Re: [asa] evidence for design

And paving the streets of heaven with gold is another.

Thanks

John

--- On Fri, 2/6/09, gmurphy10@neo.rr.com <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com> wrote:

> From: gmurphy10@neo.rr.com <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: [asa] evidence for design
> To: "Don Winterstein" <dfwinterstein@msn.com>, "Bill Dozier" <wddozier@mac.com>
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Date: Friday, February 6, 2009, 4:06 PM
> The Bible gives us no reason at all to think that God is
> concerned about efficiency in our sense of the term.
> Paul Tillich's sermon "Holy Waste" (starting
> from the text about the woman at Bethany wasting the jar of
> valuable ointment on Jesus) is a good corrective to that
> notion.
>
> ---- Bill Dozier <wddozier@mac.com> wrote:
> > Great point, Don. Efficiency is an important element
> of design for any
> > engineer. If you have great inefficiencies in a
> system but you are
> > claiming to detect design in it by analogy to
> engineered systems, then
> > you probably need another analogy.
> >
> > On Feb 6, 2009, at 8:45 AM, Don Winterstein wrote:
> >
> > > I think I understand what's going on here.
> Both you and Mike Gene
> > > see design where I and others see chaos.
> That's fine. As I've said
> > > many times, because of the outcome, I believe
> design is there even
> > > when I don't see it. It's just that your
> concept of design is very
> > > unconventional. For example, a human who
> intended to build a house
> > > would not spend years fiddling with the gravel
> that was to go into
> > > the concrete of the foundation. Anyone who did
> that would be
> > > regarded as peculiar at best, even if his house
> eventually turned
> > > out well.
> > >
> > > If God wanted to have oxygen in the atmosphere,
> he surely could have
> > > found a way to get it there more efficiently than
> by nurturing
> > > cyanobacteria for several billion years. And
> yes, conventional
> > > meanings of design do have a connection to
> efficiency. If someone
> > > were all-powerful and all-knowing and
> goal-oriented, conventional
> > > thinking would have him achieve his goal more
> rapidlly and
> > > efficiently. Otherwise, his degree of
> goal-orientation would be in
> > > question.
> > >
> > > You're too easy on God, altogether giving him
> a pass on speed and
> > > efficiency. For myself, I claim there are deeper
> reasons for all
> > > this.
> > >
> > > Don
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Schwarzwald
> > > To: asa@calvin.edu
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 7:49 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [asa] evidence for design
> > >
> > > Heya Don,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Don Winterstein
> <dfwinterstein@msn.com
> > > > wrote:
> > > ...things which 'look haphazard' do not
> look undesigned to me,
> > > certainly in the context of natural science. ...
> from an
> > > intellectual and philosophical vantage point,
> life on earth looks
> > > shot through with design to me.
> > >
> > > Life isn't a game.
> > >
> > > Life is not a game, but nature is certainly and
> strongly comparable
> > > to a program. I'm not suggesting that God is
> literally a programmer
> > > (though I do think it's a thought-provoking
> way of looking at the
> > > question), but if we're going to talk about
> what design looks like,
> > > it's worth pointing out that not all design
> is akin to the end
> > > product of a sculptor.
> > >
> > > I have a feeling some of these questions you
> asked were rhetorical,
> > > but I'm going to do my best to give my own
> meager thoughts
> > > nevertheless.
> > >
> > > What motive would you ascribe to an intelligent
> designer who
> > > designed almost all of his organisms so that they
> go extinct?
> > >
> > > I'm assuming that here you're asking why
> species go extinct. I can
> > > come up with multiple reasonable motives for a
> designer to do such a
> > > thing, but in particular - why should I conclude
> that the only
> > > destiny a designer could have for any species is
> to thrive and
> > > persevere for all time? Maybe they were meant to
> contribute towards
> > > shaping and preparing the environment as a whole
> either through the
> > > temporary niche they occupied, HGT, or otherwise.
> Maybe their
> > > purposes weren't just in their temporary
> life, but in the
> > > discoveries and information they would provide
> when humans arrived
> > > on the scene. Maybe all of the above, and these
> possibilities are
> > > far from a complete list.
> > >
> > > And why would he generate many avenues of
> development that turn
> > > out to be dead ends?
> > >
> > > My response here would be similar to the question
> above, since talk
> > > of dead ends seems to matter most in the context
> of extinction.
> > >
> > > And if his objective is humanity, why would he
> be fiddling around
> > > for billions of years with lower organisms that
> never amount to
