Reflectorites
On Tue, 02 May 2000 11:52:12 -0500, Susan Brassfield wrote:
[...]
>SJ>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>the idea's been around for 200 years!!! Creationists have hardly kept it a
>secret.
I presume Susan is referring to William Paley's argument from design?
Well, although it was published in 1802, it fell out of favour, not IMHO
through any great fault in it. I am halfway through reading Paley's "Natural
Theology" and it is a *great* book!
But while there have always been individuals who have kept the design
argument alive (e.g. R.E.D. Clark), the modern ID *movement* has only
been in existence for 10-15 years.
>>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.
>SJ>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.
>SJ>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."
SB>in that case how is anyone supposed to detect design? If EVERYTHING is
>designed, there is no way to detect it. There's no way to compare something
>designed to something not designed.
That's like saying that if the canvas a painting is painted on is designed then
one can't detect the painting itself is designed!
The whole ID movement's argument is about detecting the "painting" level
of design, superimposed on the "canvas" level of design.
SB>I think this clearly exposes the
>entirely religious underpinnings of design.
My own experience contradicts this. As I have documented in testimony on
my web page, I was originally an atheist from a totally non-Christian
background. In my late teens I became a theist by just looking up at the
night sky. The impression of design was overwhelming, and I said to myself
"there *must* be a God! But I remained a true agnostic. That is I believed
there was a God but there was no way of knowing anything more about
Him.
It was not for 1-2 years that I became "religious" by entering a church for
the first time, hearing the gospel and became a Christian.
If I ceased being a Christian I would still believe in design.
SB>You must *believe* that
>everything is designed because there's no way to prove it.
That goes without saying. But equally Susan must believe that nothing is
designed because she can't prove that either.
SB>That's fine. I
>have no problem with religious beliefs as long as they are not passed off
>as science. Or as long as no one attempts to substitute these religious
>beliefs for science in public schools.
I agree that in general religious beliefs should not passed off as science. But
having said that, there are two problems there:
1. Some "religious beliefs" are also the subject of "science". For example,
the *origin* of things is the subject of the Christian religion's beliefs and it
is also the subject of science's beliefs; and
2. Scientists don't restrain their *non*-"religious beliefs". Evolutionists are
often pontificating about and sometimes ridiculing "religious beliefs". In my
Biology class my two lecturers made known they were atheists (why?) and
they continually interject snide comments about God and religion.
>SJ>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:
>
>>"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.
SB>hmm . . . how does this statement jibe with your statement above "Actually
>I don't think that *any* "ID proponents adhere to #2"."
I am not sure what the problem is. Perhaps Susan can clarify?
>SJ>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":
SB>it is well known that Gray was religiously uncomfortable with Darwin's
>theory. So what?
Actually Gray was very comfortable with "Darwin's theory". He actually
was the major promoter of it in the USA. It was the later anti-design spin
that Darwin put on his theory that Gray didn't agree with.
>>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*.
>SJ>Indeed. And they do.
SB>ok. In that case why does Darwinian evolution make them so uncomfortable?
>Wouldn't it be perfectly obvious that God was in charge of evolution? That
>an investigation of evolution, for a Christian, would be an investigation
>of God's handiwork?
It is not so much that "Darwinian evolution" itself which "make them" (i.e.
Christian theists) "so uncomfortable" but the atheistic spin that has
increasingly been put on the theory by Darwin and his followers.
Besides, atheists have no option but to believe in some form of evolution.
But if one believes in an "omnipotent" God then one is free to believe other
alternatives, if that's what the evidence points to.
[...]
>SJ>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>the whole creationist agenda is to preserve the absolute fact of the
>Genesis creation.
That might be the *young-Earth* "creationist agenda" but it is not *the*
"creationist agenda". Old-Earth/Progressive creationists don't have an
agenda "to preserve the absolute fact of the Genesis creation", at least
not in the Biblical literalist sense.
