> ...[SNIP other quotes]
SJ>Thanks for the clarification, but what then was the original point?
I've said my original point more than once already. Already far too much
bandwidth has been taken up on it. If you must be reminded of the history
of my comparison, here is a shortened version. First, in a dialog between
Burgy and Brian Harper Brian played a "Devil's advocate" role supposing
himself to be an ID advocate of "theistic science" (because he did not
have access to Dembski's thoughts concerning some point about CSI that I,
by now, have long since forgotten). In this role Brian made a case for
Hamilton's Principle of least action being a pointer that indicates a
mysterious teleological purpose built into the very laws of mechanics.
Then I commented that the work of Feynman showed how the mysterious
optimizing nature of classical mechanical systems is seen to be an
automatic consequence of the underlying quantum dynamics of the system.
Thus, it is not necessary to invoke some metaphysical purpose of a
Designer to scientifically account for Hamilton's Principle. I then made
a passing comment (that I now regret considering the commotion it seems to
have stirred up) that Feynman's automatic natural ("mindless" if
you will) explanation for Hamilton's Principle is analogous to Darwin's
explanation of observed biological diversity. In both cases an underlying
theory describes an ostensibly "mindless" process which explains (ok, to
prevent more knee jerk reactions about the biological side of the analogy,
*proports* to explain) a phenomenology that looks like it bears the marks
of ID (the unfailing selection of the minimum action trajectory in
classical mechanics, and the innovations, adaptations and refinements seen
in the biological world). My original point was never meant to imply that
behind the laws of nature that there was, at bottom, no intelligent
Designer. Rather, just that it is not necessary to invoke such a
supernaturally acting Designer as part of a scientific description of and
theoretical explanation of some observed phenomenology. My point opposed
"theistic science" and the use of the supernatural as part of our
scientific explanations, and was *not at all* opposed to theism of any
kind. (After all, I consider myself a Christian.)
SJ>No theist that I am aware of claims that God is necessarily directing
>with His mind "quantum dynamics" or any of His physical laws.
I'm ambivalent and take no side on this point. I would like to believe
that God does direct in detail the execution of natural law throughout
the universe. OTOH I also believe that nature (or at least we as parts of
nature) has/have at least some autonomy. I'm not sure the best way as how
to merge both into a common belief.
SJ> Did
>Feynman claim that he had shown that "quantum dynamics" was
>"mindless" and therefore rendered unnecessary "an overt appeal to" a
>"Designer"?
I don't know (but I doubt it). I haven't any read metaphysical or
"religous" writings by Feynman. (I don't know of any off hand.) His
scientific work, in fact, makes no such overt appeals. His theories
contain mathematical equations involving the formuation of quantum
mechanics using functional integrals. (His work on perturbative quantum
electrodynamics involves the systematic use of Feynman diagrams as well.)
Such work does not contain (serious as opposed to possible tongue-in-
cheek) appeals to a Designer as part of the theories.
>>SJ>In any event, the theist would merely ask why is there
>>"optimality" which is "automatically a natural consequence of a ...
>>quantum dynamics which treats all possible paths equally"?
>
>>DB>I think you mean here that the theist would treat the very
>>existence of natural law (and all of nature as well) as a brute fact
>>that science cannot explain and appeal to the existence of God as a
>>ground for such existence. If so, then I have no argument with you
>>here. We should be cautious though. Just because the current state
>>of science (at any stage of development) may some unanswered
>>questions we should not be quick to make a God-of-the-gaps appeal
>>and say that God is overtly necessary to fill them.
>
SJ>There are two arguments in one here. I have yet to meet or even hear
>of any theist who claims that God is a "God-of-the-gaps" who
>"necessary to fill" gaps in *the operation" of natural laws such as
>"quantum dynamics". But that is a very different matter from "the
>very existence of natural law (and all of nature as well)". That
>these are "a brute fact that science cannot explain" is not a
>"God-of-the-gaps" argument. It is then not about "gaps" but about
>the filling as well, in fact the whole shooting match! If God is not
>necessary to explain "the very existence of natural law" and "all of
>nature as well", then it is hard to imagine what else He would be
>necessary for!
