Re: [asa] observational vs. theoretical differences in scenarios; a direct question

Heya all. Some brief comments.

Cameron: Yes, I'm primarily talking about people who are fairly ignorant
about biology/evolution (and frankly, in my experience this is many times
actual diehard defenders and proponents of "Darwinism"). Not "what's a
mutation?" level ignorant, but "typical high school education on the topic"
level ignorant. If you ask the average person to name a Darwinian process,
or the top three, I'd be willing to bet "evolution" would be the most
popular reply. I think words and mental associations like that matter
tremendously when it comes to getting people, particularly (say) open-minded
agnostics, to understand why evolution either doesn't rule out God, or
actually can be seen as an argument in favor of God's existence (or at least
a Designer's). I won't go on (and I could go on, and on) about the
importance of language in this discussion, though - I don't want to derail
what's been a very interesting thread.

More on topic, I think what you point out about quantum-level interactions
with "our world" (for lack of a better term) is valid. If a designer's
interaction with our world is a possibility - quantum-level or not - so too
is detecting the designer's action. One problem I have with your example is
that it's way too ideal - it spells out a clear communication in a human
language. That's not what Behe, Dembski, or anyone else are looking for -
they're after language-less (DNA aside) mechanical events. Indeed, they seem
to be operating on this murky level where the way to tell if something was
designed is if they estimate the probability of an event occuring "by
chance" as very low (putting it mildly). Atheists, meanwhile, respond by
questioning the estimates of probability, digging in their heels and
insisting it may be extremely improbable but still possible and that's good
enough, appealing to "someday we'll understand this better", or even at
times diving for a Many Worlds scenario (remember the OoL paper Mike Gene
referred to, for example.)

That's not to say detecting design isn't still possible in principle. Or
that the case for Darwinian evolution is as strong and as certain as some of
its proponents claim.

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Cameron Wybrow <wybrowc@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> Fair retort, George. But then follow through on the logical consequence:
>
> Darwin's view of nature was wrong. Not "methodologically correct, but
> metaphysically wrong". Just wrong.
>
> And by "Darwin's view of nature" I don't mean his individual hypotheses and
> speculations about the everyday mechanisms of genetics or geology or this or
> that, many of which we know to be wrong. I mean his overall view of nature,
> and of natural causes -- he was wrong. Physics doesn't work the way he
> thought it did, and he tried to model his biology on the notion of "law" in
> physics at the time.
>
> My point all along has been that *if* we suppose that nature works the way
> Darwin said it does, then his theory of evolution via natural selection is
> incredible, and I cannot imagine why any rational person would accept it.
>
> Let me ask you a speculative but I believe reasonable question, George: If
> Collins and Miller had never heard of quantum theory, if they thought that
> variation and natural selection as Darwin understood them were the only
> available causes for macroevolution, they would believe in Darwin's theory
> just the same, would they not? After all, Collins and Miller never call in
> quantum theory as *evidence* for evolution. They call upon it only for the
> purposes of reconciling Darwinian mechanisms with belief in God as Creator.
> Their arguments for the full capability of Darwinian mechanisms have nothing
> to do with quantum theory, and come straight out of Mayr, Simpson, Hotton,
> or Dawkins, all of whose arguments are rooted in Darwin's 19th-century
> arguments, or they come straight from Darwin himself. Quantum theory has
> been called in *post factum* to interpret theologically a belief in
> Darwinian evolution *already held*, and already believed to be established
> by science without any help from quantum theory.
>
> As far as I know, the following thinkers and scientists accepted Darwinian
> evolution on Darwin's terms, without being influenced by, and in many cases
> without knowing anything about, quantum theory: Huxley, Mayr, Dobzhansky,
> Gaylord Simpson, Nicholas Hotton, Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, Robert Jastrow,
> Richard Dawkins. I suspect that is true for most theistic evolutionists as
> well, especially if their training was wholly in the life sciences. And I
> am betting that if a revolution in physics occurred tomorrow, and every
> physicist on earth declared that indeterminacy was false, and that nature
> was a closed, mechanistic causal continuum, with no room whatever for God to
> initiate any chain of events after the Big Bang, every living TE would would
> still believe in macroevolution through variation and natural selection.
>
> If I am wrong, name me a few theistic evolutionists who used to find
> Darwinism entirely *incredible*, until they discovered how Darwinism could
> be understood in terms of quantum theory, after which they found it
> *credible*. Surely that is the acid test, not of the truth of theistic
> evolution, but of the world view upon which theistic evolutionists base
> their acceptance of Darwinian mechanisms.
>
> The point is that the main arguments for the truth of Darwinian evolution
> (both regarding the fact of evolution and the mechanisms of evolution) were
> well-established in both the biological and popular mind before the new view
> of nature ushered in by quantum mechanics had any large hold on the popular
> mind, on philosophy, on theology, or even on sciences (such as biology)
> which lay outside of physics. TEs do not accept Darwinian evolution because
> of quantum physics. They accept Darwinian evolution mostly on the strength
> of arguments which originated in the 19th century. And the world-view
> implicit those arguments was mechanistic.
>
> Cameron.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
> To: "Cameron Wybrow" <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>; "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 7:09 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [asa] observational vs. theoretical differences in scenarios;
> a direct question
>
>
> I.e., "If the universe were different, my view would be correct." In
>> reality, however, we live in the 21st century, not the 19th.
>>
>> Shalom
>> George
>> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm<http://home.roadrunner.com/%7Escitheologyglm>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cameron Wybrow" <wybrowc@sympatico.ca
>> >
>> To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 6:29 PM
>> Subject: Re: [asa] observational vs. theoretical differences in scenarios;
>> a direct question
>>
>>
>> David:
>>>
>>> A. Given your definitions, your answer makes sense.
>>>
>>> However, bear in mind that if it weren't for the 20th-century discovery
>>> of "quantum indeterminacy", your position would be dead in the water. It is
>>> quantum indeterminacy which allows you to employ a blurry distinction
>>> between "guided" and "natural" events, and it is the blurring of that
>>> distinction which makes your position possible. If the universe were wholly
>>> Laplacean, you would have to concede my definitions, i.e., that "guided" is
>>> completely distinct from "natural", and also would have to concede my
>>> general point that God's only two options for guiding evolution are to
>>> "intervene" or "front-load".
>>>
>> " (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.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 2 02:48:36 2009