SB>Creationists have, indeed, (some of them anyway--this
>certainly doesn't include Gish or Hovind) been forced to change tactics as
>facts became more and more undeniable.
This makes out that Johnson and Behe and the ID movement (and me)
started out as YECs and became IDers. But they (and I) have never been
YECs and those who are YECs in the ID movement are still YECs.
SB>That's why ID in its modern version is so attractive.
I am glad Susan thinks the ID movement is "attractive"! :-)
SB>It's tremendously more vague than "Creation science" which actually made
>some scientific claims that could be tested (and were then immediatly
>proved false).
I have no argument with the latter. But ID, being a more general theory or
paradigm is no more "vague" than its opposite: anti-ID.
SB>If *everything* is designed, then ID can't be tested for and
>therefore can't be disproved. It must simply be believed.
If that is the case then its opposite that: "1. nothing is designed by an
intelligent agent" which Susan says "obviously is the naturalistic
evolutionist position" equally "can't be tested for and therefore can't be
disproved" and "must simply be believed".
SB>You can claim it
>is science and complain that evolutionary biologists deliberately ignore
>it--as Johnson does.
First, Susan has just confirmed that "evolutionary biologists deliberately
ignore it", i.e. the "canvas" level of design, by her claim that it "is the
naturalistic evolutionist position" that "nothing is designed by an intelligent
agent"
Second, Susan is getting again getting confused between the "canvas" and
"painting" levels of design, and ID's focus. The ID movement is generally
only trying to supply scientific evidence for the "painting" level of design.
>>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.
>SJ>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.
SB>you haven't talked to my mother recently!!! it's all exactly scientific
>history! :-)
This is interesting. It could perhaps explain some things?
SB>at least for most creationists such as the people trying to
>get disclaimers in science text books, get evolutionary evidence suppressed
>in public schools, etc. They don't give a flying flip about philosophical
>underpinnings of science. They want Genesis (and no other creation myth, of
>course) taught as science in public schools. And if some claptrap about
>"Intelligent Design" gets that goal accomplished, great.
Susan is starting to believe her own propaganda. There is no one AFAIK,
certainly no leader, in the "Intelligent Design" movement who wants
"Genesis...taught as science in public schools."
Indeed, I am not even sure the ICR any longer wants "Genesis...taught as
science in public schools."
All that the "Intelligent Design" movement wants for now is for the
philosophical underpinnings of evolution and its many problems to be
brought out into the open for discussion.
>SJ>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:
SB>St. Paul was also heavy into Greek thought. So what?
Again I fail to understand Susan's point.
[...]
SB>I tend to lump all Christians who fight evolution tooth and nail in spite
>of the huge amount of evidence supporting it under the general term
>"creationist." You guys can decide amoung yourselves what kind of
>creationist you are.
I have no problem with that. I call myself a "creationist." The problem I
have is with Susan's continual confusing of "creationist" with *young-
Earth* "creationist", ie. ignoring that there are "old-Earth/progressive
creationists." She does it so often, after I have pointed out her error that I
am beginning to think that it is deliberate.
SB>Theistic evolutionists--people who know evolution is
>true and that it has no theological, ethical, or moral implications for
>Christians--are not creationists in my book. I don't mind if people have
>religion. Heck, I've got a lot of them as you can see if you've been to my
>website!
Theistic evolutionists, as described above by Susan sounds like a very
convenient belief for those Christians to have. Imagine, something as
important as God making the living world and yet it having "no theological,
ethical, or moral implications for" them!
>SJ>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>you are assuming that evolution has something to do with religion. It
>doesn't. "Materialistic-naturalism" is required for science. There's no way
>to conduct science without that assumption.
Science was practiced for centuries without assuming "Materialistic-
naturalism". The only valid reason for "Materialistic-naturalism" being
"required for science" would be if "Materialistic-naturalism" was ultimately
*true*.
