>I've prepared a short piece on this conference, which I'm planning to
>send to a Christian monthly journal here in the UK. I'm looking for
>some peer review before I send it off - so I thought those on this
>list would be worth approaching. Feedback welcome!
Before proceeding, let me say that I think you've done a very
good job here. Very well written.
[...]
>Christians in science have only two options. One is to view
>evolution as a God-ordained natural process: one which he used
>to create all things. Since God ordains natural laws and
>controls chance, he is responsible for what results. However,
>few find this a convincing argument for design. Apart from
>reacting to the extraordinarily wasteful route chosen, we expect
>a creative designer to take things beyond natural law.
Two comments. First, how convincing the argument from Design is
seems irrelevant to me. I personally prefer one that is not too
strong, so that we see through a glass darkly. As Pascal said
"There is enough light for those who desire only to see,
and enough darkness for those with a contrary disposition"
Secondly, we observe from the fossil record that
most species survive just a relatively short time (on geological
time scales) and then go extinct. This is a fact all of us must
live with. If you want to say that the evolutionary process is
wasteful on account of this, then the same must be true of
the intelligent design process.
[...]
>
>Focusing the debate on "Intelligent Design" issues is a strategy
>which has been led by Professor Phillip Johnson, author of
>"Darwin on Trial". The aim is to change the way the debate over
>origins proceeds. The issue is not "evolution vs creation
>science" but "naturalistic science vs theistic science".
This being the case, I wonder about the title of the conference ;-).
> It asks
>the question: should science be undertaken with the prerequisite
>of naturalism, or should it be open to theistic possibilities?
>Some years ago, a book was published with the title "Chance and
>Necessity". Its message was that everything is either the
>result of chance or the consequence of law. The theistic
>alternative is to say that there is a genuine third option:
>things may be the result either of chance, or law, or intelligent
>design.
>
This trilogy bugs me a little. An intelligent designer could use
both chance and necessity. The implication from this type of
statement is that if something is shown to result from some
combination of chance and necessity, then it is not intelligently
designed.
>What is needed, and what the conference set out to address, is
>a development of these ideas in a form that can stand up to the
>critical evaluation of the academic world. Scientists need a
>methodology for identifying design and for incorporating the
>concept harmoniously into explanations of origins. We need to
>be able to point to ways in which these ideas make a difference
>to scholarly work. We need to have a robust philosophical
>framework for science incorporating intelligent design. The
>general feeling was that the conference achieved substantial
>progress in these areas, making it a resounding success.
>
I agree about what is needed and look forward to seeing what
progress has been made.
>A few specific examples of presentations follow. Professor
>Michael Behe gave a synopsis of his recent book "Darwin's Black
>Box", which demonstrates that the biological world has
>innumerable examples of irreducibly complex systems which defy
>Darwinian explanations of origins. Professor Siegfried Scherer
>spoke about research into the concept of Basic Types in the
>biological world: evidences of distinct groupings of organisms
>that are genetically related within the Type but which appear to
>be genetically separate from other Types. This work provides
>empirical evidence of the discontinuities introduced by
>intelligent design activity by the Creator.
This is exactly the type of reasoning that I have a lot of trouble
with. Suppose one shows that some groups appear genetically
separate from others. How does one get from here to "...empirical
evidence of the discontinuities introduced by intelligent design
activity by the Creator." To get from A to B one would have to
know something about the mechanisms of intelligent design.
After all, you criticize evolution theory because it cannot provide
a plausible mechanism, is it fair to turn around and suggest
that intelligent design be accepted without specifying a mechanism?
Brian Harper | "If you don't understand
Associate Professor | something and want to
Applied Mechanics | sound profound, use the
The Ohio State University | word 'entropy'"
| -- Morrowitz
Bastion for the naturalistic |
rulers of science |