> > > anything?
> > >
> > > Never amount to anything? At that point we may as
> well ask why, even
> > > in Genesis, God bothered with making anything but
> humans. Aren't all
> > > those things really a distraction when you get
> right down to it? If
> > > we're supposed to be center stage, why do we
> have to share that
> > > stage with platypii?
> > >
> > > Either way, my perspective is that 'fiddling
> around' does no justice
> > > to the history of life on this planet. Those
> billions of years
> > > passed with organisms spreading about the entire
> planet, developing
> > > niches, growing and changing, converging on
> 'solutions', and - if we
> > > want to think most purely in terms of 'humans
> as the end goal' -
> > > setting the stage for the arrival of humanity. A
> species that, keep
> > > in mind, even now continues to learn about their
> existence, their
> > > features, their habitats, their traits -
> sometimes being inspired to
> > > pragmatic application of what we learn, other
> times stimulating
> > > imagination, still other times just plain
> producing knowledge for us.
> > >
> > > I don't see the validity of arguing that the
> past should have been
> > > different, especially if one accepts the present
> - because there's
> > > no way to change one without the other. Even if
> one can imagine the
> > > past playing out differently and the present
> being 'different, but
> > > similar to now', that's a bridge too far.
> > >
> > > The individual organisms emerging can and do
> look designed, but
> > > the processes that give rise to them don't.
> It's these processes
> > > that the designer presumably is controlling. The
> evidence says
> > > either he doesn't know how to control or he
> isn't able to. One
> > > would suppose an intelligent designer who had the
> knowledge and
> > > power to control and who also had a well-defined
> objective in mind
> > > would have generated life forms in a vastly more
> efficient way.
> > >
> > > And I'd disagree across the board here. Your
> view seems to be that
> > > if humanity were the goal of a designer, we
> should expect.. I don't
> > > know, some utterly rapt, strictly ascendant,
> shorter evolutionary
> > > history? Say, OoL -> Humanity in a billion
> years tops, development
> > > without extinctions or dead ends, every animal
> and plant species
> > > that currently exists going through a
> comparatively short evolution
> > > before being locked into a 'final form'?
> If so, again, I disagree
> > > for a number of reasons. Partly because
> 'efficiency' is more a
> > > concern for limited creatures than omnipotent (or
> even 'very
> > > powerful') designers, partly because it's
> a mistake to view the
> > > purpose of species purely in terms of 'do
> they thrive for all time',
> > > and more.
> > >
> > > Ultimately I'm arguing that, because the
> outcome is what it is, the
> > > whole thing in some way was designed by an
> intelligent designer
> > > after all. But on the basis of what I know about
> historical geology
> > > and paleontology, I claim it is a humongous
> stretch to say there is
> > > evidence of intelligent design in the way that
> organisms have
> > > emerged--until modern humanity. If you have such
> evidence, please
> > > share.
> > >
> > > I only have access to the same evidence you do -
> what differs is our
> > > perspective and understanding of that evidence. I
> look at the
> > > development and history of nature from the
> perspective of an amateur
> > > programmer - so for me, the very processes of
> evolution, mutation,
> > > etc seem designed, flowing along according to the
> rules of a
> > > program. Maybe absolutely everything that has
> transpired was
> > > directly intended, down to the smallest minutae.
> Maybe only larger
> > > developments (convergences, splitting into the
> larger varieties of
> > > plant / mammal / lizard, the introduction of
> humanity) were directly
> > > intended, with smaller events only mattering
> insofar as enabling
> > > those larger events. Again, I refer to procedural
> content generation
> > > in programming - even in that case, where we know
> humans are
> > > limited, and where we can reasonably suspect that
> some specific
> > > outcomes seen in the program were not precisely
> foreseen by the
> > > programmer, saying 'Well, clearly none of
> this was designed' is
> > > still a tremendous mistake. And it strikes me as
> a similar mistake
> > > when it comes to looking at what was generated in
> our own past.
> > >
> > > And, I see Mike Gene has thrown in his input - at
> a glance, I'd
> > > agree with what he's saying, though his views
> on this matter are far
> > > more developed than my own.
> > >
> > >
> > > Don
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Schwarzwald
> > > To: asa@calvin.edu
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 7:46 AM
> > > Subject: 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> 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 Fri Feb 6 19:16:26 2009