"I'm simply pointing out a logical truth - Guided evolution does not entail that every aspect of evolution must be micro-managed or predetermined. To approach the topic of design and evolution, an intellectually honest method requires us to have the ability to divorce the concept of "God as the designer" from "life was designed."
Let me ask a related question. What if an atheist says that the orbit of the moon around the Earth and the orbit of the Earth around the Sun is purely natural and can be totally understood by natural means. Suppose a religious critic disagrees, and says that God is the one who guides the path of the Earth and Moon orbits, as well as provides the power to move the Earth and Moon. What would you have to say about these two positions?
I'm thinking there's a parallel with that and evolution. Just as the orbits can be naturally explained, does it minimize God if evolution is likewise naturally explained? (That would be the fully gifted version of theistic evolution... evolution naturally unrolls creation by God's original design and plan.)
-----Original Message-----
From: Nucacids [mailto:nucacids@wowway.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 2:53 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie; AmericanScientificAffiliation
Subject: Re: [asa] Atheist finds God thru Behe's books....
"Not sure what you mean. You mean mechanisms of how design can be done, or
detected? The former seems illogical, as design is done by fiat, I think;
the latter could be very profitable, but I don't think there has been any
ideas of how non-human (non-natural) design can be detected."
There are four ways one might attempt to detect design:
http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/ways-to-approach-a-design-inference/
But I am focused on the former. Design is not done by fiat. Design entails
the implementation of a mind's understanding and foresight to carry out an
objective. So the interesting question becomes whether or not one's
understanding of evolution could be used in order to get evolution to carry
out a future objective. Instead of thinking "design vs. evolution," swim
deeper and contemplate the manner in which evolution can be designed.
"I'm not sure why the body can't be viewed as a machine. Can a self-aware
robot be viewed as a machine? By self-aware, I mean aware of it's
surroundings and considers the climate as input, as well as doing something
useful with artificial intelligence."
Machines are assembled. That is why we can take them apart and put them
back together so they work. Molecular machines are assembled and can be
taken apart and put back together. The human body is not assembled. It
grows from a single cell. That is why we cannot take it apart (for what are
the "parts") and put it back together again.
"Oh, so God gets credit for good things out of evolution and not the bad?"
I wasn't talking about God with that point. I'm simply pointing out a
logical truth - Guided evolution does not entail that every aspect of
evolution must be micro-managed or predetermined. To approach the topic of
design and evolution, an intellectually honest method requires us to have
the ability to divorce the concept of "God as the designer" from "life was
designed." It would be intellectually dishonest for anyone, critic or
supporter, to insist that the design MUST be God (let alone the Christian
God).
"I don't know for sure, but I thought there were many animals (species) that
lived and died that have nothing at all to do with us being here."
There is no evidence that this is true. Biotic reality and natural history
are all connected. You just can't go back in time an erase one species here
and another extinction there and pretend it would not change everything that
currently exists. Didn't you ever read "A Sound of Thunder" (1952) by Ray
Bradbury? :)
As beings who are connected to all other life forms and the history of this
planet, what you lament just happens to be necessary for your existence and
my existence.
- Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
To: "AmericanScientificAffiliation" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 1:49 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Atheist finds God thru Behe's books....
> "Hope you don't mind"
>
> Of course not- this is a discussion list! ;-)
>
> "And before seeking out "other evolutionary mechanisms," why not explore
> ways known mechanisms can be enlisted in the service of design?"
>
> Not sure what you mean. You mean mechanisms of how design can be done, or
> detected? The former seems illogical, as design is done by fiat, I think;
> the latter could be very profitable, but I don't think there has been any
> ideas of how non-human (non-natural) design can be detected.
>
> " The human body does not qualify as a machine; molecular machines are
> machines. We can compare and contrast if you want."
>
> I'm not sure why the body can't be viewed as a machine. Can a self-aware
> robot be viewed as a machine? By self-aware, I mean aware of it's
> surroundings and considers the climate as input, as well as doing
> something useful with artificial intelligence.
>
> " Guided evolution does not entail that every aspect of evolution must be
> micro-managed or predetermined. Consider instead the hypothesis that I
> have
> previously shared with this list - Nudging Evolution."
>
> Oh, so God gets credit for good things out of evolution and not the bad?
>
> " If you prefer the theological angle (your second sentence), I will
> simply
> note the theological argument I previously shared with this list - It's
> because of us. It's all connected. Change our history (remove one of
> those
> mass extinctions), and we no longer exist."
>
> I don't know for sure, but I thought there were many animals (species)
> that lived and died that have nothing at all to do with us being here.
>
> The comments about the ID hypothesis are in a different email.
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nucacids [mailto:nucacids@wowway.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 5:23 PM
> To: Dehler, Bernie; AmericanScientificAffiliation
> Subject: Re: [asa] Atheist finds God thru Behe's books....
>
> Hi Bernie,
>
> Hope you don't mind, but I usually can't resist spouting off when a list
> of
> questions like these is posted (especially on a cold Friday night):
>
> "1. The whole main thrust of the interview is wonder and awe at mystery.
> Basically, it is "we don't know how Darwinian evolution did it or could do
> it, therefore it must be intelligently designed (by God)." Why not
> instead
> seek out more evolutionary mechanisms?"
>
> Not knowing how Darwinian evolution did it does not logically lead to an
> inference of intelligent design. And before seeking out "other
> evolutionary
> mechanisms," why not explore ways known mechanisms can be enlisted in the
> service of design?
