quote:

---

ID puts science in a tight strait jacket it is because if ID explains the origin of a mechanism that limits the investigation of what precurser mechanisms may have existed (since ID says they didn't exist).

---

But ID has not set out to limit the investigative nature of science. If a scientist is demotivated by ID, we need to ask why? Is it because, philosophically they were motivated by trying to justify a philosophical materialist's view of the world?

If you would like a better clarification of this matter of motivation, you could try theAccess Research Network Webpage which has a helpful ID FAQ page (and an open discussion forum for those who like debating this sort of stuff with real scientists – which reminds me, we need to get back to the original point of this thread, which was the effect of all this on our theology or Christian practice).

Karl, you said

quote:

---

No! You persist in reading 'random, purposeless...' as a philosophical statement. It is not

---

But you said earlier

quote:

---

As for 'specified design' - well, yes. Of course.

---

As an engineer, I see this as a philosophical oxymoron. Random, purposeless is a philosphical position. To keep it simple, here’s why.

I’ve already defined specification. Some scientists refer to genetic blueprints, others now say they see specified complexity in organisms.

If you believe, Karl, that the universe is specified good and well. If you believe that science is then restricted to random and purposeless, it contradicts the belief that the universe is specified.

Let’s follow a simple example of a house. Once an architect and engineer draw the plans and specify the materials, how does the house get built?

If it is random, material purposeless, the house will build itself from from the mud and straw it finds in the field where the house is to be built, the finished house will be nothing like the specification of the architect and engineer, because it is random and does not follow the specification.

If, however, the house is built to the drawings, blueprints and specifications, the house will display evidence of intelligence and reflect the specifier’s requirements.

As with all analogies, this has it’s weaknesses. I do not want to invoke the idea that there is a builder involved in the development of life (although there is a serious question about where the energy comes from which allows material to organise itself into living organisms), I merely want to illustrate that the process can not be random, material and purposeless if we believe that the information for life was specified. Belief in specification and a random process is an oxymoron.

Neil

quote:

---

I merely want to illustrate that the process can not be random, material and purposeless if we believe that the information for life was specified. Belief in specification and a random process is an oxymoron.

---

But talking in such a way excludes a priori the possibility that God created the universe in such a way that life would naturally evolve. If he did so then by your definition we would have to say something like 'God intended us but did not design us.' Which given traditional ideas of the nature of God's foreknowledge is not necessarily a wrkable distinction.

quote:

---

Belief in specification and a random process is an oxymoron.

---

You said

quote:

---

But talking in such a way excludes a priori the possibility that God created the universe in such a way that life would naturally evolve.

---

Yes, that’s exactly what I meant. I didn’t want to speculate on how matter organised itself into living organisms, nor how long it took, but that the universe and everything in it displays the evidence of specification (everything from the precise constants of physics which allow the universe to exist, through the logic of all matter being the product of chemical reactions between 92 elements, to the carbon dioxide-oxygen cycle, to the functionality of complex organisms – there is evidence of engineering specification).

I'm saying that, in broad terms, Paley was right and Dawkins is wrong. The watch has the appearance of being designed because it was designed.

Put it this way, Dawkins and Paley express two alternative, diametrically opposed views:

• Dawkins states that there are an infinite number of random events in an infinite number of universes and an infinite number of big-bang big-crunch events which after many trillions of attempts, produced the universe and life as we have measured it and observed it using what we call science, (the unified theory of philosophical materialism, random and purposeless) or
  
• Paley states that the universe, as we have measured it and observed it using what we call science was specified correctly, first time (the unified theory of philosophical theism, specified complexity, intelligent design)
  

What you proposed was different to both those positions. Can you explain the logic by which you think

quote:

---

'God intended us but did not design us.'

