Hmmm....
In reading this over, I'm pretty satisfied to leave things where they are.
I'll let readers decide between us, and save us both time in the bargain.
(At last -- a point of agreement? :^> )
John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Stephen Jones
> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 1999 6:27 PM
> To: Calvin Evolution Reflector
> Subject: Re: ID: `episodic creationist' and `based on the artisan
> metaphor'? 2/2 (was ID MN - limitation...)
>
>
> Reflectorites
>
> [...]
>
> [continued]
>
> >>JR>This would explain
> >>>why published IDers consider it very important to reject methodological
> >>>naturalism
>
> >SJ>IDers "reject methodological naturalism" as begging the whole
> question,
> >>especially in the area of *origins*. Why should it be assumed by ID that
> >>there is no God (or at least that He hasn't intervened supernaturally)?
> >>This would only make sense if ID knew in advance that there is no God
> >>or that he hasn't intervened supernaturally!
>
> JR>As we discussed a year or two ago in painful depth with no
> resolution :^I,
> >most scientists (as opposed to PJ) would see your comments as a bit of a
> >caricature, I think.
>
> No doubt that I would have said then as I say now, that since "most
> scientists" are methodological naturalists, I would not really be
> surprised if
> they did see my comments as a caricature.
>
> MNs would probably *have* to see it as a "caricature" because to take the
> question seriously would mean they would have to answer it, which John
> here doesn't do.
>
> JR>Remember: methodological naturalism is a limitation on science, not on
> >reality generally.
>
> If MN *was* just a "limitation on science" it might not be such a
> problem.
> I would still think that theistic realism would be a better approach to
> reality.
>
> But in practice MNs do not recognise that there *is* any "limitation on
> science". Thus they apply MN consistently to areas where Christians claim
> that God acted supernaturally, namely the Biblical miracles, and where
> most theists would maintain that God *may* have acted supernaturally,
> namely *origins*.
>
> If God *really did* act supernaturally, then MN is a flawed research
> program, and Theistic Realism/ID would be a better one.
>
> JR>The main arguments for it are not at all necessarily
> atheological in nature,
> >as you may know. Obviously, atheists see methodological naturalism as a
> >natural implication of metaphysical naturalism, but B's implying A by no
> >means suggests that A implies B.
>
> Atheists are metaphysical naturalists so they are consistent
> methodological naturalists. Christian theists are not metaphysical
> naturalists, so they cannot consistently be methodological
> naturalists. At
> some point they must make an arbitrary limitation on MN, eg. the Biblical
> miracles. It would be better for them to be Theistic Realists,
> then they can
> be consistent all the time.
>
> JR>As a quickie overview for others (you're familiar with this,
> Steve, though
> >it doesn't make sense to you, I take it), the reasons Christian and other
> >scientists almost always support methodological naturalism are basically
> >these:
> >
> >Reasons for methodological naturalism (i.e., roughly, the belief that
> >science should limit itself to explanations in terms of natural, not
> >supernatural, forces, objects, and events.)
> >
> >(1) Natural science is by definition the study of natural, not the
> >supernatural, world. (Versus theology, or metaphysics, e.g.)
>
> ID would disagree with this question-begging "definition". A better
> definition is that: science is "a search for truth, no holds
> barred." (Ratzsch
> D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings", 1996, p168).
>
> Besides, materialistic-naturalistic science *does* make claims about the
> "supernatural...world" and "theology" namely it is imaginary.
>
> >(2) We cannot mathematically model God, which would be necessary to
> >incorporate Him into scientific theories (at least if they're to have
> >rigor).
>
> Science cannot mathematically macroevolution, but that is still
> regarded as
> scientific. Besides, Bill Demski's "The Design Inference" shows how ID
> could be placed on a mathematical foundation.
>
> >(3) The track record of scientific theories that have violated
> >methodological naturalism is very poor.
>
> The track record of *all* scientific theories is very poor! The
> ones we have
> today are what's left after innumerable failed theories.
>
> John doesn't say what exactly these failed non-MN theories were.
>
> But that non-MN theories might have failed in the past is no reason why
> they can't learn from their mistakes and do better in the future.
>
> BTW, I find John's choice of words "violated methodological naturalism"
> interesting. It sounds like he really thinks that MN is an
> inviolable law of
> nature! How does one actually *violate* methodological naturalism?
>
> JR>NB that none of these even remotely imply metaphysical
> naturalism, nor do
> >they imply that strong belief in God is irrational, unrealistic,
> naive, or
> >other criticisms commonly associated with atheology. These express
> >limitations on science, not limitations on reason, faith, or reality.
>
> Disagree. MN *does* "imply metaphysical naturalism" especially in the
> case of *origins* and when applied to the Biblical miracles. If
> there really is
> a God like the Biblical God, who has created and sustains the
> universe, and
> who has intervened repeatedly at strategic points in human
> history, then a
> better research program is Theistic Realism, which is able to
> investigate if
> God really has intervened in natural history
>
> JR>(As I recall, the arguments above rolled off you like water
> off a duck last
> >time I presented them, and I was not able to get a clear
> understanding as to
> >why.
