On Fri, 03 Dec 1999 21:00:07 +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?
>SJ>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.
GM>As I have pointed out before Denton is a theist which in my mind makes him
>religious because he believes in a religious object--God.
My point was not that some IDers are not *theists* or not *religious*, but
that some IDers are not *followers* of any religion.
[...]
>SJ>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.
GM>Nice cop out.
No. It's the truth. And I am not going to breach confidentiality to satisfy
Glenn's demands.
But Denton alone proves my point that "there are members of the ID
movement who are...not followers of any religion".
[snip]
>SJ>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.
GM>What you are saying is that unless they are assured beforehand that people
>will accept their ideas they don't need to play the game or fight the
>fight. Good strategy!
No. The scientific materialists' track record is they will reject ID on
philosophical grounds first, by denying it is science at all. They have
already done this with Darwin's Black Box:
"As Behe lectures, one of the first questions asked is "What do Darwinians
say about your book?" He ticks off three or four recurring responses. A
few simply label him a "creationist" and dismiss his arguments without a
careful hearing; but that is not the typical response. Almost all reviewers
have admitted that Behe has the facts right. Biochemist James Shapiro said
that Darwin's Black Box had actually understated the complexity of the
cell's systems, while James Shreeve conceded that "Behe may be right that
given our current state of knowledge, good old Darwinian gradualist
evolution cannot explain the origin of...cellular transport." Nevertheless,
Shreeve and others say the professor from Lehigh simply has given up too
soon. Many add that science simply cannot entertain such unscientific
notions as "intelligent design." Behe considers this objection a transparent
attempt, based on philosophical bias, to set limits on science." (Woodward
T., "Meeting Darwin's Wager (Part 3 of 3)", Christianity Today April 28,
1997. http://www.christianity.net/ct/7T5/7T514c.html)
Evidence is not enough against minds closed by philosophical prejudice. ID
therefore needs to first address this philosophical issue that ID is not
even science.
>SJ>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.
GM>I believe in design via the anthropic principle.
The "anthropic principle" is a device used by some philosophical materialist-
naturalists to deny the reality of design. It's basic idea is that there is no
need to conclude that there really is a Designer because if the universe was
not fine-tuned for life, we wouldn't be here!
There is even one version of the AP which says that our very existence
as observers means that somehow the universe had to come into existence
to be observed!
There are various AP's, like the "Weak Anthropic Principle" (WAP)
and the "Strong Anthropic Principle" (SAP), but even some philosophical
materialist-naturalists find it difficult to accept, like the mathematics
writer Martin Gardner:
"In The New York Review of Books Martin Gardner gave this evaluation
of Barrow and Tipler's idea: "What should one make of this quartet
of WAP, SAP, PAP, and FAP? In my not so humble opinion I think the
last principle is best called CRAP, the Completely Ridiculous
Anthropic Principle." (Gardner M., "WAP, SAP, PAP and FAP,"
The New York Review of Books, May 8, 1986, 23:22-25, in Ross H.N.,
"Astronomical Evidences for a Personal, Transcendent God,"
in Moreland J.P., ed., "The Creation Hypothesis", 1994, p159).
Glenn does not say *which* "anthropic principle" he believes in.
GM>What I don't believe in is
>design where the ID crowd places it. I am an evolutionist and I do beleive
>the design argument.
This proves my point. Glenn doesn't *believe* in "design where the ID
crowd places it". That is, Glenn has a *philosophical* objection to ID, as
proposed by the ID movement.
This makes Glenn dismiss all the ID evidence, while simultaneously calling
for evidence for ID.
In this Glenn's theistic "evolutionist" position seems *exactly* the same as
naturalistic evolutionists like Chris and Susan.
It is IDs first job to address this philosophical objection to ID.
>SJ>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)
GM>To follow your logic above then, you are saying that because Jesus knew he
>would be rejected he shouldn't have started telling everyone that he was
>the Messiah. Good strategy, Stephen! Thank God Jesus didn't take your advice.
[...]
No. Jesus did not say above that *everyone* would not believe in Him.
Only those whose minds were already made up that He couldn't be the
Messiah!
But Jesus' point was that evidence alone is not enough. One has to first
have an open mind to accept the evidence. Denying up front that ID is
even scientific means that no amount of evidence would be sufficient.
Fortunately the ID movement does not depend on satisfying the Glenn's of
this world. It will just go around them. There are plenty of people who are
not strongly committed to anti-ID philosophies and they will give ID a fair
hearing.
[...]
>>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.
>SJ>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.
GM>No, I don't have you confused for even a foot soldier. When you talk about
>things about which you know so little, you bring disrepute upon the
>movement you say you support.
Well since Glenn clearly wants to "bring disrepute upon the" ID
"movement", then he should be *happy* with what I say!
[snip]
>SJ>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".
GM>Don't you read what I write? I quoted Penrose talking about a creator read
>that Designer!
I do read what Glenn writes. Glenn said of Penrose: "Sounds to me like
this world class scientist is talking about design and a creator" and I said
"Penrose ...may not agree that there really was a Designer"
While Penrose may talk about a "Creator", I doubt that he means there
really is a Creator or a Designer. Nowhere else AFAIK has he indicated he
believes in a Creator or a Designer. For him IMHO it is just a figure of
speech. Penrose doesn't even have "creator" listed in the index to his book,
"The Emperor's New Mind" that Glenn is quoting from.
Glenn's getting more and more nasty, so I am terminating this thread.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"And finally Darwinism itself grew more and more theoretical. The paper
demonstration that such and such a character was or might be adaptive was
regarded by many writers as sufficient proof that it must owe its origin to
Natural Selection. Evolutionary studies became more and more merely
case-books of real or supposed adaptations. Late nineteenth-century
Darwinism came to resemble the early nineteenth-century school elf
Natural Theology. Paley redivivus, one might say, but philosophically
upside down, with Natural Selection instead of a Divine Artificer as the
Deus ex machina. There was little contact of evolutionary speculation with
the concrete facts of cytology and heredity, or with actual
experimentation." (Huxley J., "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis", [1942],
George Allen & Unwin: London, 1945, reprint, p23)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------