Reflectorites
Unfortunately because of its size, I have had to cut this message into
3 parts, part 3 of which I haven't even started answering!
On Mon, 08 May 2000 16:05:35 -0500, Susan Brassfield wrote:
[...]
>>SB>the idea's been around for 200 years!!! Creationists have hardly kept it a
>>>secret.
>SJ>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. ...
>>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>Johnson has popularized it as a new line of rhetoric, but if the idea had
>any *scientific* merit, it might not have "fallen out of favor" in the 19th
>century.
As Susan's own "rhetoric" shows, in the area of evolution, "scientific merit"
comes a poor second to philosophical prejudice. The simple fact is that
Paley's argument has never been refuted, but was just ignored:
"But exactly where, we may ask, was Paley refuted? Who has answered his
argument? How was the watch produced without an intelligent designer? It
is surprising but true that the main argument of the discredited Paley has
actually never been refuted. Neither Darwin nor Dawkins, neither science
nor philosophy, has explained how an irreducibly complex system such as a
watch might be produced without designer. Instead Paley's argument has
been sidetracked by attacks or its injudicious examples and off-the-point
theological discussions. Paley, of course, is to blame for not framing his
argument more tightly. But many of Paley's detractors are also to blame for
refusing to engage his main point, playing dumb in order to reach a more
palatable conclusion." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box," 1996, p.213).
[...]
>SJ>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!
SB>one can distinguish the picture of the tree and the canvas itself and the
>paint *from the tree*. You can say the picture of the tree, the canvas, and
>the paint are designed--by humans--and the tree is not. IF the canvas, the
>paint, the tree, and the picture of the tree, etc. are *all* designed, then
>there is no backdrop against which to distinguish the designed thing.
Maybe Susan should go into an art gallery and have a look around, but don't
tell anyone she can't tell the difference between the painting on the
walls and the paintings on the walls!
Susan still hasn't grasped the fact that there can be different *levels* of
design, which are easily distinguished from each other. Leonardo's fresco
"The Last Supper" is painted on a monastery wall. Now an intelligent
human designer had designed that wall, but we can tell the difference
between that level of design and Leonardo's, fresco.
>SJ>The whole ID movement's argument is about detecting the "painting" level
>>of design, superimposed on the "canvas" level of design.
SB>the the painting and the canvas are obviously designed--by humans-- and are
>easily distinguishable from the "nondesigned" world.
It is only Susan's materialistic-naturalistic *philosophy* which says that
the world is "nondesigned". The Christian theist's philosophy says that
the world is *designed*.
SB>If the universe and
>everything in it are "designed" we can't point to something that's *not*
>designed. Everything just is as it is.
>>SB>I think this clearly exposes the
>>>entirely religious underpinnings of design.
>SJ>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.
SB>I agree that "design" and "god" are intimately linked as you have shown.
>Design is not science, it's religion.
My experience refutes that. I knew nothing of "religion". I was convinced
*intellectually* of design. So are many (if not most) people who are not
religious. Look at Berthajane. She is an *agnostic* yet she believes the
universe is designed. Only a tiny minority of hard-core philosophical
materialists deny design.
SB>It's ok with me if you believe all
>that stuff, just don't try to make it *science.*
It is not a case of me *making* it "science". If it is really true that
an Intelligent Designer: 1) at one level designed the laws and constants
of the universe to make life's continuation possible; and 2) at another
level introduced new information at strategic points to originate and
progressively develop life, then that *is* a proper subject for
"science".
SB>The idea that *everything*
>is designed (by the Judeo-Christian god of course)
It is not the ID movement's claim that the Designer was necessarily "the
Judeo-Christian god". It is a *Christian* claim that the Designer was "the
Judeo-Christian god". Some IDers are not Christians.
SB>saves Genesis the
>indignity of trying to be a science text and restores its original message.
Who is arguing that "Genesis" is "a science text"? The great Christian
Reformer John Calvin in his commentary on Genesis wrote regarding Genesis
1:6, "Let there be a firmament":
"For, to my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of
but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy, and
other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere." (Calvin J., "A Commentary on
Genesis," [1554], Banner of Truth: London, 1965, reprint, p.79).
The fact is that Susan, like Clarence Darrow, *wants* creationists to all be
Genesis literalists in order for her to ridicule them so that their
arguments could be ignored:
"Any piece of the picture which didn't fit was trimmed or reported
incorrectly. For instance, everyone "knows" that Darrow forced Bryan to
back down and admit that the earth was really older than Genesis said. In
reality, Darrow tried to get Bryan to commit himself to the position that
Genesis necessarily taught a young earth. Though badgered by sixteen
successive questions, Bryan would not back down from an old earth age-
day interpretation. Darrow apparently *wanted* Genesis to require a
young earth, perhaps so that he could ridicule the Scriptures and those like
Bryan who remained faithful to them." (Wilcox D.L., "Created in Eternity,
Unfolded in Time," Chapter 2, p.29. Emphasis in original.)
