In a message dated 9/21/2000 4:08:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
sejones@iinet.net.au writes:
<< [...]
FJ>For many scientists its quite easy to accomodate faith and science.
SJ: If their "science" is based on "materialistic-naturalistic philosophy"
and
their faith is based on a Christian theistic philosophy, then I doubt that it
is
"quite easy".
>>
Which shows once again that a materialistic-naturalistic philosophy is not
what governs
science or even Darwinism. It's what motivates some Darwinists to conclude on
philosophical
grounds that there is no God just like it motivates other Darwinists to
conclude on similar grounds
that there is a God.
<< Most Christians that I have encountered who try "to accomodate faith and
science" seem under great conflict and this is most evident in the barely
suppressed *rage* they seem to have against those of their Christian
brothers who question "materialistic-naturalistic philosophy".
>>
Or the surpressed "rage" shown by some creationists when scientists question
the foundation of the ID thesis?
<< FJ>That
>Dembski and others reject a working philosophy that neither admits nor deny
>his Designer seems somewhat unnecessary.
SJ: Materialistic philosophy asserts that matter is all there is. That is,
there is
no God.
>>
There you go, since science cannot make such an assertion, therefore
materialistic philosophy is not equivalent to science.
Indeed, Science cannot prove or disprove a God.
http://www.jlab.org/news/articles/1999/universe.html
"The problem with using a spiritual theory to explain the creation of the
universe is
that there is no objective experiment that can prove or disprove God, Stenger
argues. "
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/preface.html
"One source of resistance to the teaching of evolution is the belief that
evolution conflicts with religious principles. But accepting evolution as an
accurate description of the history of life on earth does not mean rejecting
religion. On the contrary, most religious communities do not hold that the
concept of evolution is at odds with their descriptions of creation and human
origins."
"Nevertheless, religious faith and scientific knowledge, which are both
useful and important, are different. This publication is designed to help
ensure
that students receive an education in the sciences that reflects this
distinction."
<< Naturalism asserts that nature is a closed system of cause and effect into
which nothing supernatural, even if it exists, could never influence or
intervene.
>>
That makes naturalism quite different from science then. So let's focus on
science then. Science does not claim that naturalistic explanation are all
there is, it merely claims that that's all it can address scientifically.
<< So if FJ thinks that "materialistic-naturalistic philosophy" neither
admits
nor denies a designer, then the most charitable assumption is that he does
not understand what the words mean.
>>
So you were merely using a strawman to attack? Since science and Darwinism is
not materialistic-naturalistic it has no real relevance?
<< FJ>Especially since they offer no working alternative.
How would FJ ever know? His mind seems closed to even the *possibility*
of *real* design being detected in the natural world.
>>
Unsupported assertion and contradicted by the absence of any supporting
evidence. "It was designed" is not a workable alternative especially if one
cannot exclude natural selection as the designer. It merely states that it
could have been natural or non-natural and it looks like design (whatever
that may mean).
<< [...]
>SJ>The tensions get even worse when those Christians (like Dembski), argue
>that there is independent scientific evidence from nature for design and
>hence those scientific positions which claim there is no design, ie.
>Darwinism, are false.
FJ>Steve is still confused about what Darwinism claims and does not claim.
>Perhaps he wants to claim that Darwinists claim that there is no design?
SJ: They do in fact. I have quoted from leading Darwinists who say exactly
this. FJ is free to post quotes by leading Darwinists who claim there is
design.
>>
They use science to draw philosophical conclusions just like ID'ers are
drawing conclusions from their design inferences. Does this make
Darwinism necessarily deny supernatural occurrences or does this mean that
ID'ers are admitting that the designer is a Christian God? Of course not.
<<
FJ>So does Darwinism claims that there is no design when design is
>defined as such?
SJ: See above. I don't know what FJ's definition above means.
>>
I am trying to establish if design used by ID'ers can exclude apparant
design. I argue it cannot so there is no reason to exclude design per se. Of
course ID'ers seem also to argue that design excludes natural causes (based
on what appears to be erroneous logic) and it is that form of design that
Darwinism claims that there exists a naturalistic explanation. Are Darwinists
wrong? Time shall tell, so far Darwinism and science have done quite well in
showing what nature can achieve. Little scientific evidence exists to support
a "Designer" though.
<< SJ: The fact is that Darwinism *does* "claim that there is no design". If
FJ
disagrees with them one this he should take it up with the Darwinists.
>>
Some Darwinists might make that claim. Your logic is fallacious since science
cannot make such claims.
<< FJ>Indeed the weakness of ID is that it has reduced the meaning
>of design by including natural forces as the designer.
SJ: No it hasn't. See previous posts. Dembski's explanatory filter excludes
all
unintelligent "natural forces" which consist of either law and chance.
>>
It claims that it does, it does not show that it does. Furthermore it merely
infers design not designer. As Wesley has shown the filter cannot exclude
natural selection as an intelligent designer.
Wesley Elsberry:
"The apparent, but unstated, logic behind the move from design to
agency can be given as follows:
1. There exists an attribute in common of some subset of objects
known to be designed by an intelligent agent.
2. This attribute is never found in objects known not to be designed
by an intelligent agent.
3. The attribute encapsulates the property of directed contingency
or choice.
