Hi Gregory,
My posting had nothing to do with ID or biology. I’m simply outlining the metaphysical and theological position that has guided me for over a decade. It’s the position that allows me to approach the relation (if any) between design and biology in an open-ended manner.
Does anyone here really believe that if Dawkins/Gould are correct, we should abandon our Christian faith?
So how did we come into existence? It doesn’t matter (as I have explained). If you think it matters (and no one has shown that it does), then how do you approach the question without trying to force the data into a preset conclusion?
- Mike
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Because of us - Steve Fuller's anthropic principle - Darwin's original sin
"What did I write that made you think this?" - Mike Gene
Mike, did you mean what did you write that made me think we are again at a new moment, or that you're perhaps interested in promoting an 'anthropic principle in biology'?
Well, there's a few things. Cameron is busy knocking holes in the ASA-TE camp with his challenges to their position. You are, as you've told the list, an advocate of ID, whereas most people on this list are strongly anti-ID or anti-IDists (sometimes it is difficult to see if they are against the sin or the sinner), and have little patience for even the topic of ID anymore. Yet you've managed to walk a fine line here on the ASA list and have made some good points against the ASA-TE status quo. I figure you might have something to offer to some of the entrenched positions held by the 'retired meterologists' speaking here, but then again I might also be mistaken.
In terms of the idea of 'anthropic principle in biology,' I can't claim to be original with it. Rather, I got it from a speech given by Steve Fuller at Oxford University Jan. 20, 2009, titled "Darwin's Original Sin: The Denial of Theology's Claim to Knowledge." You can listen to it here: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/sociology/staff/academicstaff/sfuller/fullers_index/audio/regents_park_college_oxford_--_20_jan_09.wma
Perhaps you might like it Mike? Have you heard Fuller speak before? In this talk he calls MN an 'intellectual mirage.' In fact, he demolishes MN quite regularly. Of course, this won't make some on this list very happy! But then again, there is no one here trained in the fields he is trained in to capably rebut him.
By the way, what else would make me think this - it's 'because of us' Mike Gene! :-)
Cheers, Gregory Arago
~~
"An 'anthropic principle in Biology' is exactly what I think the evidence from ID boils down to. A friend of mine and I have coined the term "bioanthropic principle" and I think that nails it." - John Walley
And if they can come up with an 'anthropic principle' in cosmology and astrophysics, John, isn't it possible that an 'anthropic principle' in biology could make some sense too? Or would this be outlawed due to some particular methodological principle, a.k.a. philosophical assumption, of 'what science is' which is being offered?
Are you advocating an 'anthropic principle' in biology, John, or a 'bioanthropic principle' or do you mean the same thing? Could you explain where the 'anthro' comes into play? It would probably be better to open up another thread, imo, to do this.
- G.A.
p.s. The website you link to has little content thus far, other than a link to a highly contestable a paper by George Murphy, which one day I will get around to critiquing. And as we all know here, George is not a biologist, so I assume he is not working towards an anthropic principle in biology and that you are not planning to use 'physics and theology' to make your case for a bioanthropic principle.
--- On Mon, 4/27/09, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [asa] Because of us
To: gregoryarago@yahoo.ca, asa@lists.calvin.edu, "Nucacids" <nucacids@wowway.com>
Received: Monday, April 27, 2009, 6:46 PM
An "anthropic principle in Biology" is exactly what I think the evidence from ID boils down to. A friend of mine and I have coined the term "bioanthropic principle" and I think that nails it.
John
--- On Mon, 4/27/09, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:
From: Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com>
Subject: Re: [asa] Because of us
To: gregoryarago@yahoo.ca, asa@lists.calvin.edu
Date: Monday, April 27, 2009, 7:48 AM
"After all we've been through, Mike, here we are again at a new moment. It sounds to me like you're interested in promoting an 'anthropic principle' in biology - 'Because of us'."
What did I write that made you think this?
Mike
Mike Gene wrote:
"Once this is realized, the obstacle of chance evaporates. God does not need to tinker with this creation to get us to appear. He created this universe, among an infinite other possible universes, precisely because it was the one that would spawn us."
After all we've been through, Mike, here we are again at a new moment. It sounds to me like you're interested in promoting an 'anthropic principle' in biology - 'Because of us'. Am I right about this? We humans are speaking to ourselves, about our biology (and also about other biologies), though sometimes it sounds like babble!
Yes, of course there is the danger of being anthropocentric, but that is not the main obstacle. Religious humility (in its multiple forms) can overcome this. The main obstacle seems to be in getting 'us' to work together to unify our diversities, to seek philosophical-spiritual knowledge in addition to scientific-technical knowledge and to recognize how we can contextualise and relate our knowledge of ourselves (which has been made at least partly by us) and of the universe (which is also given to us) to our knowledge of our Creator, our Lord.
If what you're after is indeed such an 'anthropic principle in biology,' I'll be sure to meet you on the playing field or at the discussion table on your quest, Mike.
Cheers,
Gregory
--- On Mon, 4/27/09, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:
There are two main obstacles in reconciling Darwinian evolution and orthodox Christianity:
1. Darwinian evolution entails that chance plays a central part of our history, as random variations provide the material for selection to cull. So deeply ingrained is the role of chance that the late Stephen Jay Gould was fond of saying that if the tape of life was replayed from the beginning, an entirely different reality would exist, a reality that would not include us. This is simply because we could not count on all the various coincidences and accidents to play out again exactly as they played out in our history.
2. Darwinian evolution entails that death and suffering played a central part of our coming into existence. It is the “struggle for survival”, involving predation and disease, that has been a core part of our evolutionary history.
Orthodox Christianity views human life as an inevitable part of Creation and death/disease as a consequence of the Fall.
How shall we reconcile these?
If God could have created any one of an infinite number of creations, why did He create this one? Because of us. That is, this is the creation, the only creation, in which we exist. We cannot exist in any other creation. Other humans or humanoids might exist in other creations, but they would not be us.
This creation exists because it is our home, that is, where we were born and where we live.
So what makes us us? Our genetic identities. Our experiences. Our memories. Our choices. Since all of the things that make us us are part of this creation, this creation must exist if we are to exist.
So how did we come into existence? Was it the miracle of Creationism? Was it the natural law and evolutionary convergence of Conway Morris or Denton ? Was it by front-loading evolution? Or was it the mixture of natural selection and contingency as outlined by Dawkins and Gould?
Answer – it doesn’t matter. However we came into existence had to be because that was the way we came into existence. It’s a package deal.
So it would not matter if Dawkins/Gould was correct. Because even if chance and natural selection brought us into existence, well, then that’s what would be needed to bring us into existence. God is still in control because this very reality where chance and natural selection brought us into existence would not exist and be sustained if God had not wanted to commune with us. God choose to create this reality whereby chance and natural selection brought us into existence because that is our reality and our history. From God’s perspective, beyond our space-time reality, our emergence was inevitable and foreknown because the very reason this reality was chosen into existence is precisely because God knew it would spawn us, regardless of the mechanism. Creation runs through us and exists because of us.
Once this is realized, the obstacle of chance evaporates. God does not need to tinker with this creation to get us to appear. He created this universe, among an infinite other possible universes, precisely because it was the one that would spawn us.
So why did God create this reality? It’s the most mysterious and humbling realization and revelation - God loves us.
-Mike
------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now!
------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.12.4/2081 - Release Date: 04/26/09 09:44:00
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Get the name you've always wanted ! @ymail.com or @rocketmail.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.12.4/2081 - Release Date: 04/26/09 09:44:00
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Apr 27 22:32:43 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 27 2009 - 22:32:43 EDT