---

As far as ID is concerned my understanding (from the ARN website Neil mentioned earlier and the Origins website) is that ID stipulates there are a number of things (for example certain bio-chemical pathways) that are irreducibly complex, ie: if you remove any part of the mechanism it ceases to function. ID goes on to say that such mechanisms could not have developed gradually (at which point most scientists disagree, to say you can't go back is very different from not getting there in the first place) and therefore must have been formed by an intelligent designer. I view it as a philosophical position, and a weak one at that. I think I posted this link near the beginning of the thread, but I've given my views on ID on my website, and nothing in this thread has given me reason to re-evaluate those views.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
Glenn ... Can you explain the logic by which you think 'God intended us but did not design us.'? You seem to have excluded specification, in favour of random development, and in so doing you have excluded God.

---

This is just one possible view but it goes like this: Suppose that God wished to create intelligent life and the method God chose to do this was to create a universe that naturally, and spontaneously, by evolutionary means resulted in life and eventually self conscious intelligent life.
In such a case one could say that all God has specified are some basic fundamental laws of nature from which everything unfolds. It could be that there is genuine randomness involved in the process so that say it could have been a reptilian (or other) species that evoloved self consciousness or intelligence rather than a mammalian one. So in this scenario, by only specifying the initial conditions God left it to chance and natural selection to come up with us. Some people might then say that God intended self conscious intelligent life but did not design it. (The reason that I hesitate to affirm that distinction is that traditional views that God is omniscient make it difficult to say that his intention and his design are distinguishable. He would have known what would result in advance.)

So in stating this view I have not excluded specification entirely but yes, chance plays a part. I have not thereby excluded God. However one result of this view would be that it would be impossible to demonstrate the existence of intelligently designed elements in biology.

Your position in contrast would seem to be either that
1) the existence of intelligently designed elements in biology is demonstrable; or
2)that if God exists intelligently designed elements in biology must be demonstrable.

I'm not sure which you hold, but I know of no convincing argument for (2).

Glenn
P.S. Behe's book Darwin's Black Box arrived yesterday and I am now reading it!

[UBB fixed to remove nested quotes]

For your benefit, here's a little example for you to ponder from a philosophical materialist perspective.

Miachel Behe asks the following question of philosophical materialism regarding the development of AMP:

quote:

---

The fact is that no one ever puts real chemical names on any of the mythical letters in the A-B-C-D story. In the textbooks mentioned above, the cartoon explanations are not developed any further, even though the books are used to teach PhD student who could easily follow detailed explanations. It is certainly no trouble to imagine that the primordial soup might have some C floating around which could easily be converted to D; Calvin and Hobbes could imagine that without any difficulty whatsoever. It is, however, much more difficult to believe there was much adenylosuccinate (intermediate XIII) to be converted to AMP. And it is even harder to believe that carboxyaminoimidazole ribotide (intermediate VIII) was sitting around waiting to be converted to 5-aminoimidazole-4-(N-succinylocarboxamide) ribotide (Intermediate IX). It is difficult to believe because, when you put real names on the chemicals, then you have to come up with a real chemical reaction that could make them. No one has done that.

---

And please don't try top tell me that Allan Orr answered that question, because he didn't.

As for QM, I've been following the other thread where this is discussed and am out of my depth. But let me ask you this? Could the laws of QM and thermo-dynamics have been specified?

This might frustrate you and others on the thread, firstly because this is a bit of a moster post (sorry) and secondly because my philosophcial position has shifted in the process of this debate. I have found my philosophical attitude of any observable material phenomena is now neutral. You asked if my position was,

quote:

---

1) (that) the existence of intelligently designed elements in biology is demonstrable; or
2)that if God exists intelligently designed elements in biology must be demonstrable.

---

I have postulated the following position earlier on the thread, and now I am more convinced of the validity of this position. The position is not formed from the philosophical observation of scientific discoveries, like the AMP assembly described by Behe, the position is formed from a perspective of Biblical Theology. I believe that the application of Biblical Theology means that the results of scientific enquiry should not be used as evidence for any philosophical conclusion (atheistic or theistic).

This view, I believe, will also help silence unscientific fundamentalists who insist on YECism. I have already discussed it in person with two YEC Christians in Singapore, who seemed to agree with this position.

