RE: What my tiny little brain was thinking... [was Re: [asa] Two Amino Acid Difference in Gene May Explain Human Speech]

I wished we considered the objects of our studies in terms of different subject matters and not be overly entangled with the differing metaphysical/philosophical views. Remember we must begin with the study of the real thing and afterwards, if necessary, bring in the metaphysics that our approach of knowing implies. For instance, we may consider the study the physical aspect of entities in Nature. That ought to be simpler than studying, say, studying human beings in their whole complexity.
Moorad

________________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Murray Hogg [muzhogg@netspace.net.au]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 5:40 PM
To: ASA
Subject: Re: What my tiny little brain was thinking... [was Re: [asa] Two Amino Acid Difference in Gene May Explain Human Speech]

Hi Bernie,

Yes, you're quite right to identify naturalism as the bone of contention.

And I think your comments below help me to more adequately phrase my difficulty.

There seems to me that if anything is vague in this discussion it is precisely the definition of "naturalism" and what it implies.

So if we recognize that a TE thinks of "nature" (and hence "naturalism") in a quite different way than, say, Richard Dawkins, then we may be on our way to understanding the root of the problem.

The simple reality is that the TE makes one claim which Dawkins will vehemently deny; namely, that if one takes a "natural" phenomenon, and "drills down" far enough, then one will eventually hit divine bedrock (hence the "T" in "TE"). So, to put it quite crassly, the TE thinks that if one takes ANY claim about natural phenomena and reduces that claim to its bare metaphysical essentials it will prove to be the very claim that TE's supposedly DON'T make, i.e. "God did it."

So in this respect TE's aren't claiming that "God did it" is a BAD explanation - only that it's not the entire story.

But what if ID'ers?

Well, it seems to me that it is perhaps a little unfair to accuse them of wanting to leave the door ajar for the introduction of the divine foot. They rather seem, to me at least, to be pointing out that any claim to the effect that natural phenomena can be comprehensively explained by a naturalism of Dawkins' sort is both metaphysically questionable and scientifically premature.

To give a specific instance; We can take Cameron Whybrow's repeated appeal to the avian lung and put these questions (together with my answers - which may simply betray a degree of ignorance - thus proving that my mental incapacity is, indeed, the problem...);

1) Does Cameron claim that the avian lung MUST be a consequence of direct divine action ('de novo' creation)? - NO
2) Is he wrong to claim that nobody in mainstream biology has an adequate evolutionary account of this organ? - NO
3) Are we entitled, given our current ignorance, to assert with confidence the form such an account must must take? - NO
4) If such an account does exclude direct divine action, will TE's thereby reject any and all divine involvement? - NO

Putting those together I think I see that the problem is this; the notion of "naturalism" is not, in fact, precisely so well defined as we might like. One can affirm both "naturalism" and "theism" and put these together in quite different ways. And I think this is what both ID and TE people are struggling to do. On the one side, ID folk want to point out the dangers/weaknesses of naturalism without uncritical adoption of a theism where "god did it" is the sole answer to every problem. On the other side, TE folk want to point out the strengths/advantages of naturalism without rejecting a theism where "god did it" is a possible answer to any problem. This is more a difference in emphasis than a difference in metaphysical assumptions or even scientific methodology.

So, I do think you're right to point to "naturalism" as the bone of contention, but even so I think there's more significant agreements than differences. I don't doubt that some, at least, will see this as nothing more than affirmation that there's Kangaroos loose in the top paddock once again...

