Re: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design (Behe vs. Behe)

If "chance" means that an event is totally unguided, if there are no
parameters that produce the situation, then there is nothing in the
universe that came about by chance. Every event has some determinants.
What is usually meant is that we do not know what produced the effect or
what the consequences may be.

Since Murray, Wayne, Dick and Mike (along with others earlier) have
responded, in ways I can second, to various aspects of your claims, and
since I feel that I have made no progress in clarifying the matters you
bring up, this will be my last communication on these topics.
Dave (ASA)

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:54:34 -0400 "Cameron Wybrow"
<wybrowc@sympatico.ca> writes:
> Dave:
>
> 1. If you understand the meaning of the word "chance" as it is used
> in both
> everyday speech and in the classical philosophical tradition, you
> know that
> chance events are always unguided, by definition. It is implicit in
> the
> definition of the word.
>
> Possibly you mean not all events which *appear* to be chance events
> are
> unguided. Well, of course, if they are only *apparently* chance
> events, but
> not really chance events, then they may well be guided (or they may
> be due
> to some natural necessity, as George Murphy has pointed out). But
> then
> you're equivocating, and you'd be better off using a different word
> altogether, so as not to confuse people.
>
> If I bang into an old friend at the store, that is a chance event.
> If a
> cosmic ray strikes a sleeping lioness and causes a mutation in her
> offspring, that is a chance event. (The lioness no more had to be
> sleeping
> on that spot at that moment than on any other spot, and had she been
>
> anywhere else the cosmic ray would have missed.) Proponents of
> neo-Darwinism (Mayr, Dawkins, Gaylord Simpson, Dobzhansky, Sagan,
> Gould,
> etc.) understand "chance" as I have used the word. If TEs wish to
> use the
> word "chance" in their own idiosyncratic way, that is up to them,
> but then,
> since both ID and traditional neo-Darwinism mean the same thing by
> "chance",
> TE will be the odd man out, and the obscuring of communication will
> rest on
> TE's shoulders.
>
> 2. I did not say that a theistic evolutionist bars a Creator from
> controlling the universe. If I were a theistic evolutionist --
> which
> actually I may well be, but not at all of the variety typically
> represented
> on this list -- I would *certainly* believe that the Creator
> controls the
> universe. I would also believe that the Creator directly guided the
>
> mutations to produce the various species, including man. And I
> would say
> so, with much less vagueness about God's role than is typically
> expressed by
> some of the TEs on this list and elsewhere.
>
> 3. Only a quasi-Gnostic would refer to nature as the "mask" of God,
> as if
> nature *hides* God rather than reveals him. When Luther said this,
> he
> obviously had forgotten that "the heavens declare the glory of God".
> The
> idea that God is completely "hidden" in relation to nature is
> Manichean, not
> Christian. Of course nature does not show us God directly, but it
> expresses
> something of the mind of God. Classical Christianity affirmed the
> goodness,
> beauty and wisdom of creation, and its evident connection with its
> divine
> source. Read Genesis 1. Read the Psalms. Read Romans. Read the
> Greek
> Fathers. Read Thomas Aquinas. Read Paley. Read just about every
> English
> theologian and poet from 1600 onward. (I can't speak for what the
> gloomy
> Teutonic theologians across the channel believed; nor do I care.)
>
> 4. ID does not say that we can "tear off the mask of God". Many ID
>
> proponents are very conservative Calvinists who would very much
> insist on
> the inscrutability of God -- more so than many TEs, who seem sure
> that they
> know what kind of miracles God would or would not perform, how God
> would or
> would not create, etc. Please stop attributing notions to ID that
> are your
> interpretations, rather than what ID has to say for itself. Your
> rage
> cannot be taken seriously when it is based on a caricature.
>
> 5. Finally, I note that you tried to finesse my question with a
> counter-question, but I'm wily to such devices, and realize that you
> are
> just plain ducking. So I'll rephrase: Do you believe that chance
> mechanisms of the sort proposed by neo-Darwinism can account for
> evolution,
> *without adding in the guidance of God*? All ID people answer with
> a clear
> "No". All atheist Darwinists answer with clear "Yes". Most TEs
> answer
> incomprehensibly. You can break the pattern, and answer clearly.
> Here's a
> golden opportunity for your side.
>
> Cameron.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
> To: <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>
> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 11:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design (Behe vs. Behe)
>
>
> > Where do you get the idea that chance is purely unguided? The May
> > /Scientific American/ has an article on the difference the 1%
> makes
> > between chimps and humans, with a discussion of the areas of
> accelerated
> > change in the human genome. We may not know which environmental
> factors
> > and which genomic ones produce what seem to be unidirectional
> change, but
> > we observe what seems to be accelerated inline alteration. Can
> you
> > explain to me how a theistic evolutionist bars the Creator from
> > controlling the universe? Luther's comment that natural laws are
> the
> > masks of God makes good sense. God is there all the time. But ID
> insists
> > that we can tear the masks off. Bunk!
> > Dave (ASA)
> >
> > On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:36:57 -0400 "Cameron Wybrow"
> > <wybrowc@sympatico.ca> writes:
> >> Your objection regarding the term "Darwinian" is a verbal
> >> technicality,
> >> Dave; my point remains the same if you change it to
> "neo-Darwinian
> >> means",
> >> or if you add in any number of newer "mechanisms" which are
> >> currently mooted
> >> around (drift, etc.), and call it "neo-neo-Darwinian means". All
