>DNAunion: That sounds like an oxymoron to me. If you have any kind of
intelligence and design involved in the selection process, then it is not
NATURAL selection, be definition. What am I missing?
>Huxter: So ID is not natural? If something is not natural, is it then
supernatural?
DNAunion: I see you trying so hard to get ID classified as supernatural,
especially from an IDists, but your trick doesn't work.
Simple question. The computer on which you typed your reply: is it natural?
No - it is intelligently designed. Now consider this: according to your
above question/claim "If something is not natural, is it then supernatural?",
since a computer is not natural, then it must be supernatural? See, your
logic produced the wrong result for something known, so we surely cannot
trust it for things unknown.
Even if I did say that ID is not natural, that would not mean it was
supernatural. The opposites (yes, opposites: plural) of natural are
supernatural AND intelligent causation.
>"Charles Thaxton: The first objection to intelligent design of DNA is
philosophical. Most scientists come into discussions of science, particularly
origins, already with a natural/supernatural way of thinking. It is easy,
therefore, for these scientists to conclude that the notion of intelligent
cause is a ruse, that it is really the supernatural without the courage of
the one promoting it saying so. And because we do not incorporate the
supernatural into science, the objection continues, the only way to proceed
in the investigation of any natural phenomenon is to assume a natural cause.
It is easy to see how the critic might think intelligent cause is a ruse, for
surely the cause might be supernatural. The problem is that we do not know
from the inference we make from experience of DNA (and protein) whether the
intelligence is beyond the cosmos, or within it. These prepositions "beyond"
and "within" make all the difference. Because we do not know from the
inference itself which preposition truly represents the case, we must remain
equivocal. That is why we must simply refer to intelligent cause.
The power of this philosophical objection arises from the great confusion
generated by mixing the categories and terms of science and philosophy. In
science we use experience-based terms, natural and intelligent. As in the
case cited earlier, that of detecting intelligible signals from space, we use
the term intelligent cause. When the discussion involves an intelligent cause
that is outside or beyond the cosmos, however, we use a different term that
is philosophically recognizable. We use the term supernatural, thus
indicating that it is transcendent, i.e., beyond experience.
Science also includes the experience-based term, natural cause, when
inferring the cause of ripple patterns on a beach. But when the discussion
involving natural cause extends outside or beyond experience, into the
philosophical, there is not a different philosophical term used. In fact a
variant of the same word "natural" is used, naturalism. Often the term
natural is used without clearly indicating a transition from scientific to
philosophical discussion. Much confusion thus arises from this equivocation
on the term natural. How this confusion arises can be seen by putting the two
dichotomies side by side, where the term natural appears in both:
Science Philosophy
natural/intelligent natural/supernatural
A better arrangement of terminology could not be devised if you want to
deceive somebody. All you have to do is begin a discussion talking science,
using the term natural in an appropriate way, and then somewhere along the
way simply ease into philosophy, again using the term natural in an
appropriate way. Just fail to inform your listeners or readers that you have
moved on to philosophy. By this method of sleight you might "persuade" your
audience.
It is easy to see how this could happen without any intent to deceive. It was
a tragedy bound to happen because of the linguistic terms used.
Consider, for example, the quotations below. The first is from British
physicist Paul Davies, and the second by Leslie Orgel, a prominent figure in
origin of life research:
"The origin of life remains one of the great scientific mysteries.... The
problem is to understand how this threshold could have been crossed by
ordinary physical and chemical processes without the help of some
supernatural agency."
"Any "living" system must come into existence either as a consequence of a
long evolutionary process or a miracle."
Both of these authors meant their words to be understood in the context of
science, concerned to find a scientific answer to the mystery of life's
origin. Yet both engaged in the practice of mixing categories, science and
philosophy. In science the proper term for an alternative to physical and
chemical processes (Davies) and evolutionary process (Orgel), is intelligent
cause, not supernatural agency (Davies) or a miracle (Orgel).
Mixing categories is clearly inadvisable for meaningful communication. Such
quotations present a false choice between science and philosophy to the
reader. Whatever the intent of the authors in doing this, whether deliberate
or not, the effect is to leave the reader with science (or is it naturalism?)
as the only acceptable choice.
In summary, the philosophical objection to an intelligent cause for DNA
assumes that an intelligent cause is supernatural. This is usually
accompanied by mixing the categories and terms of science and philosophy. In
science the proper experience-based alternative to a natural cause is an
intelligent cause. "
The above lengthy quotes is from:
http://www.arn.org/docs/thaxton/ct_newdesign3198.htm
>Huxter: This subject, in the past, got the usual round of dictionary
definitions and such, but it seems that DNA is saying that Intelligent
Design is beyond the realm of the natural.
DNAunion: How did you manage to get those words out of my mouth when what I
said was:
"That sounds like an oxymoron to me. If you have any kind of intelligence
and design involved in the selection process, then it is not NATURAL
selection, be definition. What am I missing?"
Where did I say that ID is beyond the realm of the natural? ID can be
intelligence guiding and directing the natural. When computer
scientists/engineers create a new CPU, that CPU follows all the laws of
nature and so do all the processes used to create it. A CPU operates
completely by natural laws and its designers and creators also had to follow
all the laws of nature: it is just that its design and creation required
direction: intelligent direction to be precise; and did not occur
purely-naturally.
Natural selection, as Darwin defined it, it PURELY-NATURAL selection. Thus,
it cannot have any design or intelligence guiding it: if it does, it ceases
to be natural selection as defined by Darwin.
>Huxter: If, in this instance, 'natural selection' were designed, and DNA
states emphatically that if design OR intelligence were involved, it could
not be natural, we can conclude that this means any Intelligence that works
via what appear to be natural means is therefore supernatural.
DNAunion: So many errors, so little time :-)
First, I said AND not OR, as you claimed I did and as you also emphasized.
Second, I did not EMPHATICALLY claim anything - you are going off on one of
your exaggeration spells again, aren't you Huxter.
Third, I didn't say that if intelligence and design are involved, it could
not be natural. I said that NATURAL selection, specifically, would not be
natural if intelligence AND design were involved: that is correct, as Darwin
defined NATURAL selection as a purely-natural mechanism.
There are more, but I will leave it at the above 3.
Considering your many mistakes, I cannot reply to your point as I can't
follow the logic of your argument: I can't make it past all your errors.
Perhaps you could eliminate them and post your argument again.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 05 2000 - 21:37:31 EDT