From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Tue Jul 22 2003 - 15:37:19 EDT
richard@biblewheel.com wrote:
>
> I had written:
>
> >> This caught me by surprise. I had no idea that the ID folks were
> reluctant
> >> (in general) to admit the formation of elements through natural processes
> in
> >> stars. Could you point me to documentation of this fact? I was under the
> >> impression that the formation of elements in stars was accepted by pretty
> >> much everyone.
>
> George responded:
>
> > Howard has already responded to this. The question isn't whether C-12 is
> formed by natural processes but whether it's "intelligently designed."
>
> This confuses me. Howard also said:
>
> >Why does this innocent-looking question cause a problem? Because in
> ID-speak
> the categories "intelligently designed" and "formed by natural processes"
> are related as either/or.
>
> So Howard asserts that the questions of "whether C-12 is formed by natural
> processes" and "whether it's intelligently designed" are logically
> equivalent (as opposite formations of a single question). I agree with
> Howard. This also seems to be what you asserted in you original point in
> post http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200307/0464.html
Given the way Howard has stated the matter (which I think is pretty much right),
you are correct: The 2 statements should be logically equivalent for IDers. But they
are not rhetorically equivalent.
>
> >IDers have always been reluctant to answer the question "Is the C-12
> nucleus
> intelligently designed?" & I think the answer isn't far to seek. They don't
> want to say
> "No" because that would mean that some things - & here something crucial for
> the
> development of life - "just happened" outside of God's intention. But if
> they say "Yes"
> then we have an example of something intelligently designed & needed for
> life that can
> be explained in terms of necessary processes, & thus secondary causation. &
> that
> invites us to try to explain other phenomena, such as the development of
> biological
> information, in scientific terms.
>
> Here you are discussing the question in terms of ID *versus* "necessary
> processes," which seems to be the equivalent of "natural processes" which
> you took as distinct from ID. I'm at a loss to follow this. What point are
> you trying to make with this distinction, George?
Mea maxima culpa! "Necessary processes" was my typo for "natural processes."
I apologize for the confusion.
IDers do distinguish between phenomena brought about by natural processes and
those accomplished by intelligent design. This is shown by the fact that things like
CSI are used as supposed proofs of intelligent design by virtue of the fact that they
could not have come about through known natural processes.
> George also asked:
>
> >So is the C-12 nucleus intelligently designed or not?
>
> If we use the highly specific definition of ID as a "form conferring act",
> then I would assert the answer is clearly NO, and I would expect the entire
> ID community to concur (not that I know them, but simply because of the
> logic of the argument). Again, I see no reason why the IDers couldn't assert
> that C-12 was formed through natural processes established when God
> fine-tuned the universe.
Of course they could. But then they'll be asked why life couldn't have been
formed through natural processes.
> NOTE: I just got Howard's response where he concurs that this is "the ID
> strategy for inanimate things like C-12."
>
> It would be very helpful to me if someone could point me to any
> documentation where the IDers actually make claims concerning the ID of
> C-12.
The point was not that they make claims but that they avoid the question.
> George also wrote:
>
> > I didn't say they denied this [formation of elements through natural
> causation], simply that they are reluctant to answer the
> question. & again, the question isn't simply "natural causation" but whether
> such
> natural causation can be the mechanism by which intelligent design is
> carried out.
>
> Now I am more confused. This seems to be a contradiction in terms. According
> to Howard, ID is in an either/or relation to natural causation. If that is
> true, then it is logically impossible to have NC as the mechanism of ID.
You are assuming that ID proponents are completely logical. Remember that see
themselves as involved not simply in a scientific debate but in a culture war, and the
ways one says & doesn't say things are important in that context. In a similar setting,
plenty of politicians are willing to offer people a chicken in every pot, wide roads &c
but dodge the question "Do you plan to raise taxes to pay for those things." It may not
be logically consistent but it can be rhetorically effective.
> I had written:
>
> > I agree, this is a crucial point, but I'm not sure that the "Yes" would
> > necessarily be a STOP sign to science. On the contrary, could it not
> *help*
> > science in its task of defining the limits of its domain?
>
> To which George replied:
>
> > Which is to say, help science to see where the STOP sign is.
>
> Correct. If you are not asserting that scientific naturalism is
> all-encompassing, then science definitely does need STOP signs. But we then
> have questions like "where are they?" and "what are their nature?" These
> seem to be important questions.
Natural science exceeds its capacities when it tries to speak about God, the
ultimate meaning of the world, &c. But there is no reason to think that STOP signs are
to be erected within the physical world itself.
> Finally, concerning Einstein's lack of appreciation of the hypothetical
> mathematical representation of a Beethoven symphony : Have you read his
> "Ideas and Opinions?" It is a very enlightening book. It shows that
> brilliance in one field does not automatically confer competence in all
> others. There is much in Einstein that I admire, and much I disagree with.
> His take on the meaning of the mathematical structure of Beethoven is one
> such example. Besides, I doubt he gave the comment much thought, it
> certainly doesn't sound like it anyway.
Certainly Einstein can be criticized about a lot of things - his treatment of
his first wife, his attitude toward quantum theory, his inconsistencies about free will,
&c. My only point with that little story was simply that he didn't think that
scientific understanding exhauted all the meaning or value there was in life.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 22 2003 - 15:36:16 EDT