Reflectorites
Again I apologise for the `bombing run' as I try to catch up.
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:18:09 -0400, Howard J. Van Till wrote:
>CC>Technically, ID does not imply creationism, but there are *very* few who
>>are not creationists in a general way, and these *are* the ones who are
>>mainly behind the attempts at inflicting ID theory on children as science.
At least Chris admits that "ID does not imply creationism". That most
IDers are creationists is to be expected since they are two positions with
much in common.
But the two positions are not identical, as I have pointed out on numerous
occasions. Not all IDers are creationists (some are not even theists like
Berthajane and Todd Moody). And not all creationists are supportive of
the ID movement, for example some YECs like Ken Ham.
HVT>The arguments re ID continue, with little hope for significant progress.
ID is making *spectacular* progress! The fact ID is not making progress
with committed Naturalistic Evolutionists (including Christian ones like
Howard) is only to be expoected and not a major problem. ID will
simply go around this minority and try to persuade the majority of the
public who are not committed NEs.
HVT>One
>of the chief reasons, I would suggest, is that there is no common
>understanding of what it means "to be (intelligently) designed." For this
>state of affairs I hold the most vocal proponents of ID responsible
>(Johnson, Dembski, Behe, Nelson, Meyer, Wells, et al.).
The problem IMHO is not "Johnson, Dembski, Behe, Nelson, Meyer,
Wells, et al."'s. The problem seems to be peculiar to those Christians like
Howard who try to hold the two contradictory philosophies of Christian
theism and Naturalism.
Ordinary people have no problem understanding what design is. Even
agnostics Berthajane and Todd Moody understand what design is. Indeed,
even atheists like Dawkins and those of this List understand what design is,
except the classify it as "apparent design".
It is only *Howard* who continued to claimsto not know what "design" is.
HVT>A couple of weekends ago I spoke at a conference on ID at which Bill Dembski
>was the ID representative. Because I have been complaining to Bill and other
>ID proponents for years about their lack of candor
This is pejorative. Dembski and other ID leaders have tried many times to
explain to Howard what "ID" means. Their definitions of ID are in their
books and on many web articles. There was even a 2-month debate
between Howard and several IDers, including Dembski of what "design"
meant to IDers. I posted two examples of where Dembski had defined ID
to this List the other day. The problem is not ID leaders' lack of "candor"
by Howard's unwillingness (or even inability) to accept their definitions at
face value.
HVT>regarding what it means
>to say that "X was intelligently designed,"I paid particular attention to
>Bill's presentation for his use of either "designed" or "intelligently
>designed." In the absence of an explicit definition, we are left to search
>for the term's effective meaning in the subtext of what is said. Following
>is a list of the diverse spectrum of differing ways in which these
>equivalent terms were employed within the course one lecture.
>
>"To be (intelligently) designed" is:
>
>1. to be planned and made.
>2. to be created.
>3. to display a recognizable pattern.
>4. to be intended.
>5. to be made, constructed or assembled.
>6. to be performed by an intelligent agent.
>7. to display specified complexity.
>8. to be irreducibly complex.
>9. not to be accomplishable by any natural means.
>10. to be planned for a purpose.
>11. to be designed in the same way as a watch is designed.
>12. to be the product of an innovative effort.
>13. to be engineered.
All these seem OK to me (with the exception of IC which is an *instance*
of design, not a definition). But Howard could obtained the definitons of
"design" from a dictionary:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=design
... 1 design ... verb ... from Latin, to mark out, from de- + signare to mark --
more at SIGN ... transitive senses
1 : to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : DEVISE,
CONTRIVE
2 a : to conceive and plan out in the mind <he designed the perfect crime>
b : to have as a purpose : INTEND <she designed to excel in her studies>
c : to devise for a specific function or end <a book designed primarily as a
college textbook>
3 archaic : to indicate with a distinctive mark, sign, or name
4 a : to make a drawing, pattern, or sketch of b : to draw the plans for
intransitive senses
1 : to conceive or execute a plan
2 : to draw, lay out, or prepare a design
... 2 design ... noun ...
