>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.
I have a strong prejudice in favor of factual evidence. None is possible
with ID. There is only air, most of it hot.
>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? . . . "
(Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box," 1996, p.213).
that Behe said it isn't exactly compelling. This is just argument by assertion.
>>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!
The paint, the canvas and the walls are all designed by humans. I can
distinguish walls from cliffs.
>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.
"levels" of design? are you serious? The walls, the painting and the canvas
are all equally designed!
>>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*.
do you think I really meant that? or do you think I may have meant
"undesigned by humans" (since that was what I was talking about.) And thank
you again for confirming the religious origin of the design "theory"
Stephen:
>>>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.
no one denies *human* design. BTW if you had witnessed a volcano wiping out
every man, woman, and child in a town would you have said "there *must* be
a god!" The natural world is evil (from the point of view of humans) as
well as beautiful. Or are volcanos only lightly designed?
>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".
how do you distinguish between levels? Complexity? Even rocks are complex
at the molecular level, so are they more or less designed than humans?
There's only about 2 or 3% genetic difference between humans and everything
else alive. So are we (humans) more or less designed and how do you tell?
>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.
it's true, there are a few non-Christian ID proponents. If you don't much
about science or the scientific method or the evidence which supports
evolution, then the ID rhetoric is quite persuasive.
>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:
why, that would be ad hominem :-) Ideas should be considered *where ever*
the come from (like talk.origins). I'm no Clarence Darrow, but I noticed
recently we *have* been arguing along the same lines.
"To say that a certain scheme or process shows order or system, one must
have some norm or pattern by which to determine whether the matter
concerned shows any design or order. We have a norm, a pattern, and that is
the universe itself, from which we fashion our ideas. We have observed this
universe and its operation and we call it order. To say that the universe
is patterned on order is to say that the universe is patterned on the
universe. It can mean nothing else." ("The Delusion of Design and Purpose,"
Clarence Darrow, from "The Story of My Life")
SJ:
>And if "Design is undetectable by science" the someone should tell
>archaeologists and SETI researchers!
archaeologists can compare an axe handle to tree limb and detect which one
is designed.
>>>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.
actually until the religious fundamentalists started to get political in
the late 70s and early 80s. Biologists pretty much ignored religionist
sniping as beneath notice. However when fundamentalists tried to get laws
on the books in Arkansas and elsewhere to have the Bible taught as science,
then the biologists started having to address the problem. Yep, they are
mad.
>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.
They ignored you before the outright propaganda, distortions and
misrepresentations. Someday I may start a campaign alledging that
Christians are all Satan worshipers. (I threaten to do it from time to
time.) I could easily pull quotes from the bible out of context to prove
it. And, of course, there's the Christians slaughtering people in Ireland,
Bosnia, etc. to bolster my case. How defensive do you think you could get?
After all, you should be safe in the knowledge that it's all not true! It
simply shouldn't matter what lies I told about you.
>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:
so if everything is designed to what is he comparing design in order to
detect it?
Stephen quotes Dembski:
>"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.
but this sounds like he's saying only some things are designed.
Dembski continues:
>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.
a footprint is only visible against a background of non-footprints. Dembski
*is* saying that some things are natural and not designed.
>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).
so he is saying there are some unintellighently caused objects. How does
this agree with what you were saying?
>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?
are you serious? He was about to lose his priority in one of the greatest
and most powerful ideas in human history! He took to his bed from sheer
nerves, wrote "please don't hate me" letters to all his clergy friends, and
finally sucked it up and published. He was not a brave man.
>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.
Wallace drew a line around humans. According to him everything evolved
except us. We were created. Darwin knew we were not exempt.
>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. . . . "
>(Gale B.G., "Evolution Without Evidence," 1982, >p.8).
that was quite true--in 1838. Here is a quote to add to your collection.
This is Darwin himself, in his "Autobiography"
http://149.152.105.38/Honors/EText/Darwin/DarwinAutobiography.html
-----
From September 1854 onwards I devoted all my time to arranging my huge pile
of notes, to
observing, and experimenting, in relation to the transmutation of species.
During the voyage of
the Beagle I had been deeply impressed by discovering in the Pampean
formation great fossil
animals covered with armour like that on the existing armadillos; secondly,
by the manner in
which closely allied animals replace one another in proceeding southwards
over the Continent;
and thirdly, by the South American character of most of the productions of
the Galapagos
archipelago, and more especially by the manner in which they differ
slightly on each island of
the group; none of these islands appearing to be very ancient in a
geological sense.
It was evident that such facts as these, as well as many [119] others could
be explained on the
supposition that species gradually become modified; and the subject haunted
me. But it was
equally evident that neither the action of the surrounding conditions, nor
the will of the
organisms (especially in the case of plants), could account for the
innumerable cases in which
organisms of every kind are beautifully adapted to their habits of
life,-for instance, a
woodpecker or tree-frog to climb trees, or a seed for dispersal by hooks or
plumes. I had always
been much struck by such adaptations, and until these could be explained it
seemed to me
almost useless to endeavour to prove by indirect evidence that species have
been modified.