> of
> >> them
> >> are chance mechanisms, ultimately, when all the fancy language
> is
> >> stripped
> >> away. The task of neo-neo-Darwinism, then, is to prove that
> chance
> >> can
> >> produce integrated complex systems. Behe's argument is that it
> >> can't. He
> >> may be right, or he may be wrong, but there is no point in
> >> obfuscating the
> >> issue. The choice is, and always has been (since the days of
> the
> >> ancient
> >> Greeks) "by design or by chance".
> >>
> >> The problem with TE (at least in most of its formulations) is
> that
> >> it is
> >> simply unclear about the extent of the complexity-building powers
> it
> >> allows
> >> to chance. To read TE writers, the cause of mutations etc. is
> sort
> >> of
> >> chance, and sort of God's action, and sort of neither, and sort
> of
> >> both --
> >> that's what TE sounds like, to an outsider seeking theoretical
> >> clarity. It
> >> sounds vague.
> >>
> >> ID, on the other hand, is razor-sharp in clarity on that point.
> It
> >> draws a
> >> line in the sand. It says that chance is simply not sufficient.
> It
> >> says
> >> that there must be an input of intelligence. The input might be
> >> before the
> >> Big Bang, with no further inputs necessary (front-loaded
> >> naturalistic
> >> evolution). It might be at one or more points after that
> >> (intervention,
> >> quantum-concealed or otherwise). ID does not specify. But it
> says
> >> that the
> >> input is necessary.
> >>
> >> Tell me, Dave: do you believe that chance mechanisms -- include
> the
> >> whole
> >> passel of them if you want -- could, *utterly unguided by God or
> >> some other
> >> intelligence*, turn atoms into Adam, molecules into Mendel,
> bacteria
> >> into
> >> Bohr? And if you do believe that, why do you bring God into the
> >> picture at
> >> all? And if you don't believe that, how does your view differ
> >> substantially
> >> from Behe's, except in jargon?
> >>
> >> Cameron.
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
> >> To: <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>
> >> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> >> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 7:30 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design (Behe vs. Behe)
> >>
> >>
> >> > But "purely Darwinian means" are no longer relevant in
> biology,
> >> unless
> >> > one desires to be anachronistic. Darwin, for example, had no
> >> > understanding of genetics, and even the rediscovery of
> Mendel's
> >> work is
> >> > now vastly superceded. I have read numerous references to
> >> irreducible
> >> > complexity, but they seem to represent /ipse dixit/, with
> various
> >> > experiments indicating that the complexity can be produced by
> >> natural
> >> > processes. Indeed, from what I've encountered, "irreducible
> >> complexity"
> >> > seems closely equivalent to "God of the gaps."
> >> > Dave (ASA)
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:24:04 -0400 "Cameron Wybrow"
> >> > <wybrowc@sympatico.ca> writes:
> >> >> Uhhh, Bernie ...
> >> >>
> >> >> This is not an accurate representation of Behe's thought.
> >> >>
> >> >> Let me modify your words to make them correct:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Behe 1: "I have no problem with biological evolution of
> humans
> >> >> from
> >> >> > apelike creatures, *or with biological evolution
> generally*."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Behe 2: "Evolution *by purely Darwinian means* is
> impossible
> >> >> because of
> >> >> > irreducible complexity."
> >> >>
> >> >> Note that Behe 1 is entirely compatible with Behe 2.
> >> >>
> >> >> If I may add a general remark, addressed not just to Bernie
> but
> >> to
> >> >> everyone
> >> >> here: why are ID proponents' arguments so often
> misrepresented
> >> and
> >> >>
> >> >> mischaracterized here? A couple of months ago someone
> >> >> mischaracterized
> >> >> Behe, and Ted Davis had to jump in to correct the person,
> with
> >> an
> >> >> exact
> >> >> quotation from Behe. And over the last several months I've
> >> noticed
> >> >> several
> >> >> remarks which suggest to me that some people here are not
> >> reading
> >> >> the actual
> >> >> works of Behe, Dembski, and other ID theorists, but are
> >> criticizing
> >> >> them
> >> >> based on hearsay. I find this disturbing, especially since a
> >> number
> >> >> of
> >> >> people here have Ph.D.s. Is it not part of doctoral-level
> >> training
> >> >> to
> >> >> acquire the habit of reading sources carefully before one
> >> criticizes
> >> >> them?
> >> >>
> >> >> Cameron.
> >> >>
> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> >> From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> >> >> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> >> >> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 4:59 PM
> >> >> Subject: RE: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design (Behe vs. Behe)
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Hi Ted-
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Gregory is pointing out the confusion in ID circles. Did
> >> >> evolution happen
> >> >> > or not? I suppose Behe could host a debate featuring two
> >> >> opponents:
> >> >> > himself vs. himself.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Behe 1: "I have no problem with biological evolution of
> humans
> >> >> from
> >> >> > apelike creatures."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Behe 2: "Evolution is impossible because of irreducible
> >> >> complexity."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ...Bernie
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> >> >> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > ____________________________________________________________
> >> > Discover how much can a college degree can change your life.
> Act
> >> now.
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTL9zZz79A0uqL0m02WVqYeG
> > xRcTXEYj937RSD37IOtNn2kCFMBY56/
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> 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.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Apr 26 20:01:12 2009