From: Dick Fischer (dickfischer@earthlink.net)
Date: Mon Oct 13 2003 - 17:06:10 EDT
Ted Davis wrote:
>I don't agree that Dembski's ideas have all been shot full of holes. I
>believe he is *correct* to argue that numerous scientific projects (such as
>SETI, archaeology, and anthropology) *do* tacitly assume that we can detect
>the products of a mind imposing a "design" on nature, as opposed to a
>"blind" nature doing this itself.
By your definition, the Piltdown hoax could be an example of an intelligent
intervention in nature. Trying to detect an intelligently produced pattern
is looking for something which is not natural, and that is precisely the
point. Things can come about either through the impersonal acts of nature,
or through the personal acts of an intelligent being. A piece of dried
clay could be the remnant shards of a clay pot, for example. If it has
flowers painted on it we know it didn't happen naturally. But a piece of
dried clay falls into one category or the other. A man produced it, or he
didn't.
We delineate between natural and unnatural or supernatural causes. If we
could detect a specific example where no natural causes will suffice and
only a supernatural intervention could possibly explain something, then we
have verified a miracle. This is not to say that a miracle can or cannot
happen. But if it does happen, it isn't science.
Science involves the search for natural causes. Supernatural intervention
is simply outside the bounds of science. Dembski wants to create some sort
of hybrid science that permits divine intervention for the things we
haven't been able to explain. If that is his premise, let him call it
something which allows for a little of each.
He could call it "screetch." Natural causes are functioning for awhile
when all of a sudden - screetch - the Creator jumps in and takes a little
coercive action. Between "screetches" we have normal science with only
natural causation. During the "screetch" anything can happen. Then we
could identify "screetchers" without confusing them with normal scientists.
>The theological comments below are fine, but I am interested in seeing a
>*scientific* or *philosophical* rebuttal to the line of argument indicated
>above. It does seem to me, that the only reason why many scientists refuse
>to acknowledge the *possibility* of detecting design in nature, is an a
>priori bias against considering the reality of a mind that predates our
>planet's existence. And we Christians know that such a mind does exist.
And so we counter that with an a priori bias that a mind sporadically
imposes himself on the progression of life? All religions recognize that a
mind exists. It is only zealous Christians who want to introduce God in
the biology classroom.
Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 13 2003 - 17:06:29 EDT