After my return to England it appeared to me that by following the example
of Lyell in Geology,
and by collecting all facts which bore in any way on the variation of
animals and plants under
domestication and nature, some light might perhaps be thrown on the whole
subject. My first
note-book was opened in July 1837. I worked on true Baconian principles,
and without any
theory collected facts on a wholesale scale, more especially with respect
to domesticated
productions, by printed enquiries, by conversation with skilful breeders
and gardeners, and by
extensive reading. When I see the list of books of all kinds which I read
and abstracted, including
whole series of Journals and Transactions, I am surprised at my industry. I
soon perceived that
selection was the keystone of man's success in making useful races of
animals and plants. But
how selection could be applied to organisms living in a [120] state of
nature remained for some
time a mystery to me.
In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic
enquiry, I happened
to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to
appreciate the
struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued
observation of the habits
of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances
favourable
variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be
destroyed. The result of
this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a
theory by which to
work; but I was so anxious to avoid prejudice, that I determined not for
some time to write even
the briefest sketch of it. In June 1842 I first allowed myself the
satisfaction of writing a very
brief abstract of my theory in pencil in 35 pages; and this was enlarged
during the summer of
1844 into one of 230 pages, which I had fairly copied out and still possess.
But at that time I overlooked one problem of great importance; and it is
astonishing to me,
except on the principle of Columbus and his egg, how I could have
overlooked it and its solution.
This problem is the tendency in organic beings descended from the same
stock to diverge in
character as they become modified. That they have diverged greatly is
obvious from the
manner in which species of all kinds can be classed under genera, genera
under families, families
under suborders, and so forth; and I can remember the very spot in the
road, whilst in my
carriage, when to my joy the [121] solution occurred to me; and this was
long after I had come
to Down. The solution, as I believe, is that the modified offspring of all
dominant and increasing
forms tend to become adapted to many and highly diversified places in the
economy of nature.
Early in 1856 Lyell advised me to write out my views pretty fully, and I
began at once to do so
on a scale three or four times as extensive as that which was afterwards
followed in my Origin of
Species; yet it was only an abstract of the materials which I had
collected, and I got through
about half the work on this scale. But my plans were overthrown, for early
in the summer of
1858 Mr Wallace, who was then in the Malay archipelago, sent me an essay On
the Tendency of
Varieties to depart indefinitely from the Original Type; and this essay
contained exactly the
same theory as mine. Mr Wallace expressed the wish that if I thought well
of his essay, I should
send it to Lyell for perusal.
-----------
>>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.
>
>SB>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)
Design is religion not part of science and Darwin knew it. So did Gray. The
fact that "design" is not a part of science does NOT make it "atheistic."
>>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"?
panspermia? aliens did it? Bertvan likes that one, so does Hoyle. Atheists,
like everyone else, can believe in any damn thing they want to--and often
do!
>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.
and the majority of the western world, for another example. However,
"denial of design" need not be atheist if you believe that EVERYTHING is
designed. That's all that's required. However, the statement that
"everything is designed" is a purely religious statement, not a scientific
one. Science is a method used to study the natural world. *Theology* is
supposed to study the supernatural world. I agree with Gould that the two
things address separate human issues and can't be mixed.
SJ:
>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.
If some god appeared to me and several other people all at once--I would
need independant confirmation of my hallucination :-)--or if there were
other irrefutable evidence that there was a god then I would have to
believe in him/her/it. (However, me being who I am, I would not
necessarily *worship* him/her/it) But I was under the impression that gods
didn't do that--especially the Judeo-Christian god, because you are
supposed to believe without evidence. In fact "belief without evidence" is
one of the definitions of "faith." I've never been physically capable of
that, but I'm not especially bothered by people who are--all things being
equal.
For the record, I know that you can't prove there are no gods. I know that
atheism is totally unsupported by evidence and I should tell people I'm an
agnostic (which most of my friends do) but I think most agnostics are just
lily-livered atheists who don't want to put up with crap from the
Christians. Remember, I (and my friends) live in Oklahoma where
Christianity is shoved in your face about every five minutes.
>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"?
because man had to fall in order for Christ to redeem them and that's
central. However, the inerrantists to go to the mat to preserve Bishop
Usher's young earth don't seem to mind much that the bible says
grasshoppers have four legs, that bats are a kind of bird, that pi equals 3
and so on. All that stuff is just not important and can be explained away,
but *Genesis* is *science*.
>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).
creation "science" is religion.
I"m working on my collection of out-of-context quotes. What do you think of
this one? :-)
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"One reason we evangelicals have had so little impact on secular society with
our creation teachings is that we try to teach Genesis without presenting a
testable creation model. We either focus all of our guns on what is wrong
with naturalism or we duck the issue by claiming that Genesis presents no
specific creation model. Thus, we are perceived by society as either negative
or cowardly. "--Hugh Ross, Ph.D. , Summary of Reasons To Believe's
Testable Creation Model
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Susan
----------
For if there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing
of life as in hoping for another and in eluding the implacable grandeur of
this one.
--Albert Camus
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 17 2000 - 14:23:06 EDT