Re: [asa] evidence for design

Heya Don,

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com>wrote:

> Even Dawkins will, if I recall right, admit to seeing 'illusions of
> design' in nature.
>
> More than that, many atheists and agnostics even have "religious
> experiences." I recall reading such testimony years ago in the Skeptical
> Inquirer: someone described such experience in detail and subsequently
> dismissed the whole thing as illusion. Many atheists acknowledge that their
> bodies and minds are primed to receive "spiritual illusions" along
> with sensory illusions. They simply categorize such "illusions" as stemming
> from human frailty and are careful to dismiss them. That's what I mean when
> I say they suppress that side of themselves. They can't completely control
> it, but if and when "illusions" come, they are careful to "recognize them
> for what they are." In the end, they make their intellects dominate and see
> only nature in nature.
>

Perhaps, and I'm sure there's something to be said for there being an
appropriate amount of skepticism even for christians. I'd put what they're
doing differently, I think - rationalizing, denying what's apparent and
often doing so without much thought or justification, or really giving
consideration to what's entailed by what they deny. But, again, it seems
like that's a point where we diverge.

>
> ...The universe, for whatever reason, just happens to spit out rational
> minds and illusions of design left and right.
>
> There's a difference between mere design and design that requires an
> intelligent designer. Plant parts, animal parts and whole plants and
> animals often display various symmetries. Think of many kinds of flowers.
> And crystals are known for their symmetries. Such designs most of the time
> (excepting crystals here) can be readily ascribed to evolutionary
> processes. Microscopic things like bacterial flagella are admittedly much
> harder to explain, if it's even possible. But as I pointed out before, on
> the largest evolutionary scale, the emergence of the various organisms as
> seen in the fossil record seems utterly haphazard in the sense of being
> unguided by any force except nature. The observed sequences of organisms
> beg the question of why an intelligent being who had any degree of control
> over what was going on would choose to bring organisms into the world so
> haphazardly. If at this largest scale, the scale that presumablly would be
> most important for an intelligent designer, we see only apparent randomness,
> an implication is that examples of order and design at lesser scales are
> only apparent and do not witness to an intelligent designer. As Dawkins has
> pointed out, evolution is what makes atheism respectable (or whatever it was
> he said along those lines).
>

And this is where I would disagree strongly. The typical way I see this
explained is with snowflakes - 'every snowflake is unique, and they have
noticeable patterns - some of them very beautiful. But we know the various
natural processes involved in making each and every snowflake, so therefore
snowflakes aren't designed.' One problem I have with this comes from some
meager programming experience - procedural content generation being a
particularly good example. I can name probably a dozen or more (at the
least) games where content is generated on the fly. But it would be a
tremendous mistake to, say, play one of these games and go 'Well, this stuff
is generated according to these algorithms which the programmer has no
direct control over, therefore it was not designed.' Even in the case of the
programmer, what you're playing with is the result of a designed program -
the specific outcomes may be of surprise to a mere human programmer, but
quite a lot of the content and what you experience would be part of a plan.
That before realizing that some content can be 'guaranteed' to show up mixed
in with the rest of what's procedurally generated. Saying 'Well, a natural
(or evolutionary) process did this, therefore there is no design' strikes me
as equivalent to saying 'Well, a procedural content-generating algorithm did
this, therefore no programmer'.

So no, I disagree sharply with Dawkins on this point - and certainly with
the conclusion that nothing (or few things) in nature looks designed
'because natural processes (which themselves, in my view, positively reek of
design - before looking at the specific organisms and micro-organisms) can
explain what we see'. It's akin to explaining away programmers because,
really, computers alone can explain software. In my view - and admittedly,
it's probably too strong for some - evolution made atheism intellectually
respectable only by comparison with YEC (or outright denials of any
substantial evolution), and only with the assumption that if YEC is not true
that no God exists. There's a reason why atheists almost exclusively promote
atheism indirectly (by attacking/insisting on skepticism of claims of
religion(s)) rather than positively offering up atheistic explanations for
the universe. Not just because said offering is emotionally undesirable, but
because it would sound more ridiculous than the most ancient, myth-laden
religion.

But still, my main point here is that things which 'look haphazard' do not
look undesigned to me, certainly in the context of natural science. Again,
we may just end up disagreeing here, but from an intellectual and
philosophical vantage point, life on earth looks shot through with design to
me. I don't rule out a designer just because natural forces may have been in
use, anymore than I rule out toy designers just because every GI Joe I've
ever come across was assembled by an unthinking machine.