I think we agree overall here more than you think. But your statements on
the Thermodynamics thead seem to indicate that you think there is some gap
or at least a "problem" with the operation of the SLOT vis-a-vis a cosmic
form of evolution. My caution against a God-of-the-gaps appeal was not
concerning the operation of natural laws anyway. It was about the
unexplained mysteries contained in those laws. My point was that deeper
theories with their own deeper versions of natural law (NL) naturally
explained such mysteries at a more phenomenological level. I agreed that
*at bottom* God was necessary to explain the existence of NL (at all at
any level) *if* one wants to have an explanation for NL and not just
accept physical existence and NL as brute facts. I doubt you really
believe the last phrase of your last sentence above. Just stop and think.
(Hint. The entire Bible was written and the major doctrines of the major
monotheistic religions were put in place without reference to NL at all.)
There is more to the "shooting match" than just the doctrine of Creation
(and maybe Providence). You are almost beginning to sound like Ken Ham
here.
>>DB>Rather we (scientists who are theists) should look at such gaps
>>in the fabric of scientific explanations of natural phenomena as
>>places to do further scientific research to see if we can find out
>>some "mindless" natural scientific explanation for the mysterious
>>phenomenon-- all-the-while confident that any such explanation and
>>mechanism (and indeed all that exists) owes its very existence to
>>God who has created and sustains all things (albeit in a manner that
>>seems to usually be consistent with natural law--which itself may be
>>seen to be a reflection of God's faithfulness).
>
SJ>Agreed. Is there any "theist" who actually denies that
>"scientists...should look at such gaps in the fabric of scientific
>explanations of natural phenomena as places to do further scientific
>research"?
Maybe there are some theists who would disagree with the *reason* I gave
above for doing "further scientific research"? Perhaps those who advocate
a "theistic science"?
>>DB>In the biological analog the Darwinian mechanism provides a
>>natural(istic) explanation for the biological designs, their
>>adaptations, quasi-optimalities, and their occasional
>>suboptimalities, again without explicit reference to an underlying
>>intelligent Designer.
>
>If this is all that Darwinists did, there would be little conflict
>between creation and evolution. But in fact Darwinists have all
>along portrayed "Darwinian mechanisms" and an "intelligent Designer"
>as mutually exclusive. For example, Darwin later admitted that his
>number one goal in his Origin of Species was not scientific but
>anti-religious:
> [SNIP quotes by Darwin, Dawkins, and Gould]
OK, it's true that theists who believe in the doctrine of Creation
disagree with the militant evangelical atheism of certain Darwinists.
When atheists portray "'Darwinian mechanisms' and an 'intelligent
Designer'as mutually exclusive" they are wrong. There is no need for the
theist buy into the false dichotomy whether it is propagated by an atheist
or a fundamentalist. BTW, I'm sorry to say that I haven't read as much
of Darwin's work as I probably should have, but from what I gathered from
the quote from Darwin "The Descent of Man" that you gave (and I omitted
above) he doesn't seem to claim that his "number one goal was not
scientific but anti-religious". Rather it seems that his first goal in
writing "Origin of Species" was to show that "species had not been
separately created" (His second goal was to show that "natural selection
had been the chief agent of change".) This doesn't tell me that he was
not being "scientific but anti-religious". Rather it tells me that he
argued for common ancestory. This is something that you admit to as well.
Arguing for some kind of genetic continuity between species doesn't strike
me as being necessarily "anti-religious" or "not scientific". (Darwin
certainly may have been "anti-religious, but the quote you gave doesn't
seem to show it.)
