From: Sarah Berel-Harrop (sec@hal-pc.org)
Date: Wed Aug 13 2003 - 12:35:55 EDT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Josh Bembenek" <jbembe@hotmail.com>
To: <glennmorton@entouch.net>; <sec@hal-pc.org>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 9:10 AM
Subject: RE: Fibbonacci and other mathematical patterns in shells
> Sarah and Glenn-
>
> Some members of this list are beginning to develop an extraordinarily bad
> reading/comprehension problem. Just a while ago I talked about a
HYPOTHESIS
> and everyone jumped on me for talking about PROOFs. In this example, I
> asked a question about what it takes to support a claim that something is
> NOT CAUSED by intelligent intervention (because Old Seashells made an
> unproven assertion of his personal faith stance on the subject), and
> everyone responds back about whatever it might take to make the claim that
> something IS CAUSED by intelligent intervention. I can discuss the
veracity
> of a negative claim without having to prove the inverse. If you read
again
> what I wrote, I never stated that any feature of shells, fibonacci
patterns,
> or anything else is the product of ID in that post. If you had been
> previously attentive to the conversations you would have seen the
following:
Yes, I see your point. I looked back shortly after
sending the post and realized what must have hit your
hot button. Still, I think the comment is relevant to
the question you raised, regardless of whether or not
you think shell formation is ID. The question was:
"Doesn't it seem easier to make the claim that shell
>shapes were derived without intelligent intervention if
>the patterns are readily identifiable as essential to
>organismal viability rather than simply aesthetics or
>emergent beauty?"
The answer is no. The argument over "pan-adaptionism"
is not whether or not pan-adaptionism is wrong. There
is near-universal agreement that it is wrong. That is,
traits having nothing to do with survival can become
fixed because they are "spandrels" or "byproducts"
or even through "luck" (eg, founder effect) and naturalistic
mechanisms suffice to explain this. Your question
assumes pan-adaptionism, it appears to me, in that
you are stating that traits that are not adaptive undermine
the claim that naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient
to produce them (ie, intelligent intervention is not
required). They do not.
And it would be also wrong I think to say that looking
at explanations in this way undermines Christian concepts
of God. In fact, this is the piece of ID that truly confuses
*me*. I thought Christians were supposed to believe
that God is revealed in everything, and I don't understand
the ID approach of looking for God by essentially dusting
for the fingerprints of the designer (see, for example,
Dembski's "what every theologian should know about..."
http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_theologn.htm
for an articulation of this view.
One reason why this view is wrong is that the manner
in which modern science is conducts involves eschewing
teleological speculation. Science practitioners manage to
superimpose various worldviews, including the
Christian worldview, because science as a way of
knowing *does* *not* *claim* *to* *answer* *such*
*questions*! To say otherwise is a kind of scientism,
which someone already pointed out earlier this month.
> http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200308/0109.html
>
> Confused,
>
> Josh
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.505 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 07/30/2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Aug 13 2003 - 12:38:50 EDT