Re: [asa] evidence for design

I can easily speculate that God "played" with His creation for
awhile (OK -- for at least 4 billion years).

I think all knowledgeable believers do need to come to terms with all this time that God used in order to get the world to where it is.

However, "play" can easily suggest some fairly negative things about God that I don't think are true. For one, four billion years of play strongly suggests a person who was not very goal-oriented; and one who is not goal-oriented tends not to be very serious about what he does. Was Christ the goal? Christ himself pretty much gives the impression of unrelieved seriousness. As far as we can tell from the gospels, he was about as goal-oriented as can be, even in the temple at age 12, even at the wedding in Cana.

Another thing: Life itself is serious. It's serious because of hardship, disease and death. Americans living in luxury often forget their easy lives are the exception, not the rule. Those historical times of mass extinction seem to have been times of unrelieved misery for all living creatures. If God really was playing, it's easy to get the impression he has a serious cruel streak. Life as a rule is not all misery, so I can imagine that God joined in the exuberance of his creatures on good days. But there had to be a deeper reason for all the elapsed time and the apparently erratic biotic trajectory.

Don

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: John Burgeson (ASA member)<mailto:hossradbourne@gmail.com>
  To: Don Winterstein<mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com>
  Cc: asa<mailto:asa@calvin.edu> ; Nucacids<mailto:nucacids@wowway.com>
  Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 12:50 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] evidence for design

  Don wrote, in part: "What I really mean by "disinterested observers"
  is people who would set up criteria for intelligent design based on
  what they know of intelligent design and then apply those criteria as
  impartially as possible to nature. The best examples of intelligent
  design we have, of course, are human, so any evidence of intelligent
  design would need to fit with what humans consider to be intelligent.

  However, we both know that the designer behind it all is God, so it's
  not unreasonable also to inject the idea that the designer, while
  possibly thinking with something akin to human intelligence, should
  have considerably more power to implement his designs than your
  average human. This extra power arguably would lead him to take
  certain avenues towards his goals that would be unavailable to humans
  or unaided nature.

  By human standards it's inconceivable to me (and I believe also to
  "disinterested observers" as defined above) that such an intelligent
  designer would incorporate catastrophes like the Permian or
  Ordovician-Silurian extinctions into his "plan" at the outset."

  I've made this point before, so I'll be brief.

  (1) I don't particularly agree with the last paragraph above, because:

  (2) I can easily speculate that God "played" with His creation for
  awhile (OK -- for at least 4 billion years). The pejorative term for
  this is "tinker," but that presumes a god who can't quite get it right
  to begin with. I don't presume this and so I use the word "play."

  One may still assume God's onniscence, -- or not. I don't see that
  that particular assumption plays a part. Even so -- an omniscent being
  obviously can put knowledge of the future aside so as to be interested
  in how things might turn out.

