Re: [asa] Timaeus--ID isn't "god of the gaps"

"Are you saying it would be impossible for a mind to use evolution to carry out an objective because most biologists perceive evolution to be a non-telic process?" - Mike Gene
 
Yes, Mike, I think we are on the same page here. It makes no sense to speak of 'a mind using evolution to carry out an objective.' And since it is not their realm of expertise (i.e. biology is not 'the study of minds'), I expect biologists to have little worthwhile to say on this. Yet they seem to say and presume much!
 
To speak more generally, let's take any situation where human minds are actively involved in, as you say, 'carrying out an objective' and ask yourself if the term 'evolution' or the verb 'to evolve' is suitable or not:
 
You got up in the morning and poured a cup of coffee. Did the coffee 'evolve' into the cup? You went to work and turned on your computer and monitor? Did they 'evolve' into being turned on? You carried out an experiment that the laboratory chief assigned to you. Did the experiment 'evolve' into being carried out? You went home and either cooked a meal or ate a meal that was prepared for you. Did that meal 'evolve' into being there in front of you on the table to eat? In all of these cases of 'a mind carrying out an objective,' of human-made things, the answer is clearly and unequivocally, 'No.'
 
Mike uses the term 'non-telic process,' saying that "most biologists perceive evolution to be a non-telic process." This does seem to be the common view among biologists, though I cannot say for sure, especially since I am not a biologist, nor do I survey the opinions of biologists in my SoS research. Nevertheless, what we are dealing with when 'mind' is involved' are those very terms 'intentionality,' 'agency' and YES, 'teleology' as they quite legitimately apply in the realm of thought in which 'mind' plays a role. None of you will be surprised that once again I am pointing out that this realm is properly called 'human-social science' or 'social-humanitarian thought.'
 
If there were an 'intelligent design theory' in human-social science (which quite apparently there isn't), this would obviously NOT be an example of GOTG. It would simply have to clearly distinguish between human-made things and non-human-made things. This scenario, however, is not currently on the horizon. Or at least if it is, it doesn't exist under the social-cultural-political-scientific banner of 'intelligent design.'
 
To the larger issue, however, what the above indicates is a challenge to the ideology of 'theistic evolution' because this ideology indeed posits the idea that 'a mind/Mind uses evolution to carry out objectives.' In my opinion, as a social-humanitarian scholar with interest in how Christian faith relates to 'science' and vice versa, we need to wrestle theology free from the notion that 'mind uses evolution.' In my opinion, this is a misappropriation of grammar based, perhaps in large part, on a illegitimate prioritization of biological evolution 'as if' if holds the keys to other areas of thought in which its practitioners have little knowledge or experience (e.g. E.O. Wilson and D.S. Wilson's recent tract, and "Evolution for Everyone"). The IDM has targetted Darwinism; on the other hand, even the concept of 'evolution' may be worth challenging in some spheres.
 
'Change' (Yes, we can.) in human society does not 'evolve' on its own, without the intentional will, action, purpose, telos, meaning, decision of people. Across America today votes were cast and history was made; none of this should be viewed within an 'evolutionary' framework. Minds carrying out objectives does not mean 'evolution;' it thankfully and quite appropriately means something else.
 
Cheers,
Arago

--- On Wed, 11/5/08, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:

From: Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com>
Subject: Re: [asa] Timaeus--ID isn't "god of the gaps"
To: asa@calvin.edu
Received: Wednesday, November 5, 2008, 7:34 AM

Hi Gregory,
 
“"Minds don't willfully 'evolve' things (e.g. artificial things) due to the non-intentional, non-agency, non-teleological meaning of 'evolution' as portrayed in biological sciences.”
 
What minds do is control things.  Are you saying it would be impossible for a mind to use evolution to carry out an objective because most biologists perceive evolution to be a non-telic process?  I’m not sure I understand your problem.
 