1 a : a particular purpose held in view by an individual or group <he has
ambitious designs for his son> b : deliberate purposive planning <more by
accident than design>
2 : a mental project or scheme in which means to an end are laid down
3 a : a deliberate undercover project or scheme : PLOT b plural : aggressive
or evil intent -- used with on or against <he has designs on the money>
4 : a preliminary sketch or outline showing the main features of something to
be executed : DELINEATION
5 a : an underlying scheme that governs functioning, developing, or unfolding
: PATTERN, MOTIF <the general design of the epic> b : a plan or protocol for
carrying out or accomplishing something (as a scientific experiment); also :
the process of preparing this
6 : the arrangement of elements or details in a product or work of art
7 : a decorative pattern
8 : the creative art of executing aesthetic or functional designs
[...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note the main meanings (in reverse order) of: 1) to conceive a design in
one's mind ("to conceive and plan out in the mind") and 2) to realise that
design by executing it ("to create, fashion, execute, or construct according
to plan").
But there is also another meaning of design that is important for ID, and
that is what the original Latin root "signare" meant, i.e. "to mark". Thus ID
is looking for the *marks*, or *signs*, or the *signature* of design in
nature.
Dembski makes this point many times, for example:
"When intelligent agents act, they leave behind a characteristic
trademark or signature. The scholastics used to refer to the
'"vestiges in creation." 10 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)
ID leaders like Dembski (and lesser lights like me) can make this point ad
nauseam to Howard and he just cannot seem to accept it, and keeps asking
what "design" means! The crazy thing is, as he shows by his definition
below, Howard actually hears what the ID leaders say and can repeat a
reasonable definition of what the ID movement means by "design", yet
keep asking for a definition of it! It is really quite bizarre and tragic in a
way.
Howard's problem is presumably that he cannot deny that design exists,
because that would be, in the words of the great theistic evolutionist Asa
Gray, "tantamount to atheism". So Howard is self-condemned to be forever
demanding to know what "design" is and then emasculating it so that it
does not threaten his fragile, ultimately self-contradictory theistic-
naturalistic worldview.
HVT>When all the rhetoric is over, however, the fundamental working meaning of
>ID is most evident in the examples offered for "empirical evidence that X
>was designed." Nearly all such "evidences" have as an essential component
>the assertion that, "since object X has quality Y, it could not have been
>assembled (for the first time) by any natural means."
See above. This shows that Howard really *can* understand what the ID
movement means by "design" and yet claim that they have not defined it.
Dembski's explanatory filter works *exactly* this way. By eliminating
unintelligent natural processes like law and chance, it yields those things in
the natural world which, in Howard's words, "could not have been
assembled (for the first time) by any natural means."
If Howard added the words "solely" after "time) and before "any", i.e.
"could not have been assembled (for the first time) [solely] by any natural
means", it would be a reasonably good definition of what the ID movement
means by "designed".
But I would not expect that Howard would add these words because it
would weaken (if not eviscerate) his whole case against ID. Howard's aim
is clearly not to discover the true definition of "design" as the ID movement
use it, but to try to redefine it so that it can be marginalised as an extreme
creationist position, allowing and Naturalistic Evolution would continue to
reign virtually unopposed in the scientific world and the wider secular
culture generally.
HVT>Once again I say that what its proponents (strategically and misleadingly)
>call "Intelligent Design Theory" is nothing other than "NOn-Natural Assembly
>Theory." Furthermore, since ID really means NONA, all talk of "natural"
>designers (assemblers) is irrelevant to what the chief proponents of NONA
>(mislabeled 'ID') are striving for.
Howard makes a specialty of redefining terms that make his opponent's
position look bad. For example, he redefines the normal Christian position
on how God works in creation as "interventionism":
"Adjacent to the pit of deism is the quicksand of interventionism.
According to that perspective, most things in the material world
happen "naturally" (in essence, naturalistically), but on certain
special occasions God breaks into this realm and supernaturally
intervenes in the affairs of the material world or its creatures." (Van
Till H.J., "The Fourth Day," 1986, p225)
Howard's redefinition of ID is clumsy, and potentially misleading in that it
may give the mistaken impression that design could not be mediated through
natural processes.
If Howard wants to call ID "NONA" it is a free country. Of course few
people would know what he is talking about, and Howard would then have
to say he means "ID" in which case they would probably say to him "well
why didn't you say so in the first place?"
And of course Howard would probably still not agree with "NONA" either!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Among the biologists-as opposed to philosophers-there are doubts of
different origin. What has caused concern scientifically is that when you
look closely at the 'joins' in the jigsaw puzzle of evolutionary theory the
individual pieces don't seem to interlock as neatly as it appeared they did
from a distance." (Leith B., "The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of
Doubts about Darwinism," Collins: London, 1982, p.22)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 08 2000 - 17:21:39 EDT