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).
SJ: This won't wash. Susan equated God with fairies which shows that she *really*
thinks God is imaginary, ie. metaphysical naturalism.
Show her wrong then Stephen.
SB>I said--and meant--that when you use a supernatural explantion for something
>you have no compelling need to inquire further.
SJ: 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."
That day will be quite far away since there is lots to be inquired. But why should the scientist invoke an ID which does not add anything to science, on the contrary it merely distracts.
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.
SJ: 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:
Since the supernatural cannot be studied using science, why confuse the issue by wanting to include it?
Show how ID and design can contribute to science.
SB>there is *evidence* for supernatural origins? Measurable, observable
>evidence?
SJ: 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!
Indeed, by providing such evidence you can show her argument to be erroneous. But I guess you won't. Not surprisingly since the supernatural is just that... Lacking evidence.
SJ: 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.
That won't work Stephen, you want ID to be accepted as scientific, show that it therefor is scientific.
You cannot hide behind how you interpret "naturalistic" origins.
SJ: 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:
You are misrepresenting his words. He merely states that it is impossible to reproduce them.
"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)
SJ: Indeed, as Mike Behe points out, the very lack of evidence for Darwinism
is evidence for Intelligent Design:
A poor dualism. As well as poor science since the evidence supporting Darwinism is quite overwhelming. Why is it that the only evidence for ID exists in imperfections in Darwinism? It seems that ID can only exists in the gaps of science. And when the gaps are closed, so does the need for ID disappear.
SJ: "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.
No evidence that therefor ID is the only alternative candidate.
SJ: If unintelligent mechanisms can't do the job, then that shifts the focus to intelligent agency.
Again false dualism.
SJ: 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.
Poor logic.
SJ: 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 makes the logical error that even is Darwinism is wrong, alternate natural explanations need not be.
Of course Behe also shows that ID has no clothes as it can only exists as a false (only) alternative to Darwinism
(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
SJ: 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.
I wish you would not misrepresent his words. He said "severely restricted". That events are unique and unrepeatable does not make them less scientific.
SB>as Chris pointed out, this is the exact *opposite* of what scientists do.
SJ: 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.
So you claim. But the "authority" you pretend scientists appeal to is not absolute authority.
SB>That's why so many scientists cling to evolution. There a ton of supporting
>evidence for it.
SJ: 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.
1) is wrong and 2) remains unsupported. Not bad...
SJ: Susan's prejudice prevents her from seeing that there really *is*
another side to the creation/evolution debate.
Sure there is another side, just not a scientific side.
SJ: 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.
Of course Darwinism could be wrong, of course this harldy means that this proves an ID. That will still remains an issue of faith.