On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 21:19:47 +0000, glenn morton wrote:
[...]
>SJ>Yes. The ID movement has *nothing* to do with Christianity. ID is a
>>*scientific* theory. As I have said, there are members of the ID movement
>>who are not Christians, and there are even some who are not followers of
>>any religious.
GM>Can you name one who isn't religious?
I didn't say "isn't religious". I said "some who are not followers of any
religious" (the last word should have been "religion"). It could be argued
that everyone is "religious" in some sense.
Denton for starters, is AFAIK is not a followers of any religion. If Denton
is a theist, he is AFAIK, a philosophical theist, not a religious one.
There are other IDers on the other List that I am on, who are, AFAIK, not
followers of any religion, but I am not at liberty to mention their names.
[...]
>SJ>No. The first thing is to establish the scientific legitimacy of ID at the
>>philosophical level. This may take quite some time, but it is happening.
>>
>>Then when public funding is made available, then ID can start scientific
>>research in earnest, which would be publishable in normal mainstream
>>scientific journals like NATURE and SCIENCE.
GM>What is preventing them from doing some serious thinking now about the
>scenario? Do you know of one who even says that he wants to propose a
>scenario?
I did not say they were not "doing some serious thinking now about the
scenario".
My point was that the first step is to establish the scientific legitimacy of ID
at the philosophical level. It would be a waste of time doing research to
support design, when the leaders of the scientific world don't even agree
that design is scientific.
Glenn only has to look at this Reflector. Most, if not all, the evolutionists
deny that design is scientific and therefore no amount of evidence for
design would convince them that there is design.
Remember what Jesus said in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus:
"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will
not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'" (Lk 16:31)
[...]
>SJ>ID would not necessarily differ with Naturalism on the actual facts of
>>"evolution", ie. change over time, common ancestry, etc.
GM>But in point of fact, every single ID person I know of opposes evolution. I
>don't think you really understand what they are about at all.
The problem is in Glenn's own words "I know". There are some IDers who
don't oppose evolution, although they might oppose Darwinism. Others,
like Mike Behe (and myself) don't oppose evolutionary facts like common
ancestry.
One of the problems is that theistic evolutionists have opposed the ID
movement because they wrongly think it is just YEC in disguise. So there
is a selection effect which has more YECs and OECs in the ID movement
than TEs . But there is nothing to stop TEs joining the ID movement. But
clearly once inside the movement they would have to stop their attacks on
their fellow IDers, including YECs, not to mention their attacks on ID!
[...]
>SJ>This is a good point. But Penrose is a Platonist, so he may not agree that
>>there really was a Designer.
GM>Man, you don't know anything about philosophy. For a person who thinks of
>himself as a follower of ID which is now busy getting philosophical
>justification, this is surprising.
Glenn is getting me, a humble foot soldier of the ID movement confused
with its leaders! I personally am not "now busy getting philosophical
justification" for ID. I rely on the qualified philosophers in the ID
movement for that.
>SJ>Plato did believe in a creator. He
>called him the demiurge. The Demiurge created the universe and then left it
>alone. It was quite deistic. But it is a creator. Knowing of a past
>criticism you aimed at me I know that you don't like deism. But a platonic
>demiurge who created the world and then left it alone is quite possible
>among the ID possibilities.
I am aware that "Plato" believed in a "demiurge", but I doubt that modern
Platonists do. But Glenn needs to read what I say more carefully, to save
wasting our time. I did say that "Penrose ... *may* not agree that there
really was a Designer".
>SJ>Individual scientists are considering design, but it is not yet a legitimate
>>scientific explanation which would be written up in mainstream scientific
>>journals or taught in public schools and universities.
GM>In this you are wrong.
