Re: [asa] ID question?

Therewith assuming that history & science are disjoint. How long do we have
to keep on with this sort of thing?

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
To: "dfsiemensjr" <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>; <john_walley@yahoo.com>
Cc: <schwarzwald@gmail.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 6:46 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] ID question?

>A simple way to state your findings is that evolution has to do a lot more
>with history than with science—something many of us have been saying for a
>long time.
> Moorad
> ________________________________
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of
> dfsiemensjr [dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 5:26 PM
> To: john_walley@yahoo.com
> Cc: schwarzwald@gmail.com; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] ID question?
>
> Imagine that four guys sit down at a table with a pack of cards. One picks
> the pack up and begins to deal them. At the fifth round, one of the guys
> says, "There's something fishy. Every card I've gotten is a heart." One of
> the others says, "Yeah, all I've gotten is clubs." The third chap says,
> "Mine are spades." The dealer picks up his cards and reports, "I have
> nothing but diamonds." It seems obvious that somebody gimmicked the deck.
> But can the guys at the table determine whether it was deliberate or just
> an unusual outcome of an honest deal? It seems to me that they cannot
> decide without tracing the deck back and determining the bona fides of
> everyone who had access to the deck. Just observing the outcome won't do
> it, and perhaps all the information they can gather does not lead to a
> definitive conclusion.
>
> Looks to me as though our observations of a sequence of evolutionary
> events, as closely as we can now determine them, does not tell us whether
> the changes were determined by intelligent forces from without or internal
> natural changes. The changes, so far as empirical observations can
> determine the source, are equally compatible with direct divine
> intervention, constant divine supervision, and a series of purely natural
> events. One has to call in extra-empirical assumptions to bolster whatever
> claim one makes. All the empirical can tell is is the nature of the
> natural changes, whether an insertion or deletion occurred, etc. ID
> insists that they know it was intervention, at least some times.
> Dave (ASA)
>
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:51:04 -0700 (PDT) John Walley
> <john_walley@yahoo.com<mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com>> writes:
> This is the impasse between ID and TE. To the extent that this is in
> error, TE's tend to err on the side of upholding the integrity of science.
> It appears to me that ID tends to err on the side of upholding a
> philosophical or theological ideal. I don't disagree with that ideal but
> as I have said before I don't believe it is scientific so I don't see how
> we can make such an issue out of a subjective belief. Further, I don't
> think there is any conflict between these two positions so I reject the
> positioning of them as being mutually exclusive as Behe does here.
>
> His personal beliefs aside, Darwin was at least partially right in the
> fact that randomness does contribute to evolution. While it may not
> explain all of evolution you have to at least concede that much to be
> allowed to sit at the table of science and to have your views taken
> seriously. And Eugenie Scott and NCSE serve a valid purpose in policing
> this. Behe and ID need to at least acknowledge this much about Darwinian
> evolution to ever regain the public trust that they are not just
> theocratic science deniers.
>
> John
>
> ________________________________
> From: Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Fri, October 16, 2009 11:24:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] ID question?
>
> Heya John,
>
> Personally, I'm coming to Behe's defense because the claim that Behe is
> 'anti-evolution' is simply unfounded. It seems like some people are
> sensitive on this topic to the point where any criticism of evolution -
> even if it's specified as Darwinian evolution, even if it's based on
> interpretations of data and research, even if it's admitted these are
> (strong) inferences rather than logical proofs - must be balanced out, in
> the next breath, by a public declaration of faith in at least some kind of
> evolution. Otherwise, suspicions start to mount. That, I think, is an
> exaggerated response.
>
> In other words, I just don't share your impression. I also don't share
> what I take to be this feeling that it's very, very important for Behe to
> balance out his criticisms of darwinian evolution by praising evolution in
> the broad sense. Then again, I think that this obsession with evolution
> (by many, spanning various views and faiths) needs to come to an end
> anyway.
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 8:45 PM, John Walley
> <john_walley@yahoo.com<mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com>> wrote:
> This is exactly right. Behe does make claims against Darwinian evolution.
> I asked the same question before, is there another form of evolution that
> Behe is more comfortable with? If so, he didn't mention it in the video
> that I recall.