SJ>But as the theistic philosopher Swinburne observes, even Darwinian
>Evolution does not render the argument from design invalid, since
>Paley's watchmaker does not need to produce his watch directly, but
>can make a machine that makes the watch:
>[SNIP quote by Swinburne]
This is interesting. You give a quote here that contradicts your earlier
premise above. Swinburne admits to Darwinian mechanisms (and is by that
measure at least a Darwinian) yet he argues for a reconstituted Paleyesque
design argument. So we can hardly claim that the (theistic) Darwinian
Swinburne "portrayed 'Darwinian mechanisms' and an 'intelligent Designer'
as mutually exclusive". Actually, I like Swinburne's argument in the
quote by him (about the design implicit in the machine-making machine of
the universe operating under NL) that you gave.
>[SNIP]
>>DB>This may be partly due differences in how scientists
>>(must) approach biology and physics. In physics the phenomena are
>>simple enough for the theories to provide a one-to-one
>>correspondence between the physical phenomena (or at least their
>>statistics) and a mathematical description. Biology is too
>>complicated in most instances for such mathematical rigor. Here
>>sweeping theoretical explanations can be expected to have their gaps,
>>and there are expected to be cases where the theory may be less than
>>compelling. In any event (modern synthetic versions of) Darwin's
>>theory plays a paradigmatic role in biology as grand in its
>>explanatory scope as quantum mechanics plays in physics, even if
>>there is a mismatch in the levels of mathematical rigor and
>>verification across the analogy.
>
SJ>In other words, "Darwin's theory" is not true but it is useful?
I didn't say above that Darwin's theory is not true. I said it was not as
verified as well as and as compelling as quantum mechanics (and that this
is to be expected considering the intrinsic differences between biology and
palentology on one hand, and physics on the other). Not being a biologist
and being as ignorant as I am concerning biological and palentological
matters it would presumptuous of me to take a side concerning the truth or
the scientific merit of Darwin's theory. It seems to me that the
biologists overwhelmingly consider Darwin's theory useful.
>>DB>In both cases the existence of such a Designer may be suggested
>>to the theist by the data, but the atheist doesn't feel (and doesn't
>>need to feel) the force of the suggestion.
>
>>SJ>Disagree. As Romans 1 points out, it is normal and natural even
>>for atheists "to feel the force of the suggestion", ie. "the
>>existence of...a Designer". The agnostic Paul Davies admits that
>>there "...is for me powerful evidence that there is 'something going
>>on' behind it all. The impression of design is overwhelming"
>>(Davies P., "The Cosmic Blueprint", 1995, p203).
>>
>>Or atheist Pagels: <SNIP>
>
>>DB>The invisible qualities of God that Romans 1 (v. 20) says are
>>clearly visible are His "dunamis" (power) and His "theiotEs"
>>(divinity, deity, divine majesty, or godhead). It doesn't say
>>anything about His intelligent designs being such an apparent
>>attribute.
>
SJ>The word poiemasin "tthings that are made" (AV) "what has been made"
>(NIV) implies this. Nature is "clearly seen"(AV & NIV), by all men,
>as a set of manufactured (and hence designed) products.
I'm in no mood to get in a big debate over how to read this passage but
my layman's reading of it suggests to me that it is the "made things"
(poiEmasin) that clearly show God's power (dunamis) and His divine majesty
(theiotEs). The passage does not seem to say that the "made things"
clearly show His intelligent design. They might show this but I don't see
the passage saying so. Just because something is made, doesn't mean it is
intelligently designed, and if it is intelligently designed, it doesn't
mean that the intelligence that went into the design is manifest. I seem
to recall you recently arguing with Pim that certain instances of
apparently suboptimal design may have a hidden or unanticipated greater
intelligence behind them than is apparent. If such intelligent designs
are hidden or not apparent, then it is not the case that they are "clearly
seen" (kathoratai).
>>DB>Just because Davies and Pagels are impressed by the
>>suggestion of teleology found in nature doesn't mean that all
>>atheists are necessarily similarly impressed. I think Dawkins and
>>Dennett may be considered as counterexamples.