>>SB>You must *believe* that
>>>everything is designed because there's no way to prove it.
>SJ>That goes without saying. But equally Susan must believe that nothing is
>>designed because she can't prove that either.
SB>I don't believe that anything is designed by an intelligence, that is true.
>It is a bald belief. You may take comfort in the fact that I don't believe
>in lots and lots of gods--I don't single yours out. However, *I* am not
>science. Design is undetectable by science because it is *religion* as you
>illustrated above.
Susan just *defines* the words "religion" and "science" as mutually
exclusive and then imagines that she has made a discovery!
And if "Design is undetectable by science" the someone should tell
archaeologists and SETI researchers!
>>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.
>SJ>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.
SB>because you and your co-religionists are always attacking them.
Well, first, no one in my "Biology class" was "attacking them". And if they
keep on "pontificating about and sometimes ridiculing `religious beliefs'"
then of course "religionists" are going to attack them.
Second, this concedes my point. Scientists *don't* "restrain their
*non*-`religious beliefs'" in science classes in public schools.
SB>They waste
>a lot of time defending themselves from religious nit-picking and outright
>propaganda, distortions and misrepresentations.
As mostly atheists they have chosen to declare `war' on Christianity, so they
should not be surprised when Christians defend themselves.
SB>Yep. They don't care for
>you much, even when they sometimes are Christians themselves.
That is OK by me. But I care for *them* very much.
>>>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"."
>SJ>I am not sure what the problem is. Perhaps Susan can clarify?
SB>your two statements seem to conflict. Canvases and paintings contrast
>themselves with the natural world. Therefore I thought you were saying
>Dembski believed that some things were natural and not designed.
No. Dembski as a *Christian* believes everything is designed. But Dembski
also as an *IDer* believes that some of this design can be empirically
detected:
"I use design to denote what it is about intelligently produced objects that
enables us to tell that they are intelligently produced and not simply the
result of natural causes. When intelligent agents act, they leave behind a
characteristic trademark or signature. The scholastics used to refer to the
'"vestiges in creation." The Latin vestigium means footprint. It was thought
that God, though not directly present to our senses, had nonetheless left his
"footprints" throughout creation. Hugh Ross has referred to the
"fingerprint of God." It is design in this sense as a trademark, signatures
vestige or fingerprint-that this criterion for discriminating intelligently from
unintelligently caused objects is meant to identify." (Dembski W.A.,
"Intelligent Design," 1999, p.127).
>>>SJ>...the great Theistic Evolutionist, Asa Gray...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?
>SJ>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>hmm. . . it's been a while since I've read Darwin's biography,
Which one? There are *dozens* of them.
SB>but I don't
>think it had anything to do with "Darwin's anti-design spin." Darwin was
>terrified of you creationists. That's why he waited to the last possible
>moment to publish his book.
So what changed between 1837 and 1858? Was there a sudden decline in
"creationists" in only 21 years? And why did Wallace publish his theory of
natural selection as soon as he hit on the idea? Darwin had nothing to be
"terrified" of - he was a very wealthy man whose scientific career was
already established by his papers and books following his Beagle voyage.
But Wallace was a comparatively poor person who would have had much more
reason to be "terrified of...creationists" if that was the problem.
The fact is that Darwin delayed publishing his theory because he knew he
did not have enough *evidence*:
"The problem confronting Darwin at the end of 1838 was not so much the
fact that if he communicated his ideas he would be severely criticized, but
rather the fact that he did not have very much to communicate. His theory
had, in essence, preceded his knowledge-that is, he had hit upon a novel
and evocative theory of evolution with limited knowledge at hand to satisfy
either himself or others that the theory was true. He could neither accept it
himself nor prove it to others. He simply did not know enough concerning
the several natural history fields upon which his theory would have to be
based. Also, I think that from Darwin's perspective at the time, his theory
qua theory was rudimentary and weak. It was not something he would have
liked to defend, even if he had to. It was the sort of theory one puts in a
desk drawer-to be looked at much later, to be written later still. And if it
were the sort of theory that might be looked at unfairly at first-not given a
fair chance because of the prejudices it might arouse-all the more reason to
take care with it, not, so to speak, to let it out of the bag too soon. It was
in this sense, it seems, that it was a theory he `determined not even to write
the briefest sketch of.' It was a very uncertain theory on a highly
controversial subject." (Gale B.G., "Evolution Without Evidence," 1982,
p.8).
Darwin was still compiling the evidence for his theory to be eventually
published in a giant book to be called "Natural Selection", when his hand
was forced by Wallace's independent proposal of essentially the same theory
of evolution by natural selection.
SB>Even after he published *Origin* his subsequent
>books mostly stuck to describing the results of his experiments and
>observations. Grey and the creationists of Darwin's day drew their own
>"spin." Gray may have been scientificly pretty much OK with Darwin's
>theory--he was Darwins good friend and an honest scientist--but he was
>sharp enough to figure out the religious implications himself and he didn't
>like them.