>
> John makes it sound like I didn't explain my reasons "why" I found his
> arguments for MN unconvincing. The problem is that John just *ignored*
> my reasons "why"! My arguments "rolled off" *John* "like water off a
> duck"
>
> The real problem is metaphysical. John has already let slip that
> he would be
> "scared" if Mike Behe were right about irreducible complexity. I suspect
> that John would be also "scared" if I was right about MN being wrong!
>
> JR>I think they just seemed pretty absurd to you.
>
> Indeed, John's basic argument that the God of the Bible exists
> but we must
> pretend that he doesn't exist when we do science, does seem "absurd" to
> me!
>
> JR>I remember that it
> >seemed to me that you accepted something like a Christianized version of
> >scientism, the view that if something is real or true or
> rational, it must
> >be captured by science.)
> >***
>
> My view is simply that if God is real, then that fact must be
> factored into science.
> To say that God is real, but we must ignore Him when we do
> science, including
> *origins*, does seem to me to be "absurd".
>
> >>JR>focus on irreducible complexity as an objection to evolutionary
> >>>theory, etc.
>
> >SJ>Well, since Darwinism claims to have killed off ID:
> >>"......." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker,"
> >>1991, p5);
>
> JR>And of course, -assuming- atheism, or looking at things merely from the
> >limited point of view of scientism (versus philosophy/theology,
> i.e., versus
> >reason more broadly construed), Dawkins is right. NOT assuming atheism,
> >or going beyond science to reason and faith more broadly construed, his
> >assertions are tendentious to say the least.
>
> The fact is that in the *real* scientific world, Dawkins is
> regarded as *right*:
>
> "Dawkins has achieved enormous acclaim for presenting orthodox
> neo-Darwinism
> persuasively. ...In 1990 Dawkins received the Michael Faraday
> Award from the
> British Royal Society as "the scientist who has done the most to
> further the public
> understanding of science " In 1992 he gave the Royal
> Institution's Christmas
> lectures for young people, televised by the BBC, arguing the same
> naturalistic
> worldview that he presents in The Blind Watchmaker. I mention
> these accolades to
> dispel any illusion that Dawkins's explicitly naturalistic
> presentation of Darwinism
> amounts to a mere personal philosophy. He certainly is promoting
> metaphysical
> naturalism, but, like his American counterpart Carl Sagan (who
> received the Public
> Welfare Medal in 1994 from the National Academy of Sciences for his
> contributions to public education), he does so with the
> wholehearted support of
> the scientific establishment of his nation." (Johnson P.E.,
> "Reason in the Balance",
> 1995, p76)
>
> >SJ>and Darwinism has claimed that it would be falsified if it
> could be shown
> >>that a complex organ had arisen not by a gradual, stepwise process:
> >>...." (Darwin C., "The Origin of Species," 6th Edition, 1928,
> reprint, p170)
> >>
> >>then it makes sense for ID to try to falsify Darwinism in this way:
>
> JR>But it's important to realize that Behe's principle, at least
> when stated
> >the way I've often seen it (that irreducible complexity necessitates
> >unevolvability) is -false-, fairly plainly fallacious. IC may imply -more
> >circuitous- evolution, but hardly unevolvability; not -in principle-,
> >anyway.
>
> Behe has not claim anything as vague as "irreducible complexity
> necessitates unevolvability" (whatever that means). He has simply
> taken up
> Darwin's test and claims that he has found examples of IC that refute
> *Darwinism* at the molecular level.
>
> >SJ>"...." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box," 1996, p38)
> >>
> >>Only if Darwinists want their theory to be beyond scientific
> >>testing, should this be resisted by Darwinists (including the
> theistic variety).
>
> >>JR>(Given that you're more up on this than I, let me ask you: are
> >>there any thought leaders in the ID community who explicitly
> reject Behe's
> >>thesis which is [if I understand it] that irreducible
> complexity necessitates
> >>>unevolvability? I'm curious; I hope the answer is yes.)
>
> >SJ>Why should they?
>
> JR>Because it's false, at least as I understand it (IC
> ->unevolvability). See
> >above.
>
> John has split my question off from what immediately followed it, which
> gives the false impression that I accepted his premise that "Behe's
> thesis...irreducible complexity necessitates unevolvability",
> which I don't.
>
> Behe's thesis is that "irreducible complexity" refutes *Darwinism* at the
> molecular level.
>
> >SJ>This is *precisely* the test of Darwinism
> >>that Darwin himself proposed (and his latter day disciple Dawkins)
> >>has reaffirmed:
> >>
> >>"...>(Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," 1991, p91)
> >>
> >>To want to preserve something called "evolvability" that is immune from
> >>scientific testing, is pseudoscience.
>
> JR>My point is not at all that evolvability should be immune from science.
>
> Maybe John can explained what exactly *is* "unevolvability"?
>
> JR> My point is just that Behe's thesis, which is (again, if I
> understand it) that
> >IC necessitates unevolvability, is false.
