SteamDoc@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/30/00 3:57:57 PM Mountain Daylight Time, crossbr@SLU.EDU
writes:> Either nature indicates a designer or it doesn't. One cannot claim that an
> underlying teleology is necessary to explain why things work and then
> disparage
> the design argument. One must either deny that an underlying teleology is
> necessary or accept some form of the design argument. I'm new to this
list,
> so I
> have no idea whether you (or anyone on the list) rejects the claim that an
> underlying teleology is necessary. If you do reject the claim that an
> underlying teleology is necessary, then please ignore this.I think you have presented a false choice when you say "One must either deny
that an underlying teleology is necessary or accept some form of the design
argument." An underlying teleology is a necessary Christian doctine in the
sense that the Creator's purpose underlies creation. But it is not necessary
that there be an underlying teleology *that is detectible by human science*.
The design argument may fail if the underlying teleology is not within the
grasp of our scientific instruments. It is in making *scientifically
detectible* design a theological necessity (and/or failing to correct the
perception in the church that their work is "showing Christianity isn't false
after all because evolution isn't true after all") that the ID movement goes
astray in my opinion.
What I wrote was: "One cannot claim that an underlying teleology
is necessary to explain why things work and then
disparage the design argument. One must either deny that an underlying
teleology is necessary or accept some form of the design argument." I was
clearly not talking about 'necessary under the constraints of theology',
but necessary by way of abduction to explain nature. The earlier claim
made by David was that in order to explain why things work, "why natural
laws and fundamental constants allow our existence, why evolution worked
out to produce us, why we can figure out natural laws", some underlying
teleology is necessary. That is a version of the design argument, not an
argument from theology. Since one cannot disparage the design argument
and simultaneously make use of it while remaining consistent, my point
still stands.
Regarding Phil Johnson's position that natural processes do not "count" asI wrote Phil a note, asking him about his position on the doctrine of providence and his reasons for refusing to endorse the above quotation. Here is what he wrote back:
works of God, others can post more quotes, but somebody (Joel?) mentioned a
statement which was posed to him about whether it was theologically "OK" for
God to act naturally through evolution. I suggested the following statement
to him:
>"While I believe the evidence does not support the theory of evolution,
>and while it has been abused as a tool by those pushing an atheist
>agenda, the Christian faith does not suffer if it turns out that
>evolution is true. God can create however He chooses, and is not
>diminished if His work in creation was through 'natural' processes."
The fact that Johnson would not agree to such a statement, which even some ID
proponents on this list thought was agreeable, seems to confirm the claim
that he is unwilling to acknowledge God's ability to do his creative work via
his sovereignty over nature.
"My views are explained in by writings, especially Reason in the Balance (the Appendix is particularly important) and The Wedge of Truth. Among my views are these: (1) God can and does act by whatever means He chooses, including superintendence of natural processes; and (2) I do not allow other persons, especially persons who think in naturalistic categories, to put their own (vague) words in my mouth - e.g., "if evolution" (undefined) "turns out to be true" (as determined by reasoning based upon methodological naturalism?). The question is not what God can do but what the neo-Darwinian mechanism can do, when its creative power has to be demonstrated by experiment rather than deduced from naturalistic assumptions. I do not cooperate with attempts to evade that question."
I think that pretty much settles the question.
Joel Cannon wrote:
>Bryan:
>
>Do you disagree with Dawkins statement? Why?
Because I agree with Augustine that being an intellectually fulfilled
atheist is a contradiction in terms. Therefore, nothing, not even Darwinism,
can make it possible.
Bob Dehaan wrote:
>>In my opinion purposelessness is deeply
>>embedded in evolutionary theory. I
>> doubt if you would find any mainline
>>evolutionists who would deny this.
Wayne replied:
>Agreed, but scientist also think that because they are
>good in one area (insert your name), therefore they are
>good in all other areas. Like any academic discipline,
>you must have command of the literature or what you say
>is little more than opinion.
So according to Wayne it *does not* matter that there is a virtual consensus among evolutionary biologists regarding the undirectedness (by an intelligent agent) of evolution. But according to George (whom Wayne commends) the virtual consensus among evolutionary biologists against ID *does* matter. Why isn't that special pleading?? If you can explain away a consensus concerning the undirectedness of evolution among evolutionary biologists (as due to their not really knowing what they are talking about), then surely you have just granted ID proponents the right to explain away any consensus against ID among those same scientists as due to the fact that in this matter they do not really know what they are talking about. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
- Bryan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 01 2000 - 12:13:34 EDT