On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 20:40:07 -0500 (CDT), Susan B wrote:
[...]
>>SB>yes. If you can say "the fairies did it" you don't have a
>>>reason to inquire further.
>SJ>Thanks to Susan for confirming my point! Methodological naturalism *in
>>the case of origins* is really *metaphysical* naturalism. Behind it is the
>>*metaphysical* assumption that God is imaginary, like "fairies"
SB>I didn't say that either the gods or the fairies don't exist (thought I
>*don't* believe in either and I *know* you don't believe in *one* of them).
This won't wash. Susan equated God with fairies which shows that she *really*
thinks God is imaginary, ie. metaphysical naturalism.
SB>I said--and meant--that when you use a supernatural explantion for something
>you have no compelling need to inquire further.
The same is true when a materialist-naturalist assumes that there are only
*natural* explanations for *everything*. At some point he/she will stop and
"have no compelling need to inquire further."
The point is that if God *did* mediately create the living world then it is
*right* to "have no compelling need to inquire further" past that point.
But that does not mean that there is still a role for science to find out more
how God did mediately create the living world.
SB>If you leave the question of
>the supernatural to one side (whether you believe in the supernatural or
>not) you can continue to enquire about ANY subject to your heart's content.
The point is that if "the supernatural" is left aside, then one has assumed
*metaphysical* naturalism. Only if one knows *in advance* (ie. one
assumes metaphysical naturalism) that "the supernatural" is not the right
explanation, would it right to rule it out:
"...many argue that any reference to the supernatural in science is
illegitimate in principle. Thus in this context it typically is believed that an
explanation in terms of intelligence is scientifically legitimate if "it seeks
natural intelligence [but] any theory with a supernatural foundation is not
scientific." But such objections do not seem compelling. If there are no
gaps in the fabric of natural causation, then obviously appeal to divine
activity will get us off track. On the other hand, if there are such gaps,
refusing on principle to recognize them within science will equally get us
off track. We should perhaps be wary of both ways of going wrong. If in
our intellectual endeavors we are attempting to get at truth as best we can,
then if we have rational reason-from whatever source-to believe that God
has taken a hand in the origin or ongoing operation of the cosmos,
arbitrarily excluding that belief needs some justification." (Ratzsch D.L.,
"The Battle of Beginningse," 1996, pp193-194)
>>SB>Science is a method of inquiry. Science is always provisional
>>>pending new evidence.
>SJ>Except that in the case of *origins*, the "inquiry" rules out God
>>*absolutely* before the "evidence" is even considered! This is metaphysical
>>naturalism.
SB>there is *evidence* for supernatural origins? Measurable, observable
>evidence?
See above. Susan, like Lewontin, rules out *absolutely* that there can be
"evidence for supernatural origins" and now she asks for me to supply
such evidence!
Moreover Susan's demand that the evidence for *evidence* for supernatural
origins be "measurable" and "observable" ignores the fact that there
is no measurable and observable evidence for *naturalistic* origins. For
example, in the case of macroevolution, Dobzhansky, one of the founders
of Neo-Darwinism admitted that there was no measurable or observable
evidence for macroevolutionary events:
"On the other hand, it is manifestly impossible to reproduce in the
laboratory the evolution of man from the australopithecine, or of the
modern horse from an Eohippus, or of a land vertebrate from a fishlike
ancestor. These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and
irreversible. It is as impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a fish as it is to
effect the reverse transformation. The applicability of the experimental
method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely
restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed
the lifetime of any human experimenter....Experimental evolution deals of
necessity with only the simplest levels of the evolutionary process,
sometimes called microevolution." (Dobzhansky T., "On Methods of
Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology," Part I, "Biology," American
Scientist, Vol. 45, No. 5, December 1957, p388)
Indeed, as Mike Behe points out, the very lack of evidence for Darwinism
is evidence for Intelligent Design:
"Darwinism is the most plausible unintelligent mechanism, yet it has
tremendous difficulties and the evidence garnered so far points to its
inability to do what its advocates claim for it. If unintelligent mechanisms
can't do the job, then that shifts the focus to intelligent agency. That's as far
as the argument against Darwinism takes us, but most people already have
other reasons for believing in a personal God who just might act in history,
and they will find the argument for intelligent design fits with what they
already hold. With the argument arranged this way, evidence against
Darwinism does count as evidence for an active God, just as valid negative
advertising against the Democratic candidate will help the Republican, even
though Vegetarian and One-World candidates are on the ballot, too. Life is
either the result of exclusively unintelligent causes or it is not, and the
evidence against the unintelligent production of life is clearly evidence for
intelligent design." (Behe M.J., "The God of Science: The Case for
Intelligent Design," review of "Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the
New Creationism" by Robert Pennock, MIT Press, 1999.