>
> I know he has spoken and written other things in other places about
> evolution but in this video he does come across as being against
> evolution. Its not like it was heavily edited either and made to look a
> certain way nor was he responding to a strict set of questions. He could
> have said anything he wanted and made any point he wanted and left any
> impression he wanted but this is what he chose. Why is everyone then
> apologizing for Behe and saying this is a mischaracterization of him?
>
> John
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "Dehler, Bernie"
> <bernie.dehler@intel.com<mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>>
> To: asa <asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>>
> Sent: Fri, October 16, 2009 10:06:11 AM
> Subject: RE: [asa] ID question?
>
> Hi Cameron-
>
> " Please find me one statement, anywhere in Behe's work, where he says
> that he is "against evolution", or else do the honourable thing and
> publically
> withdraw your comments."
>
> If you watch the video- he said repeatedly that "Darwinian evolution"
> couldn't do such and such. What other kind of evolution is there? Is he
> saying there's another kind of evolution that he accepts? If so, what does
> he call it?
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>] On
> Behalf Of Cameron Wybrow
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 10:08 AM
> To: asa
> Subject: Re: [asa] ID question?
>
> Bernie:
>
> Your remarks about Behe are incorrect. They are not only unsupported by
> any
> references to his works; they show an almost complete misunderstanding of
> his position. It is not Behe who is in a "muddle".
>
> Such a high degree of misunderstanding suggests a lack of familiarity with
> Behe's writing. And this reminds me that you still have not answered my
> earlier question: which books and essays of Behe have you read entirely
> through?
>
> Please find me one statement, anywhere in Behe's work, where he says that
> he
> is "against evolution", or else do the honourable thing and publically
> withdraw your comments.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dehler, Bernie"
> <bernie.dehler@intel.com<mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>>
> To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>>
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:39 AM
> Subject: RE: [asa] ID question?
>
>
>> Hi Bill- you apparently see the ID debate as "guided vs. unguided
>> evolution" but I see it as "evolution vs. special creation." ('Special
>> creation' being creation by fiat.)
>>
>> This is what I think I'm starting to see in the current origin's debate
>> culture: Because evolution has been proven by pseudogenes, people want
>> to
>> shift the argument from "did evolution happen" to now "is evolution
>> guided." I think this is the current crisis for OEC's. But I think
>> OEC's
>> reject evolution, so if they want to now accept it, even as 'God-guided,'
>> they still have to leave the camp and come over to TE. The OEC camp will
>> always be there, and it is only for those who reject evolution, guided or
>> not.
>>
>> I think some OEC's are attempting to make a switch from "evolution is
>> false" to "evolution is maybe God-guided" and appeal to Intelligent
>> Design
>> to save face (like a ploy to straddle the fence of accepting both modern
>> science and simultaneously rejecting/accepting evolution).
>>
>> Behe is a perfect example of this muddle, by apparently rejecting
>> evolution (in some aspects) and accepting it for human common descent.
>> Therefore, Behe is neither for or against evolution. Creationists
>> generally like to separate evolution into micro and macro. When Behe
>> says
>> he accepts common descent for humans, that is macro evolution. So here
>> we
>> have Behe accepting micro/macro evolution yet still against evolution for
>> other things. I guess he needs to define another category of evolution,
>> so he can accept micro and macro, but reject this third thing/part of
>> evolution.
>>
>> ...Bernie
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bill Powers [mailto:wjp@swcp.com<mailto:wjp@swcp.com>]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 4:14 PM
>> To: Dehler, Bernie
>> Cc: asa
>> Subject: Re: [asa] ID question?
>>
>> OK. I've got to say something about this.
>>
>> Bernie, you apparently believe something like:
>>
>> Intentional/Design theories fail because they have not been able to
>> demonstrate that unguided evolution could not have done it.
>>
>> This is a rather strange way to do science, and only the kind of game
>> that
>> a bully would employ. Is there any kind of evidence that it could be
>> said
>> "unguided evolution" could not do that?
>>
>> What a more civilized approach would be is that evolutionary mechanisms
>> were clearly defined so that what is likely and what is not might be
>> become clear. This would entail, for example, temporal stochastic
>> equations. Is the abrupt arisal of species a problem for unguided
>> (whatever one means by that) evolution or not? It doesn't seem to me
>> that
>> evolutionary biology is prepared to even address the question
>> intelligently.
>>
>> How can there be honest theory comparison when the theory is so vague?