>
> Don
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 05, 2009 12:26 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] evidence for design
>
> Heya Don,
>
> Some responses below.
>
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 3:00 AM, Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com>wrote:
>
>> Just two quick responses:
>>
>> You say, "...Paul [talks] about the work of God being evident in
>> nature...."
>>
>> I respond: Contemporary eloquent atheists (e.g., Hawking, Dawkins) swear
>> they see only nature in nature. (So, in Paul's terms, they have an
>> excuse.) In fact, for students of science in our day, it's easy to see only
>> nature in nature and miss God completely. For one to see God in nature, one
>> must give rein to one's spiritual side. These students of science suppress
>> that side of themselves. Paul apparently assumed no one could or would
>> suppress it.
>>
>
> Here I would have to disagree. Even Dawkins will, if I recall right, admit
> to seeing 'illusions of design' in nature. I'm not quoting Paul to prove
> that atheists do or do not have an excuse - I'm not even thinking in those
> terms right now. All I'm saying is that the idea of there being design and
> the work of an intelligent in nature itself is not a novel idea as far as
> the bible goes.
>
>
>> IMO one sees God in nature only if one first knows God. If one doesn't
>> know God, one can detect spiritual forces in nature if one gives rein to
>> one's spiritual side; but such forces aren't necessarily God.
>>
>
> Again, I just disagree. That's most evident to me in my following of
> arguments over natural theology - the principle objections I read to design
> are almost always faulting of design ('I/someone could have done it
> better!') or arguments of evil (which, really, amount nearly to the same
> thing.) There's very little in the way of arguing that things - and I'm
> talking right down to evolution, the processes of mutation, and so on - do
> not appear designed, or could not be designed. Even 'need not be designed'
> often comes with the unspoken assumption that's hard to justify - namely
> that the universe, for whatever reason, just happens to spit out rational
> minds and illusions of design left and right.
>
> My chief argument is that, if one takes the trouble to view modern
>> civilization as it were from the outside, one can see something in context
>> of life's evolutionary history that is totally unexpected from the atheistic
>> point of view, namely God. It doesn't require looking spiritually, as Paul's
>> evidence does. In this respect this vision of God obtained by loooking
>> at modern civilization is like the vision of God obtained by
>> contemplating fine tuning, only far more powerful. It is not the kind of
>> vision that leads to personal relationship but rather to intellectual
>> knowledge.
>>
>> Atheists probably will not go to the trouble of developing the proper
>> perspective. They'll continue to see the pieces and miss the whole.
>>
>
> I think we agree more than we disagree here, honestly. I agree that
> humanity in particular is extremely hard to justify within a naturalist
> picture - and giving a proposed evolutionary history is not a justification.
> I don't think one needs to 'look spiritually', though I could admit there
> are multiple ways to 'look at' nature. I just think all of them turn up
> reasons to believe we are in a universe filled with design.
>
>
>
>> You say, "...The potential for good, amazing good, through our efforts
>> is possible...."
>>
>> I respond: The NT as I read it does not support the idea that humans as
>> humans can do anything good or great. Humans can do good, but only if and
>> when they act explicitly as instruments of the Spirit of God. In other
>> words, they do good if and when their actions glorify God, not themselves.
>>
>> Some of these godly good works are mixed into our civilization and
>> contribute to it, but they make up only a fraction of what we see when we
>> look at our civilization, and not a very prominent fraction at that.
>>
>> Don
>>
>
> Well, we have different readings then - and that's quite fine. Then again,
> I think actions glorify God in more ways than 'I am going to do this now to
> glorify God'. Setting up charities for the sake of helping people,
> researching cures for the sake of healing people, and so on. The fact that
> the tower of babel is told of in the bible - and I think this stands whether
> there was something akin to that tower, or if it was closer to a parable, or
> otherwise - to me illustrates the alluded-to potentials of humanity.
>
> Now, with all this seeming disagreement - I still find myself agreeing with
> you on what I think your main points are. The capabilities of humanity
> reflect the capabilities (and actions) of mind. As ever, I am wary of
> hubris, but clearly what we are capable of as human beings becomes harder
> and harder to square with an atheistic view of the universe.
>
>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
>> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 04, 2009 5:31 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [asa] evidence for design
>>
>> Heya Don,
>>
>> I'm not saying that the bible gives the only indications of God, or that
>> there's nothing in nature that points at God. Far from it - everyone is
>> familiar with Paul talking about the work of God being evident in nature,
>> I'm sure, and I certainly agree that the arrival of humans on the scene
>> alone is enough to point at something more (vastly more) than nature being