  On 2/23/09, Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com<mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com>> wrote:
> Of course I'm aware that "disinterested observers" don't exist, but the
> expression--I thought--conveyed the meaning I wanted, and I didn't want to
> waste words being more precise. Your response tells me the extra words
> wouldn't have been wasted. What I really mean by "disinterested observers"
> is people who would set up criteria for intelligent design based on what
> they know of intelligent design and then apply those criteria as impartially
> as possible to nature. The best examples of intelligent design we have, of
> course, are human, so any evidence of intelligent design would need to fit
> with what humans consider to be intelligent.
>
> However, we both know that the designer behind it all is God, so it's not
> unreasonable also to inject the idea that the designer, while possibly
> thinking with something akin to human intelligence, should have considerably
> more power to implement his designs than your average human. This extra
> power arguably would lead him to take certain avenues towards his goals that
> would be unavailable to humans or unaided nature.
>
> By human standards it's inconceivable to me (and I believe also to
> "disinterested observers" as defined above) that such an intelligent
> designer would incorporate catastrophes like the Permian or
> Ordovician-Silurian extinctions into his "plan" at the outset. Such
> extinctions are examples of what I meant by "blind alleys." Mass
> extinctions would suggest that the development of life forms was going in
> wrong directions and needed massive correction. Would an intelligent
> designer intentionally allow development to come to such a state that it had
> to be largely undone and started over? I can imagine how you might approach
> a justification for this, but isn't it far more reasonable on the face of it
> to say, by human standards, that it all happened by accident?
>
> Some of my other comments were partially to "yank your chain" to get you to
> state clearly where you were coming from, since it seems so obvious to me
> that the evolution of organisms down through time appears unguided by
> anything like human intelligence. I understand that, given hindsight, we
> can come up with arguments in retrospect to justify what happened.
> And--because of what we think of as the end result--I have little doubt that
> some such arguments are in fact valid. But I don't think they'll carry any
> weight with paleontologists or with anyone else who isn't already convinced
> that God was squarely behind it all.
>
> In sum, I'd put your work of this kind into a category like that of St.
> Anselm's logic, that it's not for the purpose of generating faith, "but that
> [readers] may be gladdened by understanding and meditating on those things
> which they believe...." Is this fair?
>
> Don
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Nucacids<mailto:nucacids@wowway.com<mailto:nucacids@wowway.com>>
> To: Don Winterstein<mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com<mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com>> ;
> asa<mailto:asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>>
> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 8:43 AM
> Subject: Re: [asa] evidence for design
>
>
> Hi Don,
>
>
>
> It is not my intention to thwart your specific intent of this thread, as
> it would be interesting to see you develop your argument. I am simply
> responding to "no evidence" and "evidence of bad design" arguments. So I'll
> just offer one last word on this issue.
>
>
>
> Your argument seems to be premised on what "disinterested observers" see
> and on what "humans ordinarily think." Yet both assumptions are very shaky.
>
>
>
> When it comes to the issue of design and life, I am not convinced any
> "disinterested observers" exist. Vulcans only exist in sci-fi. Psychology
> has shown that the human brain does not passively observe. It actively
> perceives. There is a nice series of recent essays on Steve Martin's blog
> written by Marlowe C. Embree. For example:
>
>
>
> "In the first of these, assimilation, pre-existing schemata are "imposed"
> upon the data of experience. In simple terms, we see what we expect to see,
> paying attention to relevant information (that which confirms or supports an
> existing schema) and discount (or fail even to notice) irrelevant or
> disconfirming evidence (particularly that which calls a prior schema into
> question)."
>
>
>
>
> http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/09/origins-debate-through-lens-of.html<http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/09/origins-debate-through-lens-of.html<http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/09/origins-debate-through-lens-of.html%3Chttp://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/09/origins-debate-through-lens-of.html>>
>
>
>
> The human brain imposes on the world more so than absorbs the world. It's
> the difference between perception and observation.
>
>
>
> I myself have used the internet to discuss/argue with scores of people who
> would likely classify themselves as 'disinterested observers.' Not only is
> it clear that they impose their pre-existing schemata upon data, but they
> impose it upon me as a person, interpreting my words and arguments in the
> light of their preconceptions and stereotypes. What's more, when I ask them
> what type of data they would count as evidence for design, the answers I get
> (when I actually get them) fall into two classes: 1) Find something that
> evolution cannot possibly explain (the god-of-the-gaps approach) or 2) Show
> them the designer. These are the type of data people need to be shocked out
> of their pre-existing schematas.
>
>
>
> As for what humans ordinarily think, such ordinary thinking often reflects
> convention more so than contemplative thought. For example, humans DO
> ordinarily think that design and evolution are incompatible. That's what
> the creationists tell us. That's what the New Atheists tell us. But the
> perception of incompatibility is just a perception. There is no law of
> nature that walls off evolution from design. Designed things can evolve and
> life could be designed to shape and influence its subsequent evolution.
> Humans don't ordinarily think about this because most humans, because of
> their pre-existing schemata, and cultural forces, are invested in rejecting
> one of the two.
>
>
>
> Now, you write:
>
>
>
> "You as a believer in God, in contrast, come to God's defense by picking
> out amazing features of organic evolution and explaining how such phenomena
> witness to God's activity as designer. The question your work of this sort
> begs, however, is how or whether things would have been different if God had
> not been involved at all--as most paleontologists believe. Ultimately,
> because your evidences for design have little in common with what humans
> ordinarily think of as evidences for intelligent design, you parachute out
> of normal human intellectual intercourse by claiming that God is so
> different from humans that one cannot judge his designing by anything
> approaching normal human standards. What this means is that you can claim
> anything at all as evidence of divine design simply by saying God's design
> is unlike human design."
>
>
>
> Here you are relying on your pre-existing schemata to interpret my words.
> I can say this with confidence because I, of all people, should be in the
> best position to know what I am doing and claiming. And I am not trying to
> come to God's defense (as if God needed me to do this); I was pointing out
> the neglected perspectives when you insisted on something being a bad design
> because of inefficiency. Nor did I do any parachuting by claiming that God
> is so different from humans that one cannot judge his designing by anything
> approaching normal human standards. You are the one who equates the
> designer with God, while I am the one who has consistently argued that this
> is a mistake and that any design inference should be constrained to a
> human-like intelligence (and I have explained why this is before).
>
>
>
> It is from this position that I responded to your claims. You would need
> to make the case that if a human-like intelligence were to design evolution,
> there would be no "dead ends." Yet to make the case that there would be no
> "dead-ends", you change the rules and appeal to an all-knowing and
> all-powerful designer. You would need to make the case that a human-like
> intelligence could come up with a better way to seed a planet with air,
> food, shelter, and even fire, all in one step. Yet to make the case that
> there is a better way (without offering a single candidate for this better
> way), you change the rules and appeal to an all-knowing and all-powerful
> designer.
>
>
>
> Do I pick out "amazing features of organic evolution and explaining how
> such phenomena witness to God's activity as designer?" No. I point out
> ways in which evolution is more rational than commonly assumed, as all this
> fits nicely into the hypothesis that evolution was front-loaded by life's
> design. Is this a witness to God's activity as designer? Not that I know
> of, as I view God more as Creator than designer, as a designer, by
> definition, works with all kinds of constraints. I am not the one trying to
> establish or defend God's existence by discussing life and design. I am
> exploring a genuine hunch and curiosity, a road less travelled.
>
>
>
> How does this fit in with my theism? While you have a theology that
> requires God make the biotic world in a certain way, my theology places no
> such requirements on God. My theology tells me something very simple about
> the mechanism by which God brought us into existence - it doesn't matter. I
> can explain this theology if someone is interested, but what it does is to
> free my hands when exploring the biotic world. The biotic world does not
> have to be free of evidence of design nor does it have to have evidence of
> design. And any evidence of design doesn't have to look like divine
> activity. I am free (relatively speaking) to extrapolate from the only base
> of knowledge we have - our subjective and objective experience with our own
> designs matched up against what science uncovers about life.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Mike Gene
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Feb 25 04:38:03 2009