From: Richard McGough (richard@biblewheel.com)
Date: Wed Jul 30 2003 - 13:33:46 EDT
Howard wrote:
>
>I had said:
>
>>>1. Advocates of ID-biogenesis are likely to appeal to observational data for
>>>support of their hypothesis that the universe is lacking certain formational
>>>capabilities that would be essential for the success of natural abiogenesis.
>>>
>>>2. Somewhere in their argumentation I would expect them to claim that they
>>>are able to demonstrate that P(A|N) < 10 exp (-150), where P(A|N) is the
>>>probability that abiogenesis could be actualized by the joint effect of all
>>>known and unknown natural processes (often misleadingly referred to as "by
>>>chance" by Dembski).
>>>
>>>3.No one actually knows enough to make that computation.
>>>
>>>4. Hence, any ID claim to have proved the need for ID-biogenesis is
>>>unfounded.
>>>
>>>5. Even if P(A|N) could be shown to be < 10 exp (-150), the identity of the
>>>form-conferring agent would remain unknown.
>
>>"Richard McGough" <richard@biblewheel.com> replied:
>
>> Your statement is a paragon of clarity. I agree with it completely.
>>
>> The only thing I would add would be to note that proof through probability
>> is not the only valid approach to the question. E.g. it is possible that
>> science could assymptotically define areas of divine activity
>> (abigogenesis, fine tuning, etc) and that the scientific consensus could
>> change on the basis of the general advance of understanding without any
>> appeal to probabilities per se.
>
>This is very confusing to me. If you understood and agreed completely with
>my 5 points, there would be no talk of "science asymptotically defining
>areas of divine activity."
>
Perhaps I didn't fully understand what I agreed to. I thought you were arguing about the weakness of the probability argument you introduced in point #2. In point #3 you asserted "No one actually knows enough to make that computation." This is the lynch pin in your argument, and I completely agree. Points #1, #2, & #3 are then used to form the conclusion expressed in point #4. Point #5 appears to be an independent (though consistent) addendum.
Where does your argument necessarily preclude the possiblity that science may discover "areas of divine activity"? The only point that seems relevant is #5, but that only asserts that we can't determine the *identity* of the agent. It says nothing about whether we could determine the ontological status of the agent, i.e. Point #5 does *not* deny that we could determine if the agent were divine or not. It seems entirely possible that ID *could*, in principle, prove Theism. The *identity* of the Deity would remain subject to other arguments.
This is what I meant when I said science may assymptotically define areas of divine (i.e. theistic) activity.
>In regard to the sort of phenomena that ID advocates hold up for special
>attention, the most that one could actually say on the basis of the natural
>sciences is, "Yes, there are numerous phenomena that are not (yet)
>understood in such a complete and detailed way as to satisfy ID's demand for
>'causally specific' explanations."
I respectfully (and adamantly) disagree. It seems to be possible that knowledge of our universe may assymptitically approach certainty that abiogenesis is impossible through natural physical processes. In other words, it is conceivable that rock-solid hard-minded scientists could conclude on the basis of observations + theory that abiogenesis did not happen. This would not be based on an inability of science to explain a known phenomenon. Rather, it would be based on the full panoply of scientific understanding grounded in observation and theory. Am I wrong to assert this as a logical possibility? If so, why?
>[Some of these phenomena are happening
>in our laboratories, some in distant parts of the universe, some at the
>present time, and some occurred in the distant past. Some involve only
>inanimate systems, some involve biotic systems or subsystems.]
>
>However, this provides no positive basis whatsoever for the additional
>hypothesis that such phenomenon can be explained only by appeal to some
>non-natural form-conferring action performed by an unidentified, unembodied,
>choice-making agent (called the Intelligent Designer). The hypothesis, "this
>is an area of divine activity" is nothing more than an epistemic gap-filler
>-- gaps in scientific understanding are filled with ad hoc appeals to divine
>action. Deus ex machina appears again! Such appeals cannot be excluded by
>appeals to logic alone (the door to alternative hypotheses is always open),
>but there good reasons for assigning them low scores on the grounds of good
>philosophy of science, good theology (as George has been reminding us) and
>good old common sense.
Good points, well taken. But as always, one man's "common sense" is another man's "madness." It seems to me that I gave some good alternatives to your points, namely the possibility of the assymptotic scientific discovery of areas of divine activity. I look forward to your response.
Thanks Howard.
In service of Christ the Everlasting Logos, Designer of All,
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 - 13:39:21 EDT