>
> See above. This is *not* "Behe's thesis...that IC necessitates
> unevolvability".
> It is Behe's thesis that IC refutes Darwinism at the molecular level.
>
> JR>To criticize a particular disproof of evolution is not to criticize the
> >concept of disproving evolution, which is what you're talking about here.
>
> The word "evolution" is so vague, that it is impossible to
> understand what is the
> proposition that John is putting here, let alone "disproving* it.
>
> Maybe he can clarify in what sense he is using the word "evolution" here?
>
> >>JR>P. S. Thanks for listing Hodge's defn.
>
> >SJ>John deleted Hodge's definition,
>
> JR>Actually, no I didn't. You didn't include it in this message.
>
> My apologies to John. Since he mentioned Hodge's definition and it wasn't
> there, I assumed he had deleted it. But John was referring to it
> in another post.
>
> [...]
>
> >>JR>But doesn't his notion include in
> >>>part 3 what would ordinarily be meant by fabrication or manufacturing?
>
> >SJ>This is too specific, and if I accepted John's "fabrication
> or manufacturing"
> >>sub-definition, I would no doubt have Howard accuse me of adopting the
> >>"artisan metaphor"!
> >>
> >>A better term for this final stage of design is to call it the
> *realisation* stage.
>
> JR>That's fine with me.
>
> Good. We *are* making progress!
>
> >>JR>That is, wouldn't accomplishment of either the 1st, or 1st
> and 2d, or even
> >>>(more strangely) the 2d alone, -without- the 3d part would constitute
> >>intelligent design in the ordinary sense of the term?
>
> >SJ>ID might agree that the primary meaning of design would be
> >>conceptualisation. But it would see no reason to restrict design
> >>to only the first one or two stages and leave out the
> *realisation* of design
> >>stage, especially since that is the only way we mere mortals are ever
> >>going to see design.
>
> JR>That's fine, an important subject; I just don't think the
> >realization/manufacturing/fabrication is what most people think
> of as "design."
>
> By this final remark John just undoes all the progress that I thought we
> were making! Does he really want to resolve this issue, or is he
> just like
> Howard in appearing to want it to go around in circles forever?
>
> First, I just said that "ID might agree that the primary meaning
> of design
> would be conceptualisation. But it would see no reason to restrict
> design..." to that primary meaning. So if most people though of design as
> the first two conceptual type stages, that would be OK.
>
> Second, I thought we had just agreed that "fabrication or manufacturing"
> was "too specific" and "A better term for this final stage of
> design" was
> "realisation" but here John just blithely tacks on
> "manufacturing/fabrication" to "realization".
>
> Is John showing here that he still really wants Howard's "artisan
> metaphor"
> stereotype to apply as a pejorative term to ID? If so, then he is showing
> that he is not yet a friend of ID.
>
> >>JR>Why not use a dictionary defn:
> >>>Design: "...None of the verb defns included the concept of
> manufacturing
> >>>the designed object.)
>
> >SJ>I don't know about Johns's "online dictionary", but the
> Webster on-line
> >>dictionary at: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary), includes in the
> >>definition of "design" [as a noun] "to create, FASHION, EXECUTE, or
> >>CONSTRUCT according to plan" (my emphasis):
> >>
> >>----------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> >>Main Entry: 1design
> >>[...]
> >>1 : to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan :
> >>[...]
> >>----------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> >>
> >>Note here that the realisation of design is given as the
> *primary* meaning of
> >>"design". In fact, when the verb option is selected, it gives
> exactly the same
> >>definitions as the verb.
>
> JR>Interesting. My MW offline dictionary (i.e., a book) has (2)
> as the primary
> >meaning. (And I'll presume the stuff about nouns and verbs was a
> series of
> >typos, or am I missing something?) I know I'm a fairly sophisticated
> >English speaker, and I've never heard "design" to be used to refer to
> >fabrication or manufacturing or the broader "realization", but
> it's a free
> >world -- maybe there are folks who do.
>
> Obviously the Webster's Dictionary compilers thought "people used
> "design" in the
> sense of "realisation"!
>
> JR>And certainly designers are -linked
> >to- and have a -causal connection with- manufacturing. But design is not
> >the sane as realization; unless, I suppose, one is manufacturing
> a design.
>
> No one is saying that "design is...*the same* as realization". I
> am claiming
> that a complete definition of design *includes* a realisation stage.
>
> JR>The point is just to be clear about the meaning of words. This doesn't
> >affect the substance of the discussion at all.
>
> Agreed about "be clear about the meaning of words". But disagree that
> "This doesn't affect the substance of the discussion at all."
> Unless the critics
> of ID like Howard (and John?) accept "the meaning of words" that ID uses
> the "discussion" will go around in circles forever!
>
> Thanks to John for his input.
>
> Steve
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> "The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of
> any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually
> static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never
> show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by
> another, and change is more or less abrupt..." (Wesson R.G., "Beyond
> Natural Selection," [1991], MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 1994, reprint, p45)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>