Reflectorites
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 01:49:22 -0400, Ivar Ylvisaker wrote:
>I just noticed that Steve Jones has an Australian E-mail address.
>
>I wrote with an American audience in mind.
>
>Steve and others in other countries will have to make adjustments.
>
>Sorry,
Thanks to Ivar for this, but it makes no difference to what I just wrote
below. In Australia the Christian Church is not so large a percentage of the
population, nor is it as evangelical, as it is in the USA. Therefore it
does not seem to be perceived to be much of a `threat' by non-Christians
(and Christian religious liberals), as it seems to be in the USA.
I think most non-Christian Australians would be as incredulous as I am at
Ivar's apparent concern that all the horrors (real and imaginary) of the
Medieval Christian Church of the Spanish inquisition would arise again in
design were empirically detected in nature!
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 01:25:36 -0400, Ivar Ylvisaker wrote:
[...]
>SJ> Ashby's conclusion is that: "The reason for this double standard is
that
>>many fear the religious implications of such an investigation."
>>
>>Can any non-theist on this List who denies that design can be detected,
>>honesty put their hand on their heart and disagree with this last point?
IY>I am not religious. I suspect that I do not really understand the
>concept. But, if others find something meaningful in the concept,
>that is fine with me. It's a free country.
Thanks to Ivar for this.
IY>However, I am disturbed about two implications of "intelligent
>design," one is political, the other educational.
>
>There are some Christians in the USA who think that the USA should
>become officially a Christian nation. They want to end the separation
>of church and state. I think they want a nation in which everyone will
>be equal except that, using the words of George Orwell, some will be
>"more equal." Orwell in "Animal Farm" was writing about the Soviet
>Union.
No doubt but they are a minority and IMHO always will be. Most
Christians I know think, and history bears it out, that established churches
are a *disaster* for Christianity. After all, the USA idea of separation of
church and State was set up by *Christians* (i.e. the pilgrim fathers) and it
was set into the Constitution when Christianity was in the majority.
IY>I fear that these Christians will use "intelligent design" to further
>their ends. They want to say that supernatural intelligent agents,
>potentially including their Christian God, are a proven scientific
>fact.
This is false as far as ID is concerned. Even if design is shown to be
empirically detectable, there is no way to get from there by reason alone to
the Christian God. Several hundred years of Christian Natural Theology
has demonstrated that.
IY>A scientific statement affirming the supernatural will give
>their cause new prestige. They will argue that, if God is real, then
>an America organized around His teachings is essential. Freedom will
>then be freedom to obey God. All other rights can (and must) be
>abandoned.
Disagree. If design is established it will help Christian apologetics, but that
has always been *persuasive* not coercive. Granted that at times in the
Christian church's 2000-year history, when Christianity was mixed with
politics, there was oppression. But even then it was *nothing* compared to
the oppression of atheism. Maybe 10,000 people were executed by the
Spanish inquisition (even 1 was one too many). But over *100 million*
people have been executed by atheist regimes in this century alone!
IY>Of course, one can point to other groups in other religions with
>similar ideas; Islamic fundamentalists are one such group. Iran
>and Afghanistan are examples of states that they have created.
The problem is using the same word "fundamentalism" for *Islam* and
Christianity as though they were the same thing. Islam's official teaching is
jihad (holy war) against its enemies. Christianity's official teaching is to
*love* its enemies (Mt 5:44).
IY>The problem of intelligent design in education is less important
>(except that, if these Christians can introduce God into science
>classes in public schools, they have introduced God into Government).
The ID movement is introducing *design* into science classes, not
"God". If anti-design can be in science classes then why can't
design?
IY>Essentially, the goal of intelligent design is to show that
>supernatural beings are real.
No. It is to show that *design* is real. The inference as to whether the
cause was "supernatural" or not is outside ID. FJ/Pim claims he could
believe the designing cause was natural if design was established. There is
nothing to stop him believing that if he wants to.
IY>But, for students, this creates a
>problem. Are there demons? Are there curses? Is AIDs a curse?
ID could not establish that there are "demons" or "curses".
*Christianity* indeed claims there are "demons" or "curses", but even there
there is room for disagreement, both whether they continue to exist today
and in particular cases.
I speak from personal experience of this-I was a Church Secretary in a
Baptist Church where we had to discipline on of the church Deacons (i.e.
Elder) who had gone of the rails and was claiming even minor illnesses
were the result of demons. The church was a "fundamentalist" one but
most of the members agreed with the Diaconate (i.e. Elder's Board) that he
had gone too far-way beyond what the New Testament would support.
IY>Microbiology is hard to learn. There are advantages to believing
>that AIDs is a curse. Does your mother have cancer? Maybe you
>should consult a witch doctor. Suppose you want to design an
>airplane. Must you study aerodynamics (difficult) or is it
>effective to pray with polished sincerity that your airplane will
>fly safely?
This is absurd. Does Ivar *really* believe this is going to happen if
*design* is established as real?
IY>From Leland Smith's "A Response to Priests of Scientific Orthodoxy"
>
>>Obviously, the scientific community accepts the proposition that intelligent
>>design can be detected. So why does it cry foul when one hunts for design
>>in biological systems or in the cosmos? The answer offered by Smith is that
>>"we must insist that descriptions and explanations of life and our universe
>>be devised from our four senses of perception that can be tested by suitable
>>rigorous means." But if that criterion does not exclude from science other
>>hunts for intelligence, why should it do so in this particular case?
>
>Hunting for God is fine with me.
ID is not "hunting for God". ID is hunting for *design*.
IY>If someone finds one, my opinions
>will matter little. But make sure the method is legitimate. The
>methods used by the William Dembski's and the Dean Kenyon's are
>not.
Ivar does not say *why* they are not "legitimate".
In fact the use of the word "legitimate" is strange in the context of science.
As I posted the other day, the attemps to rule out ID by demarcation
criteria is fundamentally *anti*-science. Science should be always open to
the evidence, no matter how uncongenial that might be to scientists own
personal philosophy of how they think the world *should* be.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In this way Darwinism is unique among scientific theories. Because it
attempts to explain not only events in the outside world but also man's
origins and his place in those events, Darwinism straddles the gap between
philosophy and science, between faith and reason, in a way no other
scientific theory does. If we were to discover tomorrow that Copernicus
was wrong, that the sun actually does go round the earth rather than the
reverse, what would happen? Obviously the physicists and astronomers
would have headaches trying to reconcile the discovery with their other
observations, but would it change your life or mined Would we think of
ourselves, or the purpose in our lives, in a different way? Probably not. Not
so with Darwinism." (Leith B., "The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of
Doubts about Darwinism," Collins: London, 1982, p.9)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 05 2000 - 20:11:02 EDT