Reflectorites
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 00:13:57 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
[...]
>>RW>I fail to see how this is an example of a "genuine anthropic principle
>>>prediction." Hoyle noticed some property of nature--that carbon-12 is
>>>produced in stars--and gave an explanation of this property, from which he
>>>made a prediction. He didn't need the anthropic principle in order to make
>>>this prediction.
[...]
>SJ>Note how it works. Richard (who is an atheist and therefore denies design
>>apriori) calls for evidence for design. Yet when evidence is submitted,
>>Richard say he fails to see it!
RW>Oh Stephen, Stephen. Will you never learn? The fact that I've concluded that
>there's no God does not mean that I deny design a priori.
Whether "apriori" or not, the fact is that Richard rules out design as a real
possibility. That is why he keeps saying that my arguments are "irrational"
and "nonsense". Because to Richard they *are* literally "irrational" and
"nonsense"!
RW>In fact you've made *two* logical errors here.
>
>1) A person who arrives at one conclusion has not a priori rejected the
>contrary conclusion. And he may change his mind in the light of new
>evidence.
No one is saying that a person with an "apriori" position cannot "change his
mind". *I* was one an atheist but I changed my mind!
RW>2) Atheism and design are not mutually contradictory, as the designer could
>be an alien species. (For the umpteenth time!)
No doubt. But *ultimately* "Atheism and design" *are* "mutually
contradictory".
>SJ>Hoyle's prediction was motivated by his belief in design (not the anthropic
>>principle as Gribbin and Rees claim, which Hoyle has elsewhere rejected as
>>a tautology). Hoylee concluded after it that "a superintellect has monkeyed
>>with physics, as well as chemistry and biology":
RW>Whatever his motivation, it is a fallacy to call this a prediction from
>design. It is a prediction from the fact that carbon-12 exists. Carbon-12
>exists regardless of whether there was a designer.
Richard's argument is with Rees and Gribbin. *They* say it was a
"prediction".
>>"...Hoyle considers the carbon-oxygen synthesis coincidence so
>>remarkable that it seems like a `put-up job'. Regarding the delicate
>>positioning of the nuclear resonances, he comments: 'If you wanted
>>to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar
>>nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and
>>your fixing would have to be just about where these levels are
>>actually found to be .... A commonsense interpretation of the facts
>>suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as
>>chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth
>>speaking about in nature'. (Hoyle F., 'The Universe: Some Past and
>>Present Reflections," 1982, p16) " (Davies P.C.W., "The
>>Accidental Universe," 1983, reprint, p.118)
[...]
RW>This is a conclusion *of* design, not a prediction *from* design. See the
>difference?
No. Hoyle, because of his prior belief in design *predicted* that "the
carbon-oxygen synthesis coincidence" would be there. His anti-design
colleagues did not agree with him. Hoyle tested his prediction and "To the
astonishment of everyone except Hoyle" it was.
RW>As to whether it's a valid conclusion of design, I'll just say that I've
>discussed anthropic arguments before, and I don't feel like starting again
>now.
As I said, Hoyle rejects "anthropic arguments". This is the spin that Rees
and Gribbin put on it because they reject design and promote the anthropic
principle in their book. Hoyle's prediction was *design* and his conclusion
was "a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and
biology"!
Richard by his refusal to accept this clear example of a successful scientific
prediction based on design, shows that he would *never* (at least while he
remains an atheist) accept *any* example of a successful scientific prediction
based on design.
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:49:05 -0500, Susan Cogan wrote:
[...]
>RW>2) Atheism and design are not mutually contradictory, as the designer could
>>be an alien species. (For the umpteenth time!)
SB>actually Stephen has argued this point himself many times--that ID
>does not *require* the designer to be the Christian God. Stephen
>seems to be contradicting himself above.
No I'm not. I am not saying that the designer is "the Christian God"
in this argument. Atheism is the denial of *any* God, not just the
Christian God.
Besides, by injecting "ID" here as synonymous with "design"
and the "designer" Susan is creating another four-alarm mess!
SB>If the designer is an alien then an atheist can believe in ID.
See above on *ultimately*. Who designed the "designer" then?
And also "ID" is another issue. We are talking about *design* in
general here.
SB>If the designer must be the
>Christian God then an atheist must a priori reject ID. Once again
>Stephen exposes the religious underpinnings of ID.
Once again Susan shows her usual confusion [this is not meant to be an ad
hominem] with 1) "design" in general and "ID". I am happy to discuss one
or the other but not both at once.
And also Susan shows her usual confusion [again this is not meant to be an
ad hominem] with the "Christian God" and design. Hoyle believes in design
and a designer but not in "the Christian God".
*I* personally, from being an atheist, came to believe there was a Designer
through the evident design of the universe. But for some other unrelated
events that transpired, I could easily have left it at that like Hoyle has,
believing in design and a Designer without believing it was "the Christian
God".
I am quite frankly getting a bit bored with endlessly going over the same
old ground because atheists appear to be unable to accept at face value
what creationist/IDers like me say. On the egroups List I am on (and which
Susan and a few other Reflectorites are also on) I am going to invest a bit
of time in stating my position in a series of FAQs. Then if the same
questions comes up over, and over, and over, and over, ... again, I can just
point to my FAQ. That way we can stop going endlessly in circles and
maybe *resolve* some issues?
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not
designed, but rather evolved." (Crick F.H.C., "What Mad Pursuit: A
Personal View of Scientific Discovery," [1988], Penguin: London, 1990,
reprint, p.138)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 17 2000 - 17:52:04 EDT