>
SJ>I don't know enough about "Dennett" yet, but Dawkins is very
>"impressed" with the (to him apparent) "teleology found in nature":
>
>"I shall explain all this, and much else besides. But one thing I
>shall not do is belittle the wonder of the living 'watches' that so
>inspired Paley. On the contrary, I shall try to illustrate my
>feeling that here Paley could have gone even further. When it comes
>to feeling awe over living 'watches' I yield to nobody" (Dawkins R.,
>"The Blind Watchmaker", 1991, p5)
Dawkins admits to being very awed. This is not the sense I used the term
"impressed". Recall the context was my statement that: "In both cases the
existence of such a Designer may be suggested to the theist by the data, but
the atheist doesn't feel (and doesn't need to feel) the force of the
suggestion". I used the word "impressed" in the phrase "impressed by the
suggestion of teleology found in nature" and the phrase about atheists not
being "necessarily similarly impressed" as an indication of the strength of
feeling the "force of the suggestion" of the existence of an intelligent
Designer. Dawkins is awed by the "wonder of the living 'watches' that so
inspired Paley" but he does not translate this awe as an impression of the
force of the suggestion of the existence of an intelligent Designer. After
all, the entire thesis of his book "The Blind Watchmaker" is that the
suggestion of the existence of an intelligent Designer of living things is
without any real force. He chalks it all up to the magic of the "blind"
Darwinian mechanisms of variation and natural selection. So even though
Dawkins is awed by nature he is not impressed by the force of the suggestion
of the existence of an intelligent Designer. The late Carl Sagan was
another example of one who was awed by the cosmos but was not impressed by
the force of the suggestion of an intelligent Designer.
>>SJ>Atheists have to work hard at denying intelligent design!
>
>>DB>I suspect that they would bring up theodicy problems of suffering,
>>injustice and seeming suboptimal design in many organisms as
>>arguments that theists work hard to find an imaginary intelligent
>>caring god to comfort them in a cold brute world.
>
SJ>That there are "problems of suffering, injustice and seeming
>suboptimal design" for the *Christian* God is undeniable, and
>Christian apologists must indeed "work hard" to reconcile this with
>the Biblical teaching of an "intelligent caring God". But so what?
Not much. I was just pointing out that if one would care to argue that
atheists have some special need to ("work hard to") deny intelligent design
when it is staring them in the face so to say, then one could just as well
argue that theists also have a special need to "work hard" to believe in an
intelligent caring (and I might add powerful) God in the face of theodicy
problems and suboptimal design which also are staring them in the face.
SJ>The point is that these "theodicy problems" can be reconciled, such
>that they contain no necessary logical contradictions.
For this I am grateful.
SJ>In any event, that these are "problems" for the Christian God, does
>not mean they are necessarily arguments against an Intelligent
>Designer. All of Dawkins and Gould's railings against the `callous'
>and `indifferent' God they think they see revealed in nature are
>therefore beside the point as an argument against Intelligent
>Design.
I guess we just aren't impressed by the force of the suggestion that God
must be either weak, callous, unintelligent, or nonexistent because of
these "problems". I suspect that the working of the Holy Spirit in creating
faith in the lives of those whom He draws may be a relevant possible process
here.
>...[SNIP]
SJ>Miracles will never cease! I should take this, blow it up (on my
>word processor - not literally!) and frame it on my wall! ;-)
>Seriously, I thank Brian for his words of support on point.
This is not as miraculous as you indicate here. Your position on many
things is not nearly as far from the positions of others here as you may
think. Also those points where you firmly disagree with others of us are
not as important as you may think. (I hope that this thought doesn't ruin
your day.)
I'm sorry for the length of this post. I plan on dropping this thread at
this point. I need to conserve my energy for other things and I think the
readers on the list need a break too.
David Bowman
dbowman@gtc.georgetown.ky.us