>>
>> ID can also be required to be more explicit. It needs to describe in
>> detail a story, which is nothing more than evolution offers. The story
>> would describe, for example, what are the minimal capabilities and steps
>> required for a Guide to act.
>>
>> Comparing an explicit evolutionary mechanism and a guided one could be
>> fruitful. For one, the guided story is one that could be possibly
>> employed by human agents. The process of putting it together permits
>> dialog between the two. One supporting a guided mechanism might argue
>> that such and such step was entirely unlikely given available resources.
>> In ths same the unguided advocate might argue that such and such a step
>> might be accomplished without guidance, and here's how.
>>
>> In developing explicit guided mechanisms and paths, perhaps new
>> definitions and understanding of what is guided and what is not will
>> arise. For now it is vague.
>>
>> As far as I can tell there is no good evidence available to distinguish
>> guided from unguided evolution. I don't see why "pseudogenes" are any
>> better off in this regard. They appear to adopt a position that you
>> oppose: an argument form ingnorance. Just because we know of no "reason"
>> that a "pseudogene" would exist does not imply that some "reason" might
>> be
>> later found. So all that can be said is that no "reason" is known YET.
>> Sound familiar? What is more, unless you know God or all putative
>> designers better than I do, I don't see how you (or anyone) can say that
>> "pseudogenes" were not intentional.
>>
>> The argument begins to look like Antony Flew's Invisible Gardener. One
>> might ask what is the difference between and invisible Gardener and no
>> Gardener at all, or what is the difference between an invisible designer
>> (guided evolution) and no designer at all (unguided evolution). But I
>> take from Flew's argument something different from what he intended. All
>> his argument suggests to me is that given the evidence provided I have no
>> reason to prefer a Gardener or none at all.
>>
>> Frankly, I think, if one must proceed along these lines, that the
>> evidence
>> better supports a guided universe. The only argument offered in Flew's
>> case to prefer no Gardener at all is Occam's Razor. But I take this to
>> be
>> an epistemological criterion, and see no reason for it to bind ontology.
>> Indeed, if it did, it would argue for a Gardener.
>>
>> bill
>>
>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>>
>>> William Paley used the 'watchmaker analogy' to demonstrate the idea of
>>> intelligent design. We can just tell, by looking at nature, that things
>>> are obviously designed by God by fiat, such as man, because of their
>>> complexity.
>>>
>>> Darwin creates a stir with an alternate hypothesis of man's creation via
>>> biological evolution instead. It is a competing hypothesis. Evolution
>>> has now won, for explaining the biological creation of man, because of
>>> DNA evidence like pseudogenes.
>>>
>>> So my question: Isn't Behe's 'moustrap' irreducible complexity the same
>>> EXACT situation? It is basically saying since we don't know how it could
>>> have evolved, therefore it was intelligently designed (by God or
>>> aliens).
>>> The only difference is that Behe goes into great detail trying to
>>> explain
>>> how it can't be done by known "Darwinistic evolutionist" mechanisms, but
>>> Paley could have (and maybe did?) done the same thing (explaining
>>> why/how
>>> known science of his day could not explain evolution for humans).
>>>
>>> I would like to know what is so different about Behe, compared to Paley.
>>> Paley has a 'complexity' argument with the watch, and Behe introduces
>>> irreducible complexity, but both are proposing ID because known science
>>> can't explain it... yet.
>>>
>>> It is interesting to me that Paley's argument for the biological
>>> creation
>>> of man is not discarded because it is wrong with the idea of complexity,
>>> but because the evolutionary process has evidence "beyond a reasonable
>>> doubt." So complexity may still be a valid way to detect ID, yet in
>>> this
>>> case, it turned out wrong as science accumulated more facts. It could
>>> be
>>> the same with irreducible complexity. A valid way to detect ID, yet
>>> disproven in the future when more facts become available.
>>>
>>> But what is the evidence to prove irreducible complexity? It seems like
>>> the only evidence is "evolution can't do it or explain it... yet."
>>>
>>> ...Bernie
>>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to
>> majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to
> majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to
> majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to
> majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Best Weight Loss Program - Click
> Here!<http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2142/fc/BLSrjpTFoYbJIGGVvhB4N4pRois01alcOlXrsNLcHdIyNmyDSyDKwlJ1fNW/>
>
>
> 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 Sat Oct 17 19:31:59 2009