4.For all objects, if this attribute is found in an object, then we
may conclude that the object was designed by an intelligent agent.
"This is an inductive argument. Notice that by the second step, one
must eliminate from consideration precisely those biological
phenomena which Dembski wishes to categorize. In order to conclude
intelligent agency for biological examples, the possibility that
intelligent agency is not operative is excluded a priori. One large
problem is that directed contingency or choice is not solely an
attribute of events due to the intervention of an intelligent agent.
The "actualization-exclusion-specification" triad mentioned above also
fits natural selection rather precisely. One might thus conclude that
Dembski's argument establishes that natural selection can be recognized
as an intelligent agent. "
http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/zgists/wre/papers/dembski7.html
SJ: << FJ wants to invent a new category called *intelligent* "natural
forces"
which are other than law and chance. >>
And follow logically from Dembki's analysis.
He is welcome to try to establish this
<< new category, but, as I have pointed out, he would destroy sciences like
archaeology, SETI, forensic science and *Darwinism* in the process.
>>
Nope it would not. You merely assert this.
SJ: << This is because any claimed example of design (in the case of
archaeology,
SETI and forensic science) and of non-design (in the case of Darwinism)
would be defeated by the claim that this could have been an instance
*intelligent* "natural forces".
>>
You are incorrect once again. Although indeed, identification of design need
to lead to the expected designer. The reason why we can make a more reliable
design inference in these cases is because we have independent information.
Wesley again:
"This is also my viewpoint on the significance of the SETI project: SETI
identifies certain attributes of radio signals
that are known from human use of radio signals, and SETI does not show us
any detection of a novel design/designer
relationship.''
SJ: << Not only that, but assigning guilt in the law would be difficult, if
not
impossible, in cases of circumstantial evidence. In that case a defendant
could claim that he didn't kill his wife with his gun, but it just pointed at
her, released the safety catch and pulled the trigger of its own accord,
because of *intelligent* "natural forces!
>>
Again, this argument would be rejected if the person fails to show such a
natural force but it has been shown that natural forces such as selection can
indeed be quite creative. So there is actually an identified mechanism that
can be observed. Unlike SJ's strawman examples/
<< FJ>As such I doubt that
>Darwinism claims that there is no such design.
SJ: Whether FJ doubts it or not is irrelevant. The fact is that leading
Darwinists
all *do* claim that there is no real design, only apparent design.
>>
Cool, notice the difference between Darwinists and Darwinism. Since there are
also Darwinists who are Christians, it's clear that Darwinism does not deny
the possibility of design. Darwinists do but that is not relevant.
<< FJ>Of course this also assumes
>that there is a reliable detector of design, something yet to be shown.
SJ: See previous posts.
>>
Still not shown
<< FJ>Furthermore what problem is there for Chris and other scientists when
ID
>cannot exclude natural forces as the designer?
See above.
>>
Still not relevant to the discussion. A strawman hardly rebutes an argument
<< FJ>Nothing. Other than the obvious question: So what is the value of ID
then if
>it cannot exclude and can include anything?
SJ: See previous posts.
>>
None then?
<< [...]
>SJ>That is, they should ask themselves whether the fact that they spend
>>their time and energy attacking their fellow Christians who are arguing
against
>>anti-Christian philosophies like materialism, naturalism and Darwinism, and
>>defending their atheist/agnostics colleagues who hold those philosophies,
is
FJ>not good evidence that they themselves have in fact been taken captive by
>those "hollow and deceptive" philosophies?
Maybe FJ could state what *would* be "good evidence that they
themselves have in fact been taken captive by those "hollow and deceptive"
philosophies"?
>>
Certainly yours isn't. Perhaps you can try again and we can see if you have
convincingly shown such evidence. You merely assert.
<< FJ>You seem to be still confused about Darwinism.
SJ :It is not *me* who is "confused about Darwinism"! >>
You confuse Darwinism with Darwinists. That's like confusing design adn
Designer.
<<
FJ>Darwinism and the underlying
>foundation of science are not anti-Christian
SJ: Maybe that is why leading Darwinists like Dawkins (Oxford Professor for
the Public Understanding of Science) describes religious faith as a "virus":
>>
Cool. He has his own philosophical opinions. But does this mean that
Darwinism is anti-christian? Of course not. Plenty of Darwinists are
Christians. Or do you now want to argue that ID is anti-Christian as well for
instance ? Or anti science? Or pro-God? You should not confuse motives of
people who adhere to Darwinism with Darwinism itself./
<<
FJ>and I believe it is important
>that we Christians do spend our time straightening out our fellow Christians
>who argue against this.
SJ: FJ would be better to spend his "time straightening out" his "fellow"
*Darwinists*!
>>
Non sequitor.
<< His "fellow Christians" are just taking the Darwinists at their word.
FJ>Perhaps that is the evidence Steve is looking for?
SJ: What "evidence" exactly is it that am I supposed to be "is looking for"?
I
already own, and have read, most of the books that leading Darwinists
actually write.
>>
Cool but that still ignores the issue
<< Maybe FJ could state what books by leading Darwinists (and IDers for that
matter) that he actually owns and/or has read?
>>
Irrelevant
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 21 2000 - 23:20:21 EDT