Re: My article "Intelligent Design on Trial"

Hi Gregory

I think you misunderstand what I am saying. Of course if you are using wood to make furniture knowing that the type of tree first appeared in the Pliocene is irrelevant.

However when you are studying the origin of any living forms you need to know their history and when they appeared. Hence you need to understand geological time , both in the relative order and ideally with actual figures i.e. radiometric age dates. This includes the age of the earth. To ignore time is to look at everything ahistorically. To do this any amount of probabilities a la dembski etc are meaningless. Hence ID has nothing to offer scientifically.

From geology and the study of fossils one can work out the order in which life forms appeared eg Protoceratops appeared before Monoclinus and in turn before Triceratops. All the other ceratops show that the group began with a creature with no horns and the last had three. That suggests some genetic relationship. If we ignore there order in time then they could be contemporary with each other and thus no genetic relationship. (Ken miller puts this better than me)

Of course a forensic scientist doesn't need to know about the age of the earth - and I did not say that, but they must put things in chronological order and thus the sequence of events is vital. If time doesn't matter than it does not matter whether the suspect van was seen being driven to the scene before or after the crime.

So far in my posts I have not mentioned evolution and have argued for the necessity of establishing the historical order of things before considering evolution vs design. In fact by ignoring geological time you have loaded the dice so that ID comes out top. But that is to ignore vital evidence.

As a historical point it was the order of the fossil succession that first convinced Darwin in 1838 before he read Malthus.

Michael

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Gregory Arago
  To: Michael Roberts ; ASA
  Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 5:56 PM
  Subject: Re: My article "Intelligent Design on Trial"

  Hello again Michael,
   
  I agree with you that "the age of the earth is a fundamental question." The issue here addressed is 'fundamental to what?' It looks like we're coming at the question from different directions.
   
  Just sitting here in this room typing this message, for example, I see a chair, a desk, a calendar, a cupboard, books, lamps, curtains, etc. None of those things, in order to be 'designed,' requires any knowledge of the age of the earth. "Origin of species whether by evolution or design/abrupt appearance" is completely irrelevant to discussing any of them, including the processes by which they came into existence (i.e. fabrication, manufacturing, product planning, marketing, retailing, distribution, etc.) and got to be where they are today. Did any of those things self-organize? No. A person would be foolish to say they did. Is there a science involved with any of them? I would say there is. Perhaps others would argue that, but it still seems worth discussing outside of the context of purely natural science and having to question 'the age of the earth' - from end to beginning or from beginning to end.
   
  "It is like trying to reconstruct a crime (eg the £53 million robbery in Kent last week) without working out the sequence of events." - Michael
   
  Does anyone working in New Scotland Yard need one iota of knowledge about the age of the earth or the origins of life to detect (please excuse the detective pun!) the specifics of the crime, to eventually discover the origins or processes of the crime in question (i.e. how it came about) and thus to 'solve' it? My suspicion is no. We're talking about two different things when comparing a human-made robbery with 'the age of the earth' and biological evolution.
   
  The point here is that 'the age of the earth is a fundamental question' is an issue of context. To a geologist or taxonomist it is indeed fundamentally important and for the most part likely unavoidable. To a sociologist or economist, otoh, it is fundamentally unimportant and all but irrelevant to performing the 'science' of sociology or economics.
   
  Now it is granted that the IDM is saying that 'intelligent design' *is* about the origins of life, biological/information structures, punctuated growth, specified complexities, Mt. Rushmore, SETI, etc., i.e. existence and everything inside and outside of existence. But that doesn't mean a person need lose the original definition of design, the definition of 'design' before ID grabbed it, just to avoid getting mired or being connected with ID hypotheses. Someone said it here at ASA recently, to the effect that the IDM has appropriated a perfectly good metaphor. Likewise, I'd rather not lose 'design' from my vocabulary just because of ID politics, even if in the USA today, the politics determines the science.
   
  Biology, geology, zoology, comparative anatomy, anthropology, archaeology, economics, political science, marketing and advertising, movies, music and video games - 'evolution' is used in all of these places. Isn't it worth drawing some borders around what it can and cannot explain - what it should and should not be used to explain? The same goes for ID.
   
   
  Gregory

  Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
    Here I totally agree with Ted, or he totally agrees with me!, that the age of the earth is a fundamental question.