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_godofscience.htm)
>SJ>For example, it is hardly "provisional" when Michael Ruse, the leading
>>Darwinist philosopher states that:
>>"Evolution is a fact, fact, FACT!" (Ruse M., "Darwinism Defended," 1983,
>>p58)
SB>when you watch something happen in front of your face
Susan just *assumes* that the processes she can see happening today in
front of her face are the *same* processes that happened in the distant
past. But see Dobzhansky's quote above about macroevolutionary events
being "unique","unrepeatable" and unable to be experimentally tested.
SB>it tends to be a bit
>more compelling than when someone asks you to take on faith something that
>can never be demonstrated.
But Susan herself is taking "on faith something that can never be
demonstrated." It is Darwinist *faith* that every one of the unimaginable
trillions of mutations in the 3.8 billion year history of the Earth were
*undirected*. As Opadia-Kadima points out, this "belief...equalled or
surpassed the Christian belief in the creative power of God":
"Because of the euphoria which attended the triumph of Darwinism, the
effect of those experiments on the thinking on evolution was most
profound. First, the long-held conjecture that chance alone produced the
favourable variations which natural selection preserved was deemed,
without any justification, to have been experimentally verified. Then
everything that evolved was designated the lucky beneficiary of chance.
Enzymes, proteins, and even man himself, were held to be the products of
mere chance. In short, the biologists' belief in the creative power of chance
soon equalled or surpassed the Christian belief in the creative power of
God." (Opadia-Kadima G.Z., "How the Slot Machine Led Biologists
Astray," Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1987, vol. 124, 127-135, 129)
>>SB>The earth can cease to rotate for a time. "The Bible says it, I believe it.
>>>Period."
>SJ>But actually the Bible doesn't say that "The earth can cease to rotate for a
>>time." What the Bible it says in Josh 10:13 is that "the sun stood still, and
>>the moon stopped..." While I have no problem if God did cause the earth to
>>"cease to rotate for a time", it is possible to legitimately interpret this
>>passage literally that the sun and moon only *appeared* to Joshua to stand
>>still. Ramm points out that there are at least four possible interpretations
>>of this passage, only only one of which is that the earth ceased to rotate
>>for a time:
SB>So only Genesis I & II are *literally* true. I hadn't realized that.
Susan's prejudice continues. First, in the case of Joshua 10:13 (which Susan
brought up but now she apparently wants to drop), the Bible *literally*
says that "the sun stood still, and the moon stopped..." It does *not*
literally say that "the earth ceased to rotate for a time". Indeed Joshua
would not have known in 3,500 BC that the Earth rotates around the Sun.
Second, I made it quite clear in my first message (indeed this vey thread)
that I do not believe that "Genesis I & II are literally true":
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 09 Jun 1999 05:01:34 +0800, Stephen Jones wrote:
>I believe that the Bible is the unique message of God revealed through
>human writers, and I regard Genesis 1-11 as real history expressed in
>symbolic form.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>SJ>And even if the Christian does say "The Bible says it, I believe it. Period"
>>what is wrong with that? The vast majority of Christians haven't got the
>>ability or training to decide what in the Bible should be accepted and
>>what rejected. In those circumstances, the soundest approach, in the first
>>instance, is to accept it all on face value, and then work at increasing one's
>>understanding and resolving difficulties. This is in fact analogous to what
>>scientists do.
SB>as Chris pointed out, this is the exact *opposite* of what scientists do.
And as I pointed out, Chris' claim is a scientific myth. Scientists have no choice
but to accept on authority things outside their immediate field. Indeed, even
most things in their immediate field, they have to accept on authority.
SB>For a scientist none of it's true until supporting evidence can be found.
If that were the case, they would never become scientists. They wouldn't
even graduate out of primary school!
SB>That's why so many scientists cling to evolution. There a ton of supporting
>evidence for it.
That is only because: 1) "evolution" is defined so broadly (eg. change over
time, change in gene frequencies in a population, etc.), that it cannot be
false; and 2) the strongest rival to "evolution", ie. Mediate Creation, is
prevented by the rules of science that materialist-naturalists have
constructed, from getting a fair hearing.
>SJ>Given the Christian's original premise that the Bible is the unique written
>>revelation from God, it is reasonable that it should be believed to be true,
SB>"it's true because it's true" just isn't enough for me, sorry.
Well, its not "good enough for me" either! But I did not say of the Bible
that "it's true because it's true." Once again Susan's prejudice against
the Christian God is evident.
Susan's prejudice prevents her from seeing that there really *is*
another side to the creation/evolution debate. But no matter, this
discussion group is read by a wider group of lurkers, some of whom may
be open to the possibility that the Darwinists have got it wrong and that the
real explanation is creation by an Intelligent Designer, and I really write for
them.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"...it is the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear articulate
fashion to the experimental method of science itself...It is surely one of the
curious paradoxes of history that science which professionally has little to
do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be
rationally interpreted, and that science today-is sustained by that
assumption." (Eiseley L., "Darwin's Century: Evolution and the Men Who
Discovered It," [1958], Anchor Books: Doubleday & Co: Garden City NY,
1961, reprint, p62)
-------------------------------------------------------------------