume* that they must have been, because they believe there
was nothing (like an Intelligent Designer) to bias genetic changes in the
direction of adaptive advantage.
>SJ>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>It would disprove that their claim that all arose naturally was wrong.
Indeed!
FJ>But so far there is no evidence of intelligent causation
See above and previously.
FJ>and worse ID has been
>unable to exclude natural designers as intelligent causers.
See above and previously.
>FJ>2. Since design can exists together with Darwinism, i.e. God created
>>through evolution why should Darwinism deny design?
For starters they deny that "God created through evolution".
FJ>I am sure that there are
>>Darwinists who deny design just like there are design proponents who deny
>>Darwinism.
SJ>See above.
>The real question is are there any leading "Darwinists" who *don't* "deny
>design"?
FJ>I don't know. Hardly that relevant
It is "relevant" if FJ claims that Darwinism and design are not mutually
exclusive.
>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.
SJ>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.
FJ>Wow... And that shows exactly what? That he is smart. Does this make him
>decide what Darwinism is and isn't? An amazing appeal to authority indeed.
Then who does FJ think does "decide what Darwinism is and isn't" if it is
not the world's leading Darwinists?
>SJ>In my Biology course the textbook has a two-page interview with Dawkins
>at the start of its section on "Mechanisms of Evolution".
FJ>Cool. I bet you that it's an interesting anecdote.
FJ evades the issue. I take it he concedes my point!
FJ>If FJ knows of any other "Darwinism" which is not "Dawkins' thesis"
>then let him state what it is.
FJ>Irrelevant. You have to show support for your argument.
I *have* shown support for my argument. It is FJ's counter-argument that
we are now discussing.
>>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.
SJ>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.
FJ>Sure and they are still working hard to support their claims and even if they
>do, they are still going to have to deal with the fact that ID cannot exlcude
>a natural designer.
>Perhaps in the future?
See above.
>>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.
SJ>There is no "difference". What the leading "Darwinists" say that
>"Darwinism" *is* Darwinism. >>
FJ>Wow, I guess that this appeal to authority is what defines Darwinism? Luckily
>science does not work that way.
See above.
SJ>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.
FJ>Aha, that shows where you error lies: Your own interest... Well, that's fine
>with me but don't confuse Darwinism with what is promoted by famous people.
>Such an appeal to authority is not very useful
See above.
Also FJ seems to believe the myth that science is not based on authority,
when modern, highly specialised science clearly does, as Lewontin points
out:
"...it is said That there is no place for an argument from authority
from science. The community of science is constantly self-critical....
It is certainly true that within each narrowly defined scientific field
there is constant challenge to new technical claims and to old
wisdom. .... But when scientists transgress the bounds of their own
specialty they have no choice but to accept the claims of authority,
even though they do not know how solid the grounds of those
claims may be. Who am I to believe that quantum physics if not
Steven Weinberg, or about the solar system if not Carl Sagan?"
(Lewontin R., "Billions and Billions of Demons", review of "The
Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl
Sagan, New York Review, January 9, 1997, pp30-31
http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWarchdisplay.cgi?1997010902
8R@p6)
>>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.
SJ>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".
FJ>Unsupported assertion. Perhaps you can provide us with some evidence? Good
>luck. Rethoric like this hardly is convincing.
Unsupported assertion. Perhaps you can provide us with some evidence? Good
luck. Rethoric like this hardly is convincing.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ Email: sejones@iinet.net.au
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Web: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Warwick 6024 -> *_,--\_/ Phone: +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, Western Australia v "Test everything." (1 Thess. 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 17 2000 - 18:51:24 EDT