“The 'as if' would appear to be highly speculative (verging on psycho-philosophical) without some additional appeal.”
 
All investigations must begin with speculations built upon clues.  Without speculation, you are left with convention.  There is nothing wrong with speculation, especially when it stimulates the mind.
 
- Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: Gregory Arago
To: asa@calvin.edu ; Nucacids
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Timaeus--ID isn't "god of the gaps"

Mike Gene wrote: "As if a mind used evolution to carry out an objective."

 
Please excuse, but this seems non-sensical. How could a 'mind' carry out 'an evolution'? There seems to be a contradiction here. Minds don't 'evolve' due to the non-intentional, non-agency, non-teleological meaning of 'evolution' as portrayed in biological sciences. Surely you would not argue that biologists admit of 'intention,' 'agency' or 'teleology' in the majority, a.k.a. in the 'consensus' available in the field of biology today?
 
The 'as if' would appear to be highly speculative (verging on psycho-philosophical) without some additional appeal.
 
Gregory
 

--- On Wed, 11/5/08, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:

From: Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com>
Subject: Re: [asa] Timaeus--ID isn't "god of the gaps"
To: asa@calvin.edu
Received: Wednesday, November 5, 2008, 3:22 AM

#yiv1891313377 #yiv1145358241 {
MARGIN:4px 4px 1px;LINE-HEIGHT:normal;FONT-VARIANT:normal;}
#yiv1891313377 #yiv1145358241 P {
MARGIN-TOP:0px;MARGIN-BOTTOM:0px;}

Hi Randy,
 
“I need some specifics to help me understand it. Can you give me an example from biochemistry or other aspects of living cells where there is no discontinuity but the other three criteria "score strongly positive?"”

Given the subjective nature of the criteria, I don’t think it is a good idea to begin with a specified outcome and fish around for something to fit the specified outcome.  The investigation should remain open-ended and the scores applied after a serious investigation (at least, a serious review of the literature). So now, I don’t have any examples, as I have not done that work (I did preliminary scoring for the book to illustrate and calibrate).  So far, I have been trying to keep up with the stuff that is relevant to the hypothesis of front-loading.  

“I can't figure out what that would mean or what it would look like.”

A feature that shows strong analogy to something known to be designed, distinct signals of rational design and foresight, yet good evidence of continuity.  As if a mind used evolution to carry out an objective.

“And why is analogy so high?”

I don’t understand this question. 

“Perhaps I need to read more of your writing about these criteria. I don't understand them nor why these are the right criteria. I'm not at all saying you are wrong. I'm just saying I don't understand. As usual, it seems.”

Long story – the criteria stem from a consideration of a) the Face on Mars and b) the attributes of the blind watchmaker. Sounds weird, yeah, so perhaps when I get time (and desire), I’ll provide some synopsis.  Suffice it to say now that I did not invent the criteria – they all have an independent history of being used to argue AGAINST design.  An intellectually honest approach would recognize it’s a two way street. 

All of this is interesting, but the point I laid on the table was simply that the god-of-the-gaps complaint fails against my approach.  That point stands. 

- Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: Randy Isaac
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Timaeus--ID isn't "god of the gaps"

I need some specifics to help me understand it. Can you give me an example from biochemistry or other aspects of living cells where there is no discontinuity but the other three criteria "score strongly positive?" I can't figure out what that would mean or what it would look like. And why is analogy so high? Perhaps I need to read more of your writing about these criteria. I don't understand them nor why these are the right criteria. I'm not at all saying you are wrong. I'm just saying I don't understand. As usual, it seems.
 
Randy
 
 
Mike wrote:

 
I don't use the explanatory filter. 
 
"What happens to the argument if there is NO discontinuity?"  It depends on the score for the other three criteria - analogy, rationality, and foresight.  If they score strongly positive, then I'd score the thing in question as an example of teleologic/guided evolution.
 
Mike 

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 5 01:58:39 2008