Gray had no problem with the "religious implications" of Darwin's scientific
theory. He continued being an evangelical Christian of good standing after
accepting it and promoting it. What Gray had a problem with was Darwin's
*philosophical* rejection of design, which was not entailed by his
scientific theory.
[...]
>>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?
>SJ>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.
SJ>no. The "atheistic spin" was put on by YOU. Science says nothing about
>religion. It is the religionists that decided the thing was "atheistic."
No. Darwin himself in the end rejected design (when scientifically he didn't
need to) and put his own anti-design spin on the theory:
"In the midst of social triumph, however, a note of discord appeared under
the surface. For the year 1868 marked the end of Gray's long effort to
prevent the complete demise of the doctrine of design in its new Darwinian
setting. In 1860 a strong possibility had existed that Gray's adaptation of
design to Darwinism, or at least the neutrality of Darwinism in its bearing
on ultimate questions, might be the major answer put forth to counteract
the onslaughts of Bishop Wilberforce. Darwin had, however, rejected
Gray's argument privately. In 1868, Darwin took the final step not only of
rejecting the design argument in a very conspicuous place but specifically
of linking the rejection to Gray. On the last page of Variation of Plants and
Animals under Domestication, he concluded, `However much we may wish
it, we can hardly follow Professor Asa Gray in his belief' in lines of
beneficent variation. As usual Gray had cheerfully arranged for publication
in America, and in a review in the Nation, he answered briefly, seeking to
refute a metaphor Darwin used about the builder of a stone house who
selected stones of random shapes and sizes." (Dupree A.H., "Asa Gray:
American Botanist, Friend of Darwin," 1988, p339)
>SJ>Besides, atheists have no option but to believe in some form of evolution.
SB>that's not true.
Well, if that's the case, then maybe Susan could explain what an atheist
could believe in other than "some form of evolution"?
SB>How would you oblige anyone to believe anything? That's
>just your assumption showing that evolution is "atheist."
I did not say that "evolution is `atheist'". I said that *denial of design*
(i.e. any form of design) was atheist. Clearly there are theists who are
evolutionists. Asa Gray for example.
>SJ>But if one believes in an "omnipotent" God then one is free to believe other
>>alternatives, if that's what the evidence points to.
SB>:-) and even if the evidence doesn't point there.
I was talking about one's prior metaphysical framework which enabled one
to fairly consider and then believe the "evidence."
Susan's prior metaphysical assumption is that there is no God, so it
wouldn't matter how good the "evidence" was which pointed to God.
Susan would *have* to deny it pointed to God, while she maintained her
atheistic metaphysical assumptions.
[...]
>>SB>the whole creationist agenda is to preserve the absolute fact of the
>>>Genesis creation.
>SJ>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>So you say. Most Biblical inerrantists identify some parts of the Bible
>that they think are "metaphor" or "poetry." That all of you don't agree on
>which parts are hard scientific fact and which parts are poetry is among
>you guys. I don't really care.
So what is left then of Susan's claim that "the whole creationist agenda is
to preserve the absolute fact of the Genesis creation"?
SB>No part of the Bible gets to be taught instead of science.
Who is wanting to teach "...the Bible...instead of science"? Even the
creation-scientists don't want to do that:
"The anti-evolution statutes of the 1920s were not enforced...The Supreme
Court eventually held the statutes unconstitutional in 1968, but by then the
fundamentalists had changed their objective. Creation research institutes
were founded...Their goal was no longer to suppress the teaching of
evolution, but to get a fair hearing for their own viewpoint. ... Creation-
scientists emphasized that they wanted to present only the scientific
arguments in the schools; the Bible itself was not to be taught." (Johnson
P.E., "Darwin on Trial," 1993, p.6).
[continued...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Both Mr. Benjamin and Mr. Robertson object to the meaning which I
attach to the word "purpose." They agree with Dr. Julian Huxley that
purpose should be reserved for a plan or end emanating from the living
conscious human brain. What are we to say, then, about such a
complicated and efficient instrument as the human eye? If it had been made
of wood, brass, and glass, it would have been said to have been planned for
a purpose, but because it has been "evolved," is made up of living tissues,
and came into existence without a preliminary "blue print," it is not
purposive. Are not my critics, by the use of a verbal quibble, seeking a
sophist's escape from a real difficulty? Would it not be more honest to say
that the finer purposive adaptations we see in plants and animals remain, as
yet, unexplained? The eye has been evolved; that much is quite certain; the
living vital forces which have moulded it are probably still at work, but as
yet we have not isolated them. I could as easily believe the theory of the
Trinity as one which maintains that living, developing protoplasm, by mere
throws of chance, brought the human eye into existence. The essence of
living protoplasm Is it purposiveness." (Keith A., "Replies to Critics," in
"Essays on Human Evolution," [1946], Watts & Co: London, Third
Impression, 1947, pp.216-217).
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 13 2000 - 06:56:35 EDT