From: Josh Bembenek (jbembe@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 11:07:35 EDT
Howard-
I understand that you are trying to distinguish between two different kinds
of ID arguments, but the distinction you have made is artificial and creates
a strawman, because it is an inaccurate portrayal of the ID hypothesis.
I'll try and respond with your categories in mind:
Meaning #1: To say that the cosmologically fine-tuned universe was
"intelligently designed (1)" is to say that the universe that was given
being (from nothing) by a Creator was thoughtfully conceptualized --
purposefully planned so that it had precisely the right properties and
parameter values to produce elements, galaxies, stars, planets, etc. without
need for occasional form-conferring supernatural interventions in the course
of time.
ID evidence-counting strategy #1: The presence of cosmological fine tuning
is counted by ID advocates as evidence for the universe-initiating act of
"intelligent design (1)."
Meaning #2: To say that biotic system X was "intelligently designed (2)" is
to say that the universe's formational capabilities are not sufficient to
actualize X by natural means alone. The formational economy of the universe
lacks certain formational capabilities and must be supplemented by
occasional episodes of non-natural, form-conferring acts performed by an
unidentified, unembodied, choice-making agent; these form-conferring acts
performed in the course of time are called acts of "intelligent design (2)."
ID evidence-counting strategy #2: The absence of biological fine tuning is
counted by ID advocates as evidence of the need for occasional acts of
"intelligent design (2)" that interrupt the normal flow of natural
processes.
Summary:
If RFEP holds for inanimate physical structures, then ID is true.
If RFEP does NOT hold for biotic systems, then ID is true
Heads I win, tails you lose.
In my opinion, an ID person would equally state that both 1 and 2 are
products of design. The difference is not *simply* stated that 1 satisfies
RFEP, while 2 does not. The difference is also that when applying the
explanatory filter assuming known natural laws, which allows the ID camp to
generate a "Design Inference," 1 will not pass to successfully generate a
positive inference based upon their methodology, whereas 2 will pass to
successfully generate the "Design Inference."
Inference- the process of deriving from assumed premises either the strict
logical conclusion or one that is to some degree probable.
So, the real difference between your 1 & 2, stated in another way, is that
one cannot EMPIRICALLY detect an inference for design assuming conditions of
known natural laws. If, however, we did not assume the conditions of known
natural laws and asked how likely it is to have all natural laws and
constants to have been produced from the big bang, such that they could
create the C-12 atom, we would undoubtedly find the explanatory filter
generating an inference for design, since all of us believe in the
fine-tuning argument. Indeed, application of the explanatory filter in such
a way is simply a restatement of the fine-tuning argument. The real
question isn't that RFEP in 1, we win, and RFEP not in 2, you lose. It is
about whether any feature of creation was generated by the action of God in
a direct sense that cannot be described by natural law. If so, the
explanatory filter theoretically appears to be a great way of inferring that
fact. Your position is that we should never assume or even postulate that
God would do such a thing. This is the only point of disagreement, and time
will tell (if not in this life, then maybe the next…) In the case of the
C-12 atom, the feature of its existence that was generated by the action of
God is simply the existence of carefully balanced laws. In the case of the
bacterial flagellum and biological features, the feature that was generated
by the action of God was with *some degree of probability* until another
natural law enters the equation of assumed premises and denies such an
inference, is CSI. There isn't any explanation that is clearly suitable to
explain CSI, so either God did something not described by natural law to
produce CSI or not. In the absence of such assumed premises, both natural
causes and intelligent causes are possible and should be pursued. Your
description of this affair takes on the strong resemblance of a strawman.
1. I don't think you meant to say "creaturely capacities" (the capacities of
a created entity) here.
-I meant the creaturely capacities of whatever type of "creature" "The
Sacred" is. I was misusing the term, excuse the slip.
2. Yes, I will grant that the two meanings of "Intelligent design" do share
the common element of being non-natural acts. However, the two kinds of
action are nonetheless radically different.
-As stated above, not necessarily, the question is what God did to form X.
If it was to fine tune the universe, that applies to things that can
currently be explained. Biology is not currently explained, so one can
infer that God may have directly done something to produce biological
features besides the formation of natural laws. However it is that God may
implant CSI besides a methodology that can be described by natural law is
unknown, but it doesn't automatically have to be radically different than
whatever he did to fine-tune the universe.
"Intelligent design (1) is the action of Mind in purposefully
conceptualizing the nature of the universe to be given being. Evidence for
this kind of action is the remarkable list of
physical/chemical/astronomical/geological things that the universe CAN do.
"Intelligent design (2)" is the hand-like action of assembling biotic
structures that the universe was not equipped -- by "intelligent design (1)"
action, presumably -- to accomplish. Evidence for this kind of action would
be a list of biological things that the universe CANNOT do.
Josh and Richard, you are welcome to hold to this dual approach if you like.
I do not.
-Based upon a carefully placed wager. We simply have to wait for the
arrival of all knowable natural laws I guess.
Josh
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 11:08:18 EDT