Blessings,
Murray

Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> Murray said:
> "It is because BOTH ID and TE make some very clear affirmations which show broad agreement in respects of a number of metaphysical, theological, and scientific claims that I cannot see where the point of disagreement now lies."
>
> The whole 'bone of contention' is over naturalism. All ID'ers say a naturalist evolution couldn't do the job, because they are afraid if it could, then "God is out of a job" and God is then superfluous. TE's disagree, saying that evolution can be natural, with God doing the design upfront, or guiding it in such a way that His guidance can't be detected by science.
>
> When ID'ers object to "Darwinian evolution" what they mean is an evolution that is purely natural (no supernatural component to it, by way of 'de novo' creations). ID'ers think God has to work 'de novo' somewhere to make it His creation.
>
> It is confusing because as time goes on, the ID'ers are recognizing more and more the facts that evolution actually happened... and they are trying to deal with that while rejecting naturalism.
>
> To be crystal clear, ID'ers should say they reject a naturalistic evolution. But that is hard to defend. Instead, they say they object to "Darwinian evolution" to muddy the waters and throw in some red herrings, such as saying "Darwin couldn't have known X and Y and Z." Sometimes they get a little bolder and object to "Neo-darwinistic evolution" (to bring it up to date). But to be clear and honest, they should just say what they mean: they are opposed to a "purely naturalistic" evolution.
>
> Just my thoughts.
>
> Sure- there is much in common, but the difference is ID'ers think 'de novo' creations are necessary to prove the existence of a Creator. How many would leave the ID camp if they felt secure that there was a way to theologically accept the idea of God creating with a purely naturalistic evolution?
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Murray Hogg
> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 12:19 PM
> To: ASA
> Subject: Re: What my tiny little brain was thinking... [was Re: [asa] Two Amino Acid Difference in Gene May Explain Human Speech]
>
> Hi Bernie,
>
> Thanks for the response which seeks to be helpful but does not quite scratch where I'm itching.
>
> I suspect that you think my problem is that I don't understand what ID theorists and TE's are saying - hence your helpful remarks on the content of each. But let me assure you that this is not my problem. I quite understand the claims being made by various individuals in the discussion.
>
> Lest the strength of that claim be misunderstood. Let me strengthen it; I am saying that I do not find Cameron Whybrow "vague and confusing" in the least - ditto for Greg Arago, Mike Gene, William Dembski, Michael Behe, and etc. And as no such claim has been made against TE, you can take it that I don't find TE's "vague and confused" either.
>
> So, no, I'm not labouring under a cloud of apprehension in respects of what ID or TE are actually claiming.
>
> Indeed, I would go so far as to say that it is precisely because I find neither ID nor TE to be "vague and confused" that my problem arises. It is because BOTH ID and TE make some very clear affirmations which show broad agreement in respects of a number of metaphysical, theological, and scientific claims that I cannot see where the point of disagreement now lies.
>
> Blessings,
> Murray
>
>
> Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>> Murray said:
>> "So what, precisely, is the debate about? Frankly, I no longer see it. It makes no sense to me whatever."
>>
>> That is because ID is vague and confusing.
>>
>> The debate is this:
>>
>> Corner 1: TE: Evolution happened, and it happened naturally. God could have directed it, imperceptible to human understanding. Or it could have unrolled naturally from God's upfront design.
>>
>> Corner 2: ID: Evolution couldn't have happened naturally, and God did some 'de novo' work in there somewhere. Where? That is the point of Behe's book "The edge of evolution." These people think that if evolution happened naturally, then atheists win and God is out of a job. Their term for "natural evolution" is "Darwinian evolution."
>>
>> ...Bernie
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Murray Hogg
>> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 5:53 PM
>> To: ASA
>> Subject: What my tiny little brain was thinking... [was Re: [asa] Two Amino Acid Difference in Gene May Explain Human Speech]
>>
>> Hi Schwarzwald,
>>
>> No, I wasn't directing the remark at yourself - and I'm not sure I can flesh it out because it really is a declaration that I can no longer get my head around the various claims and counter claims being made.
>>
>> I will say that it is unfortunate that my response to your post reads like a partisan remark, so mea culpa for THAT little misfire.
>>
>> Other than that let me offer a personal opinion from which others may reasonably dissent; in my personal opinion there is neither a scientific nor a theological issue that requires resolution here - no credible person (ID theorists included) denies that evolution happened, all Christians believe that God was in some way or other involved, and no TE is AFAIK arguing that humans are just an incredible cosmic fluke.
>>
>> So what, precisely, is the debate about? Frankly, I no longer see it. It makes no sense to me whatever.
>>
>> Blessings,
>> Murray
>>
>> Schwarzwald wrote:
>>> Murray,
>>>
>>> Now, hold on. I've had a lot of praise for TEs such as Denton and Conway
>>> Morris. When (in a recent thread) it was suggested that TEs uncritically
>>> accept "Darwinian evolution", I immediately pointed out how this is not
>>> true, and cited a battery of quotes from a Templeton Foundation Q&A to
>>> back that up. Dembski has said that Ken Miller's thoughts on God's
>>> involvement in the world (working at the quantum level) counts as an ID
>>> proposal, and even Ben Wiker (a pretty outspoken ID proponent) heaped
>>> praise on Conway Morris and Denton for their writings on evolution.
>>>
>>> I somehow suspect you weren't directing that comment at myself, but if
>>> you're willing, I'd like you to flesh out what you do mean. I will say
>>> that I myself have criticized the IDM, insofar as they seem to send out
>>> mixed signals about "evolution" (and a lot of that is due to confusion
>>> between "Darwinian evolution" which is loaded with bad metaphysics, and
>>> just plain "evolution" which is another question altogether.)
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au
>>> <mailto:muzhogg@netspace.net.au>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Schwarzwald wrote:
>>>
>>> Rich,
>>>
>>> ID is not committed to opposition to evolution. Dembski has said
>>> this, Behe has said this
>>>
>>>
>>> Theistic Evolutionists have said this...
>>>
>>> But, of course, Dembski and Behe are right, whereas TE's are wrong...
>>>
>>> It is, for my tiny little brain, all very confusing...
>>>
>>> Blessings,
>>> Murray
>>>
>>> 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 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.
>
>
> 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 Fri Nov 13 20:57:23 2009