Glenn does not say what his evidence is that what I say is wrong. Here is a
quote originally from the evolutionary journal Creation/Evolution which
says that I am right:
"The Creation Hypothesis received a remarkably respectful review in
Creation/Evolution, a strongly anticreationist journal. Reviewer Arthur
Shapiro, professor of zoology at the Davis campus of the University of
California, concluded with this paragraph: `I can see Science in the year
2000 running a major feature article on the spread of theistic science as a
parallel scientific culture. I can see interviews with the leading figures in
history and philosophy of science about how and why this happened. For
the moment, the authors of The Creation Hypothesis are realistically
defensive. They know their way of looking at the world will not be
generally accepted and that they will be restricted for a while to their own
journals. They also know that they will be under intense pressure to
demonstrate respectability by weeding out crackpots, kooks and purveyors
of young- earth snake oil. If they are successful, the day will come when
the editorial board of Science will convene in emergency session to decide
what to do about a paper which is of the highest quality and utterly
unexceptionable, of great and broad interest, and which proceeds from the
prior assumption of intelligent design. For a preview of that crisis, you
should read this book. Of course, if you are smug enough to think "theistic
science" is an oxymoron, you won't.' (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the
Balance", 1995, p239)
Note, BTW, Shapiro's confirmation of what I say about the problem of
philosophical worldview which needs to be tacked first: "For the moment,
the authors of The Creation Hypothesis are realistically defensive. They
know their way of looking at the world will not be generally accepted..."
[...]
>SJ>Glenn, like a lot of scientists lacks historical sense. He seems to think that
>>current scientific theories and attitudes just popped into existence fully
>>formed in one generation. I have already pointed out that Darwinism took
>>about 80 years to become established.
GM>Darwinism was fully accepted by the biologic and geologic scientific
>community by 1870s.
That is a myth. Glenn should read Darwinist historian Peter Bowler's
"Evolution: The History" of an Idea", with its chapter: "The Eclipse of
Darwinism":
"The eclipse of Darwinism is a phrase used in Julian Huxley's survey of
evolution theory (new ed, 1963) to describe the situation before genetics
and selectionism were combined to give the "modern synthesis" Huxley
was involved in the creation of this synthesis, and he knew just how
precarious the state of Darwinism had been around 1900. J. B.S. Haldane
made the same point in the motto chosen to head his book on the genetic
theory of selection (1932): "Darwinism is dead- any sermon." But if the
preachers were rejoicing, it was the scientists themselves who had brought
Darwinism into eclipse. From the high point of the 1870s and 1880s, when
"Darwinism" had become virtually synonymous with evolution itself, the
selection theory had slipped in popularity to such an extent that by 1900 its
opponents were convinced it would never recover. Evolution itself
remained unquestioned but an increasing number of biologists preferred
mechanisms other than selection to explain how it occurred. Classic
surveys of the situation, even those by writers sympathetic to Darwinism,
admitted the strength of the opposition (Romanes, 189-97; Plate, 1900,
1903, 1913; Kellogg, 1907; Delages and Goldsmith, 1912). Those
unsympathetic to the selection theory rejoiced in its decline one attack,
translated from the German, had the hopeful title At the Deathbed of
Darwinism (Dennert, 1904). (Bowler P.J., "Evolution: The History of an
Idea", 1989, p246)
Or indeed Bowler's book called "The Eclipse of Darwinism" (1983), or
Julian Huxley's "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis", 1945, where Chapter 3
in entitled "The Eclipse of Darwinism".
>SJ>ID must indeed make its case or be consigned to the trash can of history.
>>But the speed at which ID progresses is a matter for the ID movement to
>>decide, not its critics. ID will not be rushed into premature claims. ID is
>>making good progress and that if sufficient for now.
GM>Why is it that movements like ID, YEC etc never seem to explain
anything.
First, ID is not YEC, and Glenn, if he wants to be true to the facts, should
stop thinking that it is. Johnson, Behe and Dembski aren't YECs. Nelson is
a YEC but more a philosophical YEC, not an ICR type YEC.
Glenn will no doubt say that he did not say that ID is YEC, but his
continual mentioning of ID in the same breath with YEC shows that Glenn,
in his thinking, still regards ID as, in some sense, the equivalent of YEC.
Second, the ID movement has only existed about 10 years, so to say it
"never seem to explain anything" is premature.
Third, ID is explaining something-the philosophical underpinning of ID as
in principle scientific.
It is because Glenn denies that ID is science, that he denies that ID explains
anything. Glenn himself is a good example of why ID must work on this
philosophical level first
[...]
>>GM>Maybe the aliens are the ancient Roman Gods. They are eternal and thus
>>>require no explanation!
>SJ>ID is not really concerned about the identity of the Designer. If some IDer
>>wants to think that He was Zeus or that He was the Christian God, that is
>>not an issue for ID.
