From: Glenn Morton (glennmorton@entouch.net)
Date: Wed Jul 30 2003 - 21:48:51 EDT
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of Richard McGough
>Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 12:05 PM
>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
Having spent graduate school learning those fallacies, I don't think I fell
into it. I was merely pointing out that their approach logically won't get
them were they want to go. Regardless of the validity of their belief.
>
>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?
I don't think there is anything such as ID science. It is play science, like
what I did as an 8 year old when I would ask my play mate to pass me the
kurgian chemical and I would mix it (in my game) to dungarium to form the
great explosive dinopoop. All in all it was great fun. There was nothing we
couldn't make up and do in my 'laboratory'.
ID never defines what it means to be ID'd. Dembski's assertion that
probabilities less than 10^-150 means it is designed is absolutely silly.
The probability that the molecules in my room are arranged exactly as they
are right now, is much less than 10^-150, yet we wouldn't claim that God
designed the ordering of the molecules in my room, would we??? If we did
that, then we are forced to the strong pre-determinism in which everything
is personally controlled and discharged by God--everything, including the
movement of molecules. There probably are those that would hold that
position, but why couldn't God create laws and delegate the governance of
molecules to those laws?
>
>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?
Tell me exactly what you think would constitute a measure of intelligent
design? What are the units intelligent design is measured in? How many
bubnogs constitute intelligent design?
>>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?
God is a disembodied spirit. I thought that particular disembodied spirit
was the subject to which ID was aiming us? Am I wrong?
>
>>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?
It isn't a source, it is sheer logic. They beleive that God creates as a
magician does, by pulling magical bunnies out of a top hat--e.g. ex nihilo.
That is the way they conceive God creates, thus they don't conceive that God
creates via evolution. QED
>
>>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.
That is my point. At this point we exit the realm of science and enter the
realm of faith. We can't prove design. We can gather evidence of some
things that happened through forensic sciences like geology, astronomy etc.
But we can't prove if it was or wasn't designed. Everyone is in the realm of
faith there.
>
>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.
Henry Schaeffer, "The first thing to notice is that naturalistic evolution
and intelligent design both make definite assertions of fact. To see this,
let us get personal. Here you are. You had parents. they in turn had
parents. They too had parents. And so on. If we run the video camera back
in time, generation upon generation, what do we see? Do we see a continuous
chain of natural causes that go from apes to small furry mammals to reptiles
to slugs to slime molds to blue gren algae and finally all the way back to
a prebiotic soup, with no event in the chain ever signaling the activity of
an intelligent cause? Or, as we trace back the genealogy, do we find events
that clearly signal the activity of an intelligent cause?" 'Foreword,' in
William A. Dembski Editor, Mere Creation (Downer's Grove: Intervarsity
Press, 1998), p. 25
Why is an unbroken chain contrary to design (see the space ship analogy
above).?
>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?
Schaeffer seems to be saying that if the evidence shows evolution, ID is
out. That is a priori in exactly your sense of the word.
>
>>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.
There are no irreducibly complex structures. Ever wonder how they get the
light on top of the church steeple? The roof angle is such that no human or
gecko can climb up there. The light is at the peak of a tiny little pole.
Obviously this is irreducibly complex. God himself places the light bulb up
there. right? Isn't that the correct conclusion? Of course not. Scaffolds
are set up, a guy climbs up the scaffold, changes the light and then the
scaffold is taken away, which makes everyone think the structure is
irreducibly complex.
>
>>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.
You misunderstood me. And I wrote poorly. With evolution, the critics have
only assumed probabilities with which to critique evolution.
>
>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?
No, that is not true at all. You want to see a very smooth transition? see
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/micro.htm there are pictures towards the bottom.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transit.htm
>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?
It is true only for those who don't study the fossil record. Those who do,
know that the gaps are really small. The crazy thing is that every time a
fossil is found to fill in a gap, another gap is created. Think about it.
>
>>
>>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.
It is a logical problem if you want to logically prove God's existence.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 30 2003 - 21:49:10 EDT