If it is possible that there is a God and that He could have intervened in
and/or guided the origin and development of life, then it is *absurd* to
assume in advance that He didn't.
SB>Or, at least, neither you nor
>Johnson has come up with any viable suggestions as to how one would go
>about conducting science without that assumption.
Yes we have. It's simple. Don't assume in advance that you know what
*must* have happened, just because it is what you would *like* to have
happened, but have an open mind to *all* logical possibilities.
Science should be "a search for truth, no holds barred" (Ratzsch D.L.,
"The Battle of Beginnings," 1996, p.168)
>>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.)
>SJ>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:
>
>>"...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>both you and Lewis are presenting a false dichotomy. Alexander the Great
>was far from a lunatic or a fruitcake and believed in the literal existence
>of Zeus and Aphrodite--he also believed (or said he did) that he, himself
>was a god. Most of the Roman emporors believed they were either gods or
>descended from gods. They were mistaken, obviously.
The Greek and Roman idea of "gods" was pretty low. It was not the same as
the Jewish concept of the one and only true God.
I read somewhere that the Roman emperors did not really believe that they
were a god - it was just politics, except maybe Nero who *was* mad.
But if they *really* thought they were God, in the Jewish sense of the one
and only true God, then they were fruitcakes in my book.
Jesus, was a Jew who strongly but indirectly claimed to be God (Bill is
right on that at least), and his Jewish follower's understood Him to be God.
If He wasn't God then He was a fruitcake.
SB>Christ could have similarly been mistaken
If Jesus was mistaken about Himself being God, then He was simply a
fruitcake. Anyone who went around today mistakenly claiming they were
God (in the Judeo-Christian sense) of the one true God, would be
committed to a mental asylum.
SB>and it would not damage the rest of his message at all.
Of course it would. Every time one got to something they didn't like, they
would just assume that Jesus was mistaken. So it would not really Jesus
they were following but *themselves*! They might as well dispense with
the pretext they are following Jesus and honestly admit that they are just
trying to live good lives according to current community standards.
SB>It's my understanding his godhood was decided by vote 400 years after
>he died, anyway.
Susan's "understanding" is simply wrong. Jesus "goodhood" is clearly
evident in the New Testament writings which were completed by ~100 AD.
The great church councils (e.g. Nicea 325 AD, Constantinople 381 AD,
Ephesus 449 AD, and Chalcedon 451 AD, merely ratified what the
majority of the Christian community had always believed, from the New
Testament writings.
>>SB>I don't have any idea where all this leads, but I had a feeling a few of
>>>you might have some comments!
>SJ>I thank Susan for this thought-provoking post.
SB>you are welcome!
Good. But I think I might terminate this thread, as its gone on a couple
of iterations and we are starting to go around in circles.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Critique of Current Theories of Evolution. We believe that it is possible to
draw up a list of basic rules that underlie existing molecular evolutionary
models: 1. All theories are monophyletic, meaning that they all start with
the Urgene and the Urzelle which have given rise to all proteins and all
species, respectively. 2. Complexity evolves mainly through duplications
and mutations in structural and control genes. 3. Genes can mutate or
remain stable, migrate laterally from species to species, spread through a
population by mechanisms whose operation is not fully understood, evolve
coordinately, splice, stay silent, and exist as pseudogenes. 4. Ad hoc
arguments can be invented (such as insect vectors or viruses) that can
transport a gene into places where no monophyletic logic could otherwise
explain its presence. This liberal spread of rules, each of which can be
observed in use by scientists, does not just sound facetious but also, in our
opinion, robs monophyletic molecular evolution of its vulnerability to
disproof, and thereby of its entitlement to the status of a scientific theory."
(Schwabe C. & G.W., "A Polyphyletic View of Evolution: The Genetic
Potential Hypothesis," Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, Vol. 27, No.
3, pp.465-485, Spring 1984, p.467. Footnotes omitted.)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 04 2000 - 18:51:00 EDT