>
> "2. The amazing micromachines, DNA, proteins, etc. Yes it is awesome and
> amazing. But so is the human body, and we thought that was also made
> directly by God (not evolution) before the scientific evidence
> demonstrated
> it (evolution, by pseudogene evidence) beyond a reasonable doubt."
>
>
>
> The human body does not qualify as a machine; molecular machines are
> machines. We can compare and contrast if you want.
>
> "3. If design is guided, then be prepared to explain mass extinctions and
> evolutionary dead-ends. Unless one believes in a recent worldwide flood
> and
> recent Earth, why else did God make so many wonderful creatures long
> before
> man even came on the scene to enjoy/observe them?"
>
> Guided evolution does not entail that every aspect of evolution must be
> micro-managed or predetermined. Consider instead the hypothesis that I
> have
> previously shared with this list - Nudging Evolution.
>
> If you prefer the theological angle (your second sentence), I will simply
> note the theological argument I previously shared with this list - It's
> because of us. It's all connected. Change our history (remove one of
> those
> mass extinctions), and we no longer exist.
>
> "3. Behe's whole objection seems to be against "Darwinian" mechanisms."
>
> I would agree. But this is probably because there are many, like Dawkins,
> who keep selling Darwinian mechanisms as the be-all and end-all of
> evolution.
>
> "4. Behe considers intelligent design as a hypothesis. I never saw this
> hypothesis explained anywhere, but I admit I also haven't read his books.
> From what I hear about the ID guys, it is basically "Darwinian evolution
> can't explain it, therefore the only other possibility is intelligent
> design
> (God)." (If someone is an ID supporter and can coherently state the
> hypothesis CONCISELY, PLEASE do.)"
>
> The original cells, designed and used to seed this planet, were shaped in
> such a way as to influence and nudge subsequent evolution toward
> objectives.
>
> "5. Is ID a science-stopper?"
>
> The hypothesis of life's design is not a "science-stopper" if you consider
> that it has allowed me to uncover several aspects of biotic reality that I
> previously did not know.
>
> -Mike
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> To: "AmericanScientificAffiliation" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 10:26 AM
> Subject: RE: [asa] Atheist finds God thru Behe's books....
>
>
>>I saw the video. Some of my comments:
>>
>> 1. The whole main thrust of the interview is wonder and awe at mystery.
>> Basically, it is "we don't know how Darwinian evolution did it or could
>> do
>> it, therefore it must be intelligently designed (by God)." Why not
>> instead seek out more evolutionary mechanisms? That isn't a possibility
>> for Behe- it is either Darwinian evolution (random mutation and natural
>> selection) or God, apparently. Basically it is Paley's watchmaker
>> analogy, only people forget that now that pseudogenes demonstrate human
>> evolution from an apelike creature, we know that God did not make humans
>> as humans make a watch.
>>
>> 2. The amazing micromachines, DNA, proteins, etc. Yes it is awesome and
>> amazing. But so is the human body, and we thought that was also made
>> directly by God (not evolution) before the scientific evidence
>> demonstrated it (evolution, by pseudogene evidence) beyond a reasonable
>> doubt.
>>
>> 3. If design is guided, then be prepared to explain mass extinctions and
>> evolutionary dead-ends. Unless one believes in a recent worldwide flood
>> and recent Earth, why else did God make so many wonderful creatures long
>> before man even came on the scene to enjoy/observe them?
>>
>> 3. Behe's whole objection seems to be against "Darwinian" mechanisms.
>>
>> 4. Behe considers intelligent design as a hypothesis. I never saw this
>> hypothesis explained anywhere, but I admit I also haven't read his books.
>> From what I hear about the ID guys, it is basically "Darwinian evolution
>> can't explain it, therefore the only other possibility is intelligent
>> design (God)." (If someone is an ID supporter and can coherently state
>> the hypothesis CONCISELY, PLEASE do.)
>>
>> 5. Is ID a science-stopper? Behe says no, it is like saying Einstein
>> finding the speed of light as the maximum speed for anything is a science
>> stopper, no need to look further for something faster. But Einstein's
>> ideas are based on what can be measured, calculated, etc.; Behe's are
>> based on "we don't know how, therefore ID."
>>
>> Behe's said his further research will be more about finding 'the edge of
>> evolution,' what things exist and can't be explained by successive
>> changes
>> of evolution (finch beaks are easy to explain with Darwinian evolution,
>> skunks shooting a bad odor are difficult to impossible).
>>
>> Summary: My main message to Behe would be: Instead of saying Darwinian
>> Evolution can't explain it, instead look for more evolutionary
>> mechanisms.
>> Forget your obsession with Darwin!!!
>>
>> ...Bernie
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
>> Behalf Of John Walley
>> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 7:03 PM
>> To: AmericanScientificAffiliation
>> Subject: [asa] Atheist finds God thru Behe's books....
>>
>> This video is amazing. http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/22075
>>
>>
>> John McWhorter is a self avowed atheist and he even admits that he
>> doesn't
>> want to believe in God and here in this interview he reveals his innate
>> childlike faith and affirms the obvious truth of the overwhelming
>> evidence
>> of design in nature and the need for some intelligence or guidance to be
>> behind the mechanism of evolution. Also to make it more interesting, the
>> atheist establishment blew a gasket over this interview and demanded that
>> the interview be removed which it was, but then it was reposted. See the
>> details on this controversy at
>> http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/octoberweb-only/140-42.0.html?start=1.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.5/2419 - Release Date: 10/07/09
> 05:18:00
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.5/2419 - Release Date: 10/07/09
05:18:00
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Oct 15 11:41:22 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Oct 15 2009 - 11:41:22 EDT