On Thu, 24 Jun 1999 08:54:10 -0400, Howard J. Van Till wrote:
HVT>When speaking of theists whose picture of the universe's formational
>history places especial emphasis on the (presumed) need for a succession of
>episodes of irruptive, form-imposing interventions by a Creator, I use the
>term 'episodic creationist.' This broad category includes young-earth
>special creationists, old-earth special creationists, progressive
>creationists
[...]
This is just Howard's private pejorative epithet for creationists, presumably
in order to give the impression that they hold an unusual view and that Howard's
is the normal view. But the fact is that the vast majority of Christians are
today, and have been down through the ages, what Howard calls 'episodic
creationist'.
And the reason they are is not because of any "need for a succession of
episodes of irruptive, form-imposing interventions by a Creator" but
because that is what *Genesis 1* depicts, whether one interprets it
literally or symbolically.
Even the Darwinist philosopher Daniel Dennett recognises that Genesis 1
depicts God creating in "successive waves of Creation" and contrasts
this with Darwin's non-interventionist view:
"The first chapter of Genesis describes the successive waves of
Creation and ends each with the refrain "and God saw that it was good."
Darwin had discovered a way to eliminate this retail application of
Intelligent Quality Control; natural selection would take care of that
without further intervention from God." (Dennett D.C., "Darwin's
Dangerous Idea," 1995, p67).
Now it is one thing for Howard to prefer Darwin's non-intervention
pattern, but it is quite another for him to level pejorative epithets
against the vast majority of his fellow Christians because they prefer
to be faithful to Genesis 1's frankly episodic and interventionist
pattern.
HVT>and most proponents of Intelligent Design (whose concept of
>'design' is based on the artisan metaphor).
[...]
This sweeping generalisation of Howard's is also pejorative, in
that it tries to characterise ID as having a limited concept of
design which is based on a single metaphor. No ID theorist that I
know of claims that "`design' is *based* on the artisan metaphor".
Indeed Howard is being less than completely open here. When he raised
his questions about a definition of `design' on the ASA Reflector a
few months ago, he recognised that "in contemporary usage, 'design'
is an act of the mind" and that it was an "18th century" concept of
design which "was based on the artisan metaphor":
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Re: Dembski and Nelson at MIT and Tufts
>Howard J. Van Till (110661.1365@compuserve.com)
>Sat, 3 Apr 1999 09:08:06 -0500
[...]
>Right, in contemporary usage, 'design' is an act of the mind--the thoughtful
>conceptualization of something for the accomplishment of a purpose. Using this
>meaning, all Christians believe the universe to have been 'designed.' ...
>
>However, in earlier discussions (as in the 18th century, by persons like Wm.
>Paley) "design" was a two-fold act of both 1) thoughtful conceptualization for
>the accomplishment of a purpose, an act of a mind, and 2) the crafting from
>raw materials (or assembly from available parts) of that which was first
>conceptualized, an act of the hands. This meaning of 'design' was based on the
>artisan metaphor: one person, the artisan, or craftsman, performed *both* the
>conceptualization *and* the assembly, or crafting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
But despite an extensive debate, no ID theorist AFAIK agreed with Howard that
they held this 18th century "artisan metaphor" view. Indeed, Bill Dembski, a
leading ID theorist, replied to Howard's above post at:
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/199904/0178.html
asserting that modern day ID saw Design as "Concept, Sign, and Production",
with "design as a sign" being perhaps the "one defining feature of the
intelligent design movement":
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Design as Concept, Sign, and Production
>William A. Dembski (bill@desiderius.com)
>Tue, 6 Apr 1999 12:37:54 -0600
[...]
>It seems that we are all agreed that design involves conceptualization. For
>there to be design, there has to be a mind/intelligence that conceptualizes
>some end/purpose/plan/blueprint ... design...
>
>The next question about design is whether it also constitutes a sign.
>Design in this sense denotes what it is about intelligently produced
>objects that enables us to tell that they actually are intelligently
>produced. When intelligent agents act (and however they act, whether
>through direct intervention or through a fully gifted creation), they leave
>behind a characteristic trademark or signature....It is design in this sense
>...that the various criteria for identifying intelligently caused objects are
>meant to recognize (cf.Behe's irreducible complexity, my specified complexity
>... I would say that if there is one defining feature of the intelligent design
>movement, it is that it takes design as a sign.
>
>The final question about design is its mode of production: how was a
>designed object produced....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dembski then went on to say that ID was even compatible with Howard's concept
of a "fully-gifted creation", but with some qualifications:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>...intelligent design seems to me compatible with a
>fully-gifted creation so long as this fully-gifted creation does not reduce
>nature to nature as conceived by the scientific naturalist. Intelligent
>design's contribution to this richer conception of nature is then to
>discover that nature is chocked-full of complex information-rich structures
>that are not reducible natural processes as conceived by the scientific
>naturalist.
>
>In saying that intelligent design is compatible with a fully-gifted
>creation, I'm not saying that intelligent design requires a fully-gifted
>creation. A watch that never needs to be wound is a fully-gifted watch and
better than one that needs to be wound. But a musical instrument, like a
piano, does not become fully-gifted by being transformed into a
player-piano. Gregory of Nazianzus, a church father of the 4th century,
made a design argument in which God was compared to a lutemaker and the
world to a lute. Lutes by their constitution and structure show clear
evidence of design. But their design is not less perfect because they
require a luteplayer, who in Gregory's analogy is God. The question of
intervention vs. fully-gifted creation thus remains an open question within
the intelligent design movement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So after the above extensive debate on the ASA Reflector in which no proponent
of ID agreed that ID is based on this 18th century "`artisan' metaphor", and this
reply by Dembski asserting that design is "Concept, Sign and Production",
for Howard to continue to assert that "most proponents of Intelligent Design"
have a "concept of 'design'...based on the artisan metaphor" is misleading.
Indeed, if there is a single metaphor that the ID movement is based on it
is the metaphor of *Designer*.
Personally I think of the Designer under a rich variety of other metaphors
including Planner, Architect, Builder, Genetic Engineer, and Selective
Breeder, not to mention Biblical metaphors like Owner, King and Father.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dr. Gray goes further. He says, `The proposition that the things and
events in nature were not designed to be so, if logically carried out, is
doubtless tantamount to atheism.' Again, `To us, a fortuitous Cosmos is
simply inconceivable. The alternative is a designed Cosmos... If Mr.
Darwin believes that the events which he supposes to have occurred and
the results we behold around us were undirected and undesigned; or if the
physicist believes that the natural forces to which he refers phenomena are
uncaused and undirected, no argument is needed to show that such belief is
atheistic.' We have thus arrived at the answer to our question, What is
Darwinism? It is Atheism. This does not mean, as before said, that Mr.
Darwin himself and all who adopt his views are atheists; but it means that
his theory is atheistic, that the exclusion of design from nature is, as Dr.
Gray says, tantamount to atheism." (Hodge C., in Noll M.A. & Livingstone
D.N., eds., "What Is Darwinism?," 1994, reprint, p156)
--------------------------------------------------------------------