>> at work in our lives. I think the potential for good, amazing good, through
>> our efforts is possible - and again, it was made clear that christians will
>> do great (greater?) works.
>>
>> I'd simply say this: I think the bible indicates the capacity for amazing
>> things to be done by humans, both good and evil. We'll do great/greater
>> works than these, and we'll also have evil people performing miracles that
>> amaze and draw the attention of people. I certainly don't see science and
>> technology as evil itself, and I absolutely do see the ability to do great
>> things with those accomplishments. At the same time, I think the potential
>> for hubris, arrogance, and evil is always present. Yes, good and God will
>> ultimately triumph. But frankly, I expect some problems (to say the least)
>> along the way, along with abuses of science.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 3:23 AM, Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Note that when the NT talks about the capability of humans to
>>> accomplish things that are impressive by the world's standards, it's
>>> invariably (to the best of my recollection) talking about EVIL things. The
>>> tower of Babel was also in that category. Yes, the NT emphasizes that evil
>>> people and Satan himself impress the world with seemingly miraculous
>>> accomplishments.
>>>
>>> Back in my youth as a "religious fanatic" I made a lot out of those NT
>>> references to human evil, to the point that I accused science itself in
>>> combination with technology as being either the antichrist or the next
>>> closest thing. That's what taking those references seriously will do to
>>> you, if you're already in a fanatical state of mind and take every biblical
>>> word literally. The NT indeed gives the impression that humans as humans
>>> can accomplish impressive things, but those things invariably serve EVIL
>>> rather than God.
>>>
>>> This NT emphasis is understandable when you think of what the world was
>>> like at that time: The great human achievements visible to everyone were
>>> largely created by idol worshippers and their governments who from time to
>>> time posed serious threats to the lives and well-being of the tiny bands of
>>> Christians.
>>>
>>> The thing I'm talking about, in sharp contrast, is in context of billions
>>> of years of evolution. For me the current and presumably future levels of
>>> human achievement point not to evil but to God. Humans of course have used
>>> science and technology for evil purposes, but if we smooth through all uses,
>>> abilities and levels of knowledge, bad and good, we come up with what is to
>>> me an astoundingly impressive witness to God's hand in designing humanity.
>>> As I said before, there is no evidence for devine design in the emergence of
>>> life forms down through the ages until you get to modern humanity, in whose
>>> collective capabilities and achievements resides overwhelming evidence of
>>> devine design. In us God has brought something God-like into being.
>>>
>>> I claim the NT does not predict or foreshadow this kind of witness, that
>>> is, where the sum of human achievements becomes clear evidence of God's hand
>>> in designing the world.
>>>
>>> (What about the spiritual nature of human beings? Isn't that more
>>> important than any material achievement? It's more important, but it's
>>> hidden from view, so it doesn't make good evidence.)
>>>
>>> Don
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>> *From:* Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
>>> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
>>> *Sent:* Monday, February 02, 2009 2:47 AM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [asa] evidence for design
>>>
>>> Heya Don,
>>>
>>> It seems to be more than that. Just at a quick glance, 2 Thes 2:9, Mark
>>> 13:22, Revelation in general, etc seems to imply that 'miracles' aren't just
>>> restricted to believers, much less good people in general. Nor does it seem
>>> to suggest that, in those instances, they will remain extremely rare and
>>> select - even if the scope remains vague. Though you don't think it's
>>> relevant, the tower of Babel seems to imply similar as well. The idea that
>>> humanity is not just special as a group, but is capable of some tremendous
>>> things by virtue of those natural endowments seems present, at least to me.
>>>
>>> Mind you, this is an idle thought of mine. But I'm simply not too quick
>>> to say that the sort of 'mastery' we're seeing nowadays is something the
>>> bible or religious tradition in general gives no clue of us being able of
>>> attaining. And I'd agree that what humanity has accomplished does tend to
>>> bolster design views (I recall Bertrand Russell specifically citing the
>>> then-lack of human achievement as a reason to doubt 'mind' is capable of
>>> very much in or behind this universe. I wonder what he'd say nowadays.) For
>>> me, the principal lesson of the Tower of Babel is that there is no amount of
>>> human achievement that can displace God. We may be sons and daughters of
>>> God, but in the end we are forever subservient - no amount of accomplishment
>>> challenges God, and what we achieve is subject to God ultimately.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:14 AM, Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are several places in the NT that state or suggest Christ's
>>>> followers will be able to do great works. Most notable is John 14:12, where
>>>> Jesus tells his disciples, "The one believing in me, he also will do the