GM>Wow, ID can't tell the difference between Zeus, the Demiurge, Jehovah,
>Allah, the Rev. Moon, or any of the other thousands of deities. Sounds like
>it is a really specific and sharply defined movment.
What really is Glenn's point? ID sets out to make the case for a *Designer*
from the facts of nature. It does not claim to have a Divine self-revelation
of the Name of God, like the Bible does. How is ID to discover from
*nature* that the Designer's name is "Zeus" or "Jehovah"?
[...]
>SJ>OK. ID does "tell us what actually happened in the past" in the sense that it
>>claims that it happened by the plan and execution of an Intelligent
>>Designer, and such execution left scientifically detectable footprints.
>>
>>This may produce different scientific explanations. For example, ID will be
>>able to produce viable scenarios for the origin of life and irreducibly
>>complex molecular machines that non-ID science cannot.
GM>WHat scenarios? YOu said that they didn't have to present any for a
>generation or two.
Glenn really needs to read more carefully what I say! I said "*will* be able
to". That is in the future.
And I did not say that ID "didn't have to present any for a generation or
two". I said that it may take several generations for ID to become
established.
ID *will* have to start making testable scientific claims if it is to survive in
the long run as a scientific paradigm. Behe's "irreducible complexity"
hypothesis is a start.
[...]
>SJ>But ID has not particular interest in *how long* the past history of the
>>Earth was.
GM>ONce again you are fixated on the age of the earth and I didn't raise that
>issue. .
No. I was clarifying my earlier point. And Glenn *did* raise the issue of
YEC and therefore "the age of the earth". Even in this post he keeps
associating ID with YEC. If Glenn wants to get away from "the age of the
earth", he should stop mentioning YEC.
GM>Presenting a scenario of the past history means telling us how the
>species arose, telling us when they arose, in what order, telling us what
>happened to the earth's surface
I have already mentioned that ID doesn't necessarily have to differ from
evolution on some, or even on any thing.
But evolution has not got an exclusive claim on "Presenting a scenario of
the past history". The order of geological strata and the general order of
appearance of species was already well known before Darwin's day, and
evolutionists simply accommodated to the already known order, without
predicting it:
"By around 1833 mainstream geology had concluded that: 1. Strata were
laid down by water (aqueous) and molten rock (igneous) over long time
periods. 2. Periodically there were cataclysms marking off one major series
from another. 3. Within and particularly between series particular fossil
types were associated with particular periods. 4. There was a succession of
fossil types - with major orders of animals appearing successively - but no
evidence of evolution. In the period 1833-1855 all the major strata series
known today were established. 75 It should be noted that this was all
before Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859, and that virtually all
the geologists involved rejected evolution including Charles Lyell. There
was no sense in which evolution was assumed by those who constructed
the geological columns and, as we will show in a later section, some of the
key geologists were evangelical Christians." (Marston P. & Forster R.,
"Reason, Science and Faith", 1999, p219)
GM>telling us how the information was put
>into the genome and what boundaries there are for evolution if any. IDers
>do none of the above.
I am not aware that evolutionists do this either, except in a vague, hand-
waving way, and they have had a 130 year head-start, with almost all the
public money, and tens of thousands of scientists.
These things and more may be part of IDs research program, but the first
step is to establish the scientific legitimacy of ID.
Glenn own hostility to ID and unreasonable demands that it start answering
all these questions right away, before it even establishes that ID even *is*
scientific, makes this abundantly plain.
But ID won't be rushed by its critics like Glenn (who presumably want ID
to fail because they perceive it to be a threat to Naturalistic Evolution), into
making premature claims, before it is good and ready.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"In short, it is clear that Darwin's success was due to several common vices
as well as to several uncommon virtues. His gifts as an observer in all fields
concerned with the needs of a theory of evolution were extraordinary. His
industry and patience in collecting and editing his own observations as well
as other people's were hardly less remarkable. On the other hand, his ideas
were not, as he imagined, unusually original. He was able to put his ideas
across not so much because of his scientific integrity, but because of his
opportunism, his equivocation and his lack of historical sense. Though his
admirers will not like to believe it, he accomplished his revolution by
personal weakness and strategic talent more than by scientific virtue."
(Darlington C.D., "The Origin of Darwinism", Scientific American, Vol.
201, May 1959, p66)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------