From: Richard McGough (richard@biblewheel.com)
Date: Wed Jul 30 2003 - 13:04:46 EDT
Hi Glen, good to hear from you.
I had written:
>>Point well taken Glen, but it is possible to agree with Howard's
>>Point #5 (as we do) without taking the extreme view that ID is
>>"logically worse than useless" as you do. His Point #5 was simply
>>that "the identity of the form-conferring agent would remain
>>unknown." This does not invalidate the whole ID program which
>>could be logically *necessary* if we actually do live in a
>>universe where the Lord God Almighty confers form on His Creation.
To which you replied:
>
>I respectfully disagree. The only reason the ID group is doing what they are
>doing is to show that God designed the universe. Lots of people have signed
>on to that agenda. But, in the end, if you can't rule out green men or
>Vishnu as the creator, then the ID agenda is taking people down a logical
>dead end and thus is a waste of time, effort, trees and ink. Any agenda
>which has no hope of accomplishing what most people want it to is worse than
>useless because of all the wasted and misspent effort chasing a logical
>impossibillity. It is a waste of apologetical talent.
Your respect is evident. Thank you! I think you may be correct that "The only reason the ID group is doing what they are doing is to show that God designed the universe." But we can't use that to argue against their points since that would be an example of the Genetic Fallacy, which is defined as:
A fallacy that occurs when someone attacks the cause or origin of a belief rather than its substance. Why a person believes something is not relevant to the belief's legitimacy/soundness/validity
http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical%20Fallacies.htm#genetic
Also, my point was that if we do live in an ID universe, which you admit to be possible, then it would seem that ID science would be *necessary* to correctly understand our universe. Is this correct?
But I do agree, as stated in previous posts, that the ID agenda is generally uninteresting to me personally because I don't have an interest (calling) to prove theism, which we all recognize as the best that ID could do (with regards to questions of religion.) But what if there are aspects of creation that are Intelligently Designed? Shouldn't we design science to deal with this possibility?
I had written:
>>
>>Note also that I didn't for a minute think that I was hiding your
>>true intent by snipping the bit about little green men. I
>>addressed that in detail in a separate post in this thread.
To which you replied:
>
>I understand this; one can't quote everything. But wanted to make sure that
>people knew that I agreed with Howard.
>
Good point. I certainly don't want to misrepresent your words!
I had written:
>The
>>interesting thing is that it seems your point concerning "little
>>green designers" actually *necessitates* ID rather than
>>invalidating it. Is it not correct that if little green men in
>>alternate universes were to create a universe with sentient beings
>>as you suggest, that the scientifically inclined amongst those
>>sentient beings would *require* ID to truly understand the
>>universe in which they found themeselves?
To which you replied:
>
>No, because they couldn't rule out disembodied spirits as the creator.
This misses my point. My point is simply this: Would not ID be required to understand our Universe if in fact we live in a Designed Universe? What does "disembodied spirits" have to do with it?
>Logically, there are two very major flaws in ID. First, ID assumes that God
>would create anthropomorphically--that is, in an identical way as we
>conceive creation should be carried out. There is absolutely no to prove
>this.
I'm not aware of this. Could you cite some sources for me?
>If God created via evolution, then the current ID agenda is taking us
>in the direction of falsehood.
> That option is ruled out a priori.
Yes, and if ID is true, then metaphysical materialism is taking us in the direction of falsehood. I don't see any test for truth here. It cuts both ways.
It seems you are saying that evolution is ruled out a priori by ID. I'm not aware of that either. Please give me some citations. Also, this seems false ... I general understand "a priori" to mean "prior to or without examination or evidence" - this doesn't seem to be the case with ID. They could be wrong, but they do seem to be examining the evidence and using it as the basis of their argument. If not, wouldn't they have already been defeated?
>The ID
>folk often cite things like recognizing design in stone tools, or a watch.
>The reason design inference works in that case is that we have ruled out any
>possibility that natural forces create in this way. But that isn't the case
>with evolution. We can't a priori rule it out, except that is what they do.
I don't really follow the last line. To assert there are irreducibly complex structures that could not arise from natural processes may look like what you assert, but I have trouble asserting it is necessarily false since it seems like it certainly *could* be true.
>Thus in some sense, they make the logical fallacy of affirming the
>consequence.
I don't follow this.
>
>With stone tools, we rule out natural 'design' on the basis of probability.
>It is hihgly unlikely that stones jostling eachother together would create
>the angles seen on the stone tools. And since we logically rule out God
>creating stone tools, that leaves only mankind as the designer. We rule out
>nature based upon observed probabilites. With evolution we have no observed
>probabilities--only assumed probabilities.
Humm .. sounds strangly like "evolution" is not an observed phenomenon.
Also, even with any "assumed probabilities" it seems we lack the ability to explain the mechanism of evolution. Is it not true that the fossil record is "columnar" - meaning that we seem to have lots of evidence for the lack of transition between species? Please excuse the lack of clarity here - we have reached the limit of my knowledge. But I have frequently heard this, and am requesting your help. Is it true?
>
>The second thing logically wrong with ID is what is above--it says nothing
>about who the designer is (assuming that you accept that God can only
>operate in a human-like fashion).
>
I don't see this as a logical fallacy per se. It is simply an expected and well understood limitation of the ID program. It is a problem for those who would like to use ID as a Christian apologetic, but other than that, I see no problem.
Thanks for your help Glen,
In service and respect of Christ the Truth,
Richard Amiel McGough
Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at http://www.BibleWheel.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 30 2003 - 13:10:37 EDT