RE: [asa] YEC and ID arguments

David O. wrote:
>And yet, Simon Conway Morris' ideas about convergent evolution in Life's
Solution are teleological arguments that seem
>to suggest the same kind of engineer. How is seeing a purpose in
convergent evolution all that much different than seeing a
>purpose in the flagellum?
 
I am reading a fascinating book which raises a more fundamental problem.
The author is not an ID guy he is a neuroscientist. He points out the
deeper philosophical problem of how does purpose even come about in a
materialistic world. In the following, the hardliners are those who believe
that consciousness is an epiphenomenon and an observer of all of our
subconscious mental activities which really do the work. To them we are
merely observers but not active participants. The various subconscious
modules inform our consciousness what they did, but the consiousness doesn't
do anything but be aware.
 
Donald says:
 

“Most traditional theorists still cling to the implicit belief that purpose
merged only during human evolution and that it appeared suddenly in a
universe otherwise completely lacking in it. In this strange genealogy,
purp­ose must have been born of chaos, out of chance. Not only that, but it
must have been conceived in our species cold turkey, with no precedent. This
is a bit of a stretch, but Julian Huxley, one of the twentieth century's
most visi­ble neo-Darwinians, held firmly to this belief. Perhaps he had no
alternative. He accepted evolutionary determinism and at the same time
asserted our capacity for purpose, without so much as blinking an eye.
Apparently, nei­ther he nor Charles Darwin, for that matter, ever seriously
doubted our capacity for formulating purpose, freely and consciously, while
adhering to their materialist theories of origins. But can purpose and
materialism live in the same house? That nagging Hardliner voice, irritating
and persistent, sug­gests that they cannot.”

“It doesn't help that Darwin and Huxley may have resolved their con­flicting
views not so much by dint of any profound reconciliatory logic as by an
old-fashioned Victorian double standard, insisting on strict determinism in
every other realm of inquiry while granting an exception for the human mind.
But they could get away with it. Aside from the totally unjustifiable
deference shown to professors in those days, which gave them a place to
hide, it was far easier for them to discard the feeble materialist theories
of their times. Materialism has become more sophisticated than it once was,
and cognitive science has far better tools at its disposal. In light of
this, is the Hardliner account still the only way to reconcile consciousness
with evolu­tionary materialism? Will the pursuit of truth in this case cost
us our belief in the freedom and purposefulness of our existence? Because,
despite furious denials by those who reject the efficacy of consciousness,
that is precisely where these ideas are leading us. If unconscious demons do
all our mental work, what is left for us? What are we, in that case? Before
we accept such a doctrine, we should consider the alternatives.” Merlin
Donald, A Mind So Rare: The Evolution of Human Consciousness," (New York: W.
W. Norton, 2001), p. 95-96

 
Maybe we see purpose because we HAVE purpose

glenn
They're Here: The Pathway Papers
Foundation, Fall, and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
  

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of David Opderbeck
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 5:19 PM
To: Austerberry, Charles
Cc: asa@lists.calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] YEC and ID arguments

And yet, Simon Conway Morris' ideas about convergent evolution in Life's
Solution are teleological arguments that seem to suggest the same kind of
engineer. How is seeing a purpose in convergent evolution all that much
different than seeing a purpose in the flagellum?

 
On 10/24/06, Austerberry, Charles <cfauster@creighton.edu> wrote:

In Simon Conway Morris' words:

"In my opinion, ID is a false and misleading attraction. There would be
little point in reiterating the many objections raised against ID,
especially those made by the scientific colleagues, but opponents, of
Michael Behe and Bill Dembski, its two principal proponents.

Rather, ID has a more interesting failing, a theological failing. Consider a
possible analogy, that of Gnosticism. Who knows where this claptrap come
from, but it could have been an attempt to reconcile orphic and mithraic
mysteries with a new, and, to many in the Ancient World, a very dangerous
Christianity.

So, too, in our culture, those given over to being worshippers of the
machine and the computer model, those admirers of organised efficiency -
they would not expect the Creator (that is, the one identified as the
engineer of the bacterial flagellar motor, or whatever your favourite case
study of ID might be) to be encumbered with the customary cliché of bearing
a large white beard, but to be the very model of scientific efficiency, and
so don a very large white coat. ID is surely the deist's option, and one
that turns its back not only on the richness and beauty of creation, but, as
importantly, on its limitless possibilities. It is a theology for control
freaks.

To question ID might generate a ripple of applause from neo-Darwinians,
until they recall that theology is not a fad, a pastime for eccentrics, but
central to our enterprise. Such an approach may not only be consistent with
evolution, but can also resonate with orthodox Christian theology - the
fall, the incarnation and the end times."

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/churchtimes/website/pages.nsf/httppublicpages/6
3693299A537AEDD80256FB2003650C7
<http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/churchtimes/website/pages.nsf/httppublicpages/
63693299A537AEDD80256FB2003650C7>
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:51:02 -0400
From: "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com <mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>
>
Subject: Re: [asa] YEC and ID arguments

- ------=_Part_81_18398794.1161651062427
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

*An argument for theism/design based on convergent evolution is simply a non
sequiteur.*

So you didn't like Simon Conway Morriss' recent book?

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Oct 25 07:09:56 2006