In a message dated 5/7/01 10:04:27 AM, hvantill@novagate.com writes:
<< Bob,
One more reply....
In regard to ID and evolution being an either/or situation you said:
> Sorry for the confusion. I do not mean an either-or situation. Since I
come
> from a social science background, I am used to the idea of multiple
> causation. Human behavior is rarely if ever caused by a single variable.
To
> tease out the differential contribution of various causal variables
(assuming
> correlation is indicative of causality) social scientists employ various
> statistical procedures, such as analysis of variance.
>
> I would like to see a similar approach used in biological studies where the
> issue is natural selection or intelligent design. I think it is a
> methodological mistake to assume at the outset that either process did it
> all.
But once again I see the same choice that some specific outcome (even if not
the whole ensemble of outcomes) is either "natural selection or intelligent
design." The either/or language is remarkably persistent in your
presentation. >>
-------
Howard,
Why do you fail to see that I am advocating a differential analysis approach
that seeks to identify, and if possible, quantify the different contribution
of various causal variables, in this case, natural selection and intelligent
design, to the phenomenon being studied. This is not either/or.
To my knowledge, analysis of variance does not assume "a linear combination
of "natural" and divine actions."
<<"Theologically this is most awkward; divine action and
creaturely action are here placed at the same level and freely mixed. You
are free to propose that, but I believe that you would be parting company
with some good theologians if you did.">>
Let me go back to my starting point in the first chapter of Genesis. In it I
read of creation as a _process_ in which God goes through the whole nine
yards of design. God "created", "said", "made", "called", "blessed"--all
action planninf/verbs of intervention, if you will. On the creaturely side
are the verbs, "brought forth", "put forth", "swarm", "multiply". I'm not a
biblical scholar nor a concordist who tries to match every verb with some
naturalistic event. But I do believe that the thrust of the chapter is that
"divine action" and "creaturely action" are pretty freely mixed, and that God
is pictured as actively involved in the interactive, hands on, process of
creation, or design in the active as well as the conceptual stage.
I understand that you prefer to interpret the chapter in much broader terms,
showing God's power, and that he, not creation, is to be worshipped and some
such terms. If you limit the interpretation of the chapter in that way, I
think you are arbitrarily ignoring what can be learned from it and what can
legitimately influence our thinking.
<<NO, what emerges is a designed AND ASSEMBLED object. This is precisely where
the ID folk play loose with their language. NON-NATURAL ASSEMBLY is in fact
the core of the ID picture of how living things got to be as they are. The
ID program is built on the platform of DIVINE FORM-IMPOSING INTERVENTION as
the only possible means for the assembly of some (why not all?) specific
organisms or biotic subsystems.>>
The idea of design is more complex than you picture it. IDers like Bill
Dembski hypothesize that biological design is the product of three steps:
1) _origination_ of the building blocks that make up the biological object or
system, 2) _localization_ bringing all the building blocks together the right
location, and 3) _configuration_ putting all the building blocks together
correctly once they exist and are localized.
As I understand it, the filter that Dembski has proposed is that if you rule
out these three steps being the result known physical, chemical, or
biological processes for which laws have been formulated, and if the
probability of these steps occurring is vanishingly low, the remaining causal
agent is intelligent design. Intelligent design is used in distinction from
"apparent design" and does not necessarily imply divinity. This is not
argument from ignorance. The same procedure is used in medicine.
Alzheimer's disease is not diagnosed positively by brain-scans (MRI), but
rather, all other possible causes of the picture of the brain are ruled out,
leaving only Alzheimer's disease as the causal agent.
I am puzzled why you keep pressing for theological discussion of ID when
there is so much work to be done just in scientifically studying the
phenomenon of design itself. Turn the matter around. Why don't you make
greater effort to try to find empirical evidence for your position?
<<For human artisans, this 4-part process might be reasonable. However, to
force divine creative action into this same recipe is indefensibly
presumptuous. >>
Where in ID literature do you find "divine creative action" being "forced"
into this "same recipe"? Who is being "indefensibly presumptive?"
<<That's exactly what it looks like to me. ID's concept entails
"capability gaps" (missing formational capabilities); biology's concept
entails a gapless (fully-gifted) formational economy. What a colossal irony
it would be if the scientific community held a higher view of the Creation's
giftedness than did the believers in a Creator.>>
I do not read the first chapter of Genesis as if God were filling "capability
gaps". As I have said a number of times, I believe the correct model of the
history of the universe, especially its biotic phase is a developmental one.
You raised children, and you know that without your (and their mother's)
"intervention" in their development they would never have become mature,
healthy adults. Were you filling in their "capability gaps"? Even the most
gifted children need the intervention of parents and parent surrogates.
Although it is not part of the ID research efforts to show how God interacted
with his creation, I do not find this idea less true than the idea of God
creating a "fully gifted formational economy". While God's interaction may
be impossible to study scientifically, that does not mean it is not true. As
long as you insist on laying "capability gaps" on IDers as a pejorative term
we will never be able to find common ground.
<<I heartily agree with the "biological community" here. I see no reason at
all (especially for Christians who profess to believe in a Creator
characterized by unfathomable creativity and unlimited generosity) for
presuming that the universe is lacking the requisite formational resources,
capabilities or potentialities to make to make the remarkable process of
evolutionary development possible.>>
Even if you were a father of "unfathomable creativity" and "unlimited
generosity" you would still need to interact with your developing and growing
children for them to reach healthy adulthood. And no matter how many
"requisite formational resources" they have they would still need your
intervention in their development. It's not because they have "capability
gaps" in their makeup, but because full human development is always best
achieved in an interactive environment. Your position arbitrarily and by
definition denies God the opportunity and right to interact with his/her
creation in a way he chooses, and in the way in which the bible pictures
him/her doing.
<<> <<If the distinction between God's conceptualizing a Creation and God's
> performance of form-imposing interventions is not made, then discussion of
> divine creative action is, I believe, not likely to be fruitful. My
> experience of being in the thick of the creation/evolution discussion for
> the last two decades affirms this judgment.>>
Bob replied:
> Isn't that largely because you deny that "God's performance of form-imposing
> interventions" ever occurred?
No, regardless of the position one wishes to defend, the distinction must be
honored or the discussion fails.>>
Howard, I see no reason why I need to accept your terms on which the
discussion must honored in order to proceed. But if you insist, then let's
call it a day.
Thanks for the opportunity to interact ;-) with you.
Bob
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 10 2001 - 07:45:24 EDT