Reflectorites
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 16:53:25 -0500, Susan Brassfield wrote:
SB>Naturally, I've been thinking about ID a lot over the last few months. My
>original opinion--that it's propaganda with no visible means of
>support--has remained unchanged, but I had an idea about it recently and I
>thought I'd share it with the list.
From ID's perspective, it is a major achievement that its critics are even
thinking about it! Of course as a committed atheistic evolutionist, Susan
has no alternative but to think that ID is "propaganda with no visible means
of support" (see below).
SB>There are three main ideas about intelligent design: 1. nothing is designed
>by an intelligent agent; 2. some things are designed by an intelligent
>agent and some things are formed by natural forces; 3. *everything* is
>designed by an intelligent agent.
>
>#1 obviously is the naturalistic evolutionist position.
See my comment above!
SB>It seems that most
>of the ID proponents adhere to #2 and I've always been a little astonished
>at that.
Actually I don't think that *any* "ID proponents adhere to #2". All ID
proponents, and indeed all Christian theists, AFAIK, believe that ; "3.
*everything* is designed by an intelligent agent."
As Dembski's illustration of the design of "canvas" and "painting" below
helps to clarify, the debate between "ID proponents" and other theists is
about *levels* of design, not design itself:
"In its treatment of design, this book focuses not so much on whether the
universe as a whole is designed but on whether we are able to detect design
within an already given universe. The universe provides a well-defined
causal backdrop ... Although one can ask whether that causal backdrop is
itself designed, one can as well ask whether events and objects occurring
within that backdrop are designed. At issue here are two types of design:
(1) the design of the universe as a whole and (2) instances of design within
the universe. An analogy illustrates the difference. Consider an oil painting.
An oil painting is typically painted on a canvas. One can therefore ask
whether the canvas is designed. Alternatively one can ask whether some
configuration of paint on the canvas is designed. The design of the canvas
corresponds to the design of the universe as a whole. The design of some
configuration of paint corresponds to an instance of design within the
universe. Though not perfect, this analogy is useful. The universe is a
canvas on which is depicted natural history. One can ask whether that
canvas itself is designed. On the other hand, one can ask whether features
of natural history depicted on that canvas are designed." (Dembski W.A.,
"Intelligent Design," 1999, pp.13-14)
"ID proponents" in the main, argue that the Designer has designed in
natural history at *both* the "canvas" and "painting" levels. Theistic
Evolutionists, do not deny that the Designer has designed but they usually
deny He has designed at the "painting" level.
It was the great Theistic Evolutionist, Asa Gray, and early friend and
confidante of Darwin, who said that the outright denial of design was
"tantamount to atheism":
"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.'" (Noll M.A. & Livingstone D.N., eds., Hodge C. "What Is
Darwinism?", [1874], 1994, p.156).
SB>You'd think that a group of people who want their god to be
>omnipotent would say that he/she/it had designed *everything*.
Indeed. And they do.
SB>It finally
>occurred to me that creationists *can't* take that position because that
>means that everything simply is as it is. God made the Big Bang, evolution
>and all the rest and the natural sciences merely examine God's handiwork.
>That doesn't leave Genesis as a science text.
I don't understand Susan's point here. I am a creationist who
believes that God has "designed *everything*" and I have no
problem with "the Big Bang". I don't even have a problem with
"evolution" if it was true. And I don't regard "Genesis as a science
text."
SB>I mean, the whole point of creationism is to not only keep Genesis as
>literally true, but to preserve the idea of original sin, the fall, and the
>ultimate redemption from sin by the sacrifice of Jesus.
This is probably the main motivation behind *young-Earth* "creationism".
Old-Earth creationists still believe in "original sin, the fall, and the ultimate
redemption from sin by the sacrifice of Jesus," but they don't believe that
"Genesis" is "literally true" in the sense of the days being 24-hours, etc.
I must say at this point that the Bible does not actually use the words "the
fall" and "original sin". These concepts were probably introduced into
medieval Christian theology by Augustine, who had a Greek Platonic
background. They are no so much wrong as inexact:
"Traditionally the churches, commentators and theologians entitle the third
chapter of Genesis 'The Fall'. There is nothing in the text, however, to
suggest that metaphor. It could put the reader's thoughts on the wrong
track altogether by implying that the event was a sudden, dramatic change
of level downwards, of a metaphysical order: a fall from the heavenly to the
earthly, from a higher, spiritual stage of being into the lower material
realm. The Bible would condemn such contamination from Greek and
Gnostic themes." (Blocher H., "In The Beginning: The Opening Chapters
of Genesis," 1984, p.135).
SB>If God made
>*everything* and the natural sciences are true as scientists have
>discovered them, then that might leave you as a theist, but it doesn't
>leave you as a Christian--exactly. (Of course, you can remain Christian and
>be an evolutionist.
Again, I don't follow Susan's point here. She seems to think that there are
only two categories of "Christians": young-Earth creationists and theistic
evolutionists. She seems to be ignoring old-Earth/progressive creationists.
I am an old-Earth/progressive creationist and I believe that "God made
*everything* and the natural sciences are true as scientists have discovered
them."
The only disagreement I have is with the materialistic-naturalistic
*philosophy* of most leading scientists. IOW I don't disagree with the
*facts* "as scientists have discovered them" but I do disagree with their
materialistic-naturalistic *interpretation* of those facts.
SB> I know Unitarians who are atheists and who think of
>themselves as Christian because they follow the example and leadership of
>Christ--they merely think the man, Christ, was mistaken about the existence
>of a deity.)
I am glad that Susan recognises the absurdity of this position. These so-
called `Christians' haven't faced up to the fact that Jesus was either who He
said He was, namely God, or else he was a complete fruit-cake:
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that
people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral
teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we
must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things
Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic
- on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg- or else he would
be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and
is, the Son of God: or else a madman or some thing worse. You can shut
Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can
fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any
patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not
left that open to us. He did not intend to." (Lewis C.S., "Mere
Christianity," 1977, p52)
SB>I don't have any idea where all this leads, but I had a feeling a few of
>you might have some comments!
I thank Susan for this thought-provoking post.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Zircon dating, which calculates a fossil's age by measuring the relative
amounts of uranium and lead within the crystals, had been whittling away
at the Cambrian for some time. By 1990, for example, new dates obtained
from early Cambrian sites around the world were telescoping the start of
biology's Big Bang from 600 million years ago to less than 560 million
years ago. Now, with information based on the lead content of zircons
from Siberia, virtually everyone agrees that the Cambrian started almost
exactly 543 million years ago and, even more startling, that all but one of
the phyla in the fossil record appeared within the first 5 million to 10
million years. "We now know how fast fast is," grins Bowring. "And what I
like to ask my biologist friends is, How fast can evolution get before they
start feeling uncomfortable?" (Nash J.M., "When Life Exploded", Time,
December 4, 1995, p74.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/archive/1995/951204/cover.html)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 17:55:44 EDT