    If we don't , then we cannot have any sense over the changing appearance of life over the last 4 billion years classically seen in the fossil succession. After all trilobites appeared 550my ago and dinosaurs went extinct 65 my ago. There are many examples of changes over time eg horses in the tertiary , elephants over a similar time etc etc .For changes in elephants see p96-99 in Miller's finding Darwin's God. I also discussed this problem of geological time and design in my chapter in Debating Design ed Ruse and Dembski.
    Until we grasp this historical succession which must form the starting point about any discussion of the origin of species whether by evolution or design/abrupt appearance. without this base line information theory, self-organisation is just whistling in the wind and irrelevant.

    Consider the mess Angus Menuge got himself into at Kansas last spring as he would not commit himself over the age of the earth. As a result of that none of his ideas are worth any consideration, because he ignores/denies fundamental evidence. It is like trying to reconstruct a crime (eg the £53 million robbery in Kent last week) without working out the sequence of events.

    No, Gregory , the age of the earth must be decided before discussing design.

    Michael
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Gregory Arago
      To: ASA
      Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 9:40 PM
      Subject: RE: My article "Intelligent Design on Trial"

      "In order for ID to provide a plausible alternative to evolution, its proponents would have to address the one issue they least want to face: the age of the earth and the universe ." - Edward Davis (Winter 2006 Issue)
       
      This door has been identified repeatedly. Entering it is debatable and perhaps backward looking into the creation vs. evolution debate instead of forward looking into a scientific landscape that must sooner or later deal with the effects of information theory, studies in complexity, self-organization and (though it bothers me to say it) Dembski's specification-ism (which, as an aside, has not 'eliminated chance'). Why must ID make a theory on the 'age of the earth and the universe'? If (natural) scientists are not united in their views on this topic, then why must IDists be united on their views?
       
      If I were an IDist (which I'm not), I'd put off the question that apparently 'has to be addressed,' as long as possible. It would seem there are other ways to 'provide a plausible alternative to evolution' than to speak about origins of life (OoL). The process philosophy inherent in evolutionary theory, for example, is vulnerable too.
       
      "[D]iscussion of various philosophical objections to aspects of evolution that have been raised." - Ted
       
      Yes, this seems suitable for a philosophy of science setting. I have asked several times for scientists at ASA to help identify a boundary or boundaries around the acceptable usage of 'evolution.' The discussion has been minimal if not absent and I'm curious to know why. Will theistic evolutionists and/or evolutionary creationists say when and where evolution is fallacious? Surely there are many people who have spoken about 'those things that evolve' and 'those things that don't evolve' and I just have somehow missed them. It would be quite helpful if someone could point to such sources.
       
      Likewise, perhaps there is somewhere that describes/explains in summary the various 'philosophical objections to aspects of evolution' that Ted speaks about? Are these objections found only in philosophy or have they spread elsewhere in the academy?
       
      In the previous post (please excuse me for mixing the threads) I feel a bit misunderstood, though in agreement with Ted about tendencies to verbosity in sociology (of science). I didn't say or think he 'is' isolated by the scientific community. Instead I said, "Ted risks being isolated by the scientific community, which considers anthropology merely a 'soft science.'" If the topic is evolutionary anthropology, it is something quite different than evolutionary biology. If the topic is Darwinian evolution, it is much different than post-Darwinian evolution or evolutionary sociology. If the topic is ID = science it is quite different than ID = potentially philosophy of biological science or philosophy of anthropology. This is the concern.
       
      I appl aud Ted's attempts to cross/integrate disciplines and to help improve communication and understanding about (natural) science using a philosophy of science approach. It just seems that most people involved in the evolution-ID-creation debate are not privy to such historical-philosophical knowledge as Ted possesses.
       
      If Ted doesn't think that he's unique in the approach he's taking, then I'm sorry to rain on his parade by suggesting that he is unique. It may be that at ASA his approach is not new (i.e. separating 'science as science' from metaphysics). But in the broader field of scientists and philosop hers of science, I would still submit that his views are a welcome perspective.

      This is coming from someone who hasn't seen much integration of Christian views into his field of study, as they are taught in the mainstream. Even still, just this past Sunday an anomaly took place which serves as a reminder that gifts do indeed come in strange and wonderful places along the journey.
       
      Regards,
       
      G.A.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos
Received on Thu, 2 Mar 2006 20:04:05 -0000