>>>> works that I do, and greater than these will he do..." (literal, stilted
>>>> translation). This passage has had many interpretations, which often
>>>> conclude--among old-line Protestants, and without any compelling biblical
>>>> suppport--that the kind of spectacular miracles we associate with Jesus
>>>> and some apostles were intended only for the early Church and are not to be
>>>> expected in later ages.
>>>>
>>>> Any such "works," however, as a rule are quite distinct in character
>>>> from the amazing works of modern humans. To oversimplify, the former works
>>>> were done by invoking God and were intended to reinforce the good news of
>>>> Christ; the latter works have been done explicitly through
>>>> human ingenuity and have the immediate effect of showcasing human
>>>> competence without reference to God.
>>>>
>>>> A reason I don't think Gen. 1:26ff is all that relevant to modern human
>>>> achievements is that in Gen. 11, relative to the tower of Babel, we hear God
>>>> saying, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do
>>>> this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them..." (NIV).
>>>> Whereupon God stops them in their tracks by messing up their ability to
>>>> communicate with one another. The amazing works of science & technology
>>>> have largely come through a high level of human collaboration, the thing God
>>>> explicitly put a stop to in Gen. 11. So, interpreting Gen. 1:26ff by Gen.
>>>> 11, I conclude that God did not have modern scientific achievements in mind
>>>> when he instructed humans to dominate the world. These days we're building
>>>> the equivalent of the tower of Babel hundreds of times over.
>>>>
>>>> Nevertheless I firmly believe that God actually did intend at the outset
>>>> that we dominate in the way we now do. I also believe that human
>>>> accomplishments showcase the power of God whether or not he's acknowledged.
>>>> It's just that one can't take much of anything in those first eleven
>>>> chapters of Genesis to apply straightforwardly to modern humans.
>>>>
>>>> Don
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> *From:* Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
>>>> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, January 31, 2009 12:10 AM
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [asa] evidence for design
>>>>
>>>> I'd have more to say about this, however, one thing has struck me. In
>>>> the NT, aren't there multiple places where it's mentioned that humans will
>>>> work 'miracles'?
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 2:59 AM, Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yesterday I wrote: "The witness of the fossils as humans interpret
>>>>> them ... is that all results are haphazard in the sense that they convey no
>>>>> evidence of having been desired by an intelligent being."
>>>>>
>>>>> The long and convoluted history of organic evolution gives no evidence
>>>>> that an intelligent being was in control. (There is an exception.) If this
>>>>> big picture of Earth's organisms contains no evidence of intelligent design,
>>>>> why should we expect to find evidence for intelligent design in organisms at
>>>>> the microscopic level? ID students have focused on microscopic things like
>>>>> bacterial flagella and blood clotting mechanisms. If some being has
>>>>> been designing organisms in our world and leaving evidence of it, why
>>>>> wouldn't the evidence more readily show up at the macro scale than at the
>>>>> micro scale? If there's none at the macro scale, why expect any at the
>>>>> micro scale?
>>>>>
>>>>> Fine tuning of the universe can be taken as evidence of design at a
>>>>> different kind of macro scale and has become fairly convincing to many.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the most convincing evidence that an intelligent being has been in
>>>>> control is: us, humanity. Not any old humanity, but modern humanity.
>>>>> Modern humans collectively have accomplished such feats of knowledge,
>>>>> understanding and control of themselves and the world that no one should be
>>>>> able to believe this monumental achievement was not deliberately intended at
>>>>> the outset. Arguments from fine tuning of the universe are good, but if we
>>>>> can step back from ourselves a bit for perspective, our own collective
>>>>> accomplishments should be far more persuasive that we were designed, we were
>>>>> intended. There's no reason to think anything arising spontaneously from
>>>>> inert matter should be able to gain awareness, understanding and control of
>>>>> itself and of the world. Yet it is the degree to which we've done such
>>>>> things that is most impressive and convincing. Collectively we have
>>>>> become some version of God.
>>>>>
>>>>> A reasonable conclusion is that God intended us at the outset to
>>>>> collectively gain mastery. Despite Gen. 1:26, biblical teaching does not
>>>>> seem to anticipate this kind of mastery. The emphasis of NT teaching is
>>>>> such that we can legitimately say our mastery has come despite such teaching
>>>>> rather than because of it. If God intended that humanity achieve such
>>>>> mastery, the NT with its emphasis on sin and repentance, on spiritual
>>>>> knowledge of God and humans and on preparation for the afterlife has not
>>>>> told the whole story.
>>>>>
>>>>> An alternative is that what humanity has accomplished has been done out
>>>>> of hubris in defiance of God and will receive his condemnation. I suspect
>>>>> none of us can believe this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Feb 5 10:46:12 2009