The position is this:that the existence or absence of intelligence is not demonstrable from elements in biology, and that this was the intentional position of God.

We need to understand this position from a Biblical Theology of the cross of Christ and of faith in Christ. In Hebrews 11:1&2 the writer states this

quote:

---

'Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for.'

---

In spite of the objectivity of the natural material phenomena observed by science, faith is what philosophical materialist (atheistic) scientists exercise when they postulate a universe without God, random and purposeless. They have not seen what they hope for (a universe without a God). They trust that God is not there by faith.

But back to the letter to the Hebrews, the writer goes on to say

quote:

---

Hebrews 11:3 'By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible'.

---

And so, likewise, scientists holding a philosophical theism (either ID or YECism) see natural material phenomena observed by science in their own philosophical light, and do so by faith.

Out of context, those two quotes seem a very weak argument for my strongly held position, but taken in the context of the letter to the Hebrews, we can see the wisdom of this position.

This is where YECism and Philosophical materialism (naturalism, atheism) come unstuck, and the YECs I mentioned agree.

The letter to the Hebrews was written to a community of Jewish Christians who were losing sight of Jesus and drifting back to Old Covenant Temple worship, Jewish tradition and law. So, the writer was re-establishing Jesus as the fulfillment of Jewish law. The faith mentioned in Hebrews 11:3 is not blind faith or wishful thinking but faith in the resurrected Christ.

quote:

---

Hebrews 13:20 'the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus

---

God's intention is for us to place our faith in Christ and in Christ alone.

Observable material phenomena, whether biological systems, QM or thermo-dynamics are supposed to be a philosophical puzzle we can not solve, from a biblical perspective . YECism, in light of the cross is a distraction from faith in Christ. From a perspective of Biblical Theology, we will never be able to discern or disprove the existence of intelligently designed elements in biology or find demonstrable evidence for God in elements in biology, because God always wanted us to trust in Christ alone.

Taking Galatians 2:15-16 slightly out of context (as it talks about justification by faith and not works) and inserting observation or material phenomena, we see that

quote:

---

"We…know that a man is not justified by observing the law (nor observing material phenomena by scientific enquiry), but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law (nor observing material phenomena by scientific enquiry), because by observing the law no one will be justified.

---

It might not be the most mind blowing conclusion, it might even appear foolish to conclude the philosophical debate over the observable phenomena of nature from the cross, but I believe that the Bible is clear on this matter, that we are to have faith in Christ alone and we are not to have faith in Christ and the observable phenomena of material objects as the result of scientific enquiry.

1 Corinthians 1:17-19

quote:

---

to preach the gospel - not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

---

I'm still interested to know your thoughts on Michael Behe's comment on the development of AMP, but for now, I'll go on to your post.

You clarified the work of science clearly with your definition of Functional non-existence. I think can offer another example, which I referred to earlier in this thread, the mammalian blood coagulation cascade. When mammalian skin is cut, it bleeds but the mammal is prevented from bleeding to death by the blood coagulation cascade. When we observe the healing of a wound, we witness functional non-existence. That is that God is not required in the event of blood coagulation because natural causes do the healing. The same can be said for a broken bone. God does not need to heal it miraculously, because natural causes do the healing.

Now, taking your example of the atom and my example of the mammalian blood coagulation sequence or the broken bone, of course, we can observe, using scientific methods, the functionality of the objects and deduce that they work naturally, without need of supernatural intervention. As far as this, I agree with you.

Now, l need to clarify your last paragraph. When you said,

quote:

---

If that is the case then your formulation of Intelligent Design is inherently unscientific (meaning "outside the realm of science").

---

ID is not science, if science is described as observing the functionality of material objects. ID is a philosophy which states that material objects, in all fields of science, display 'specified complexity' as opposed to 'non-specified random complexity' and that some biological functions display 'irreducible complexity', like the AMP development sequence. This view is philosophical and can not be deduced by scientific measurement, experiment nor any other empirical means. But there again, the philosophical view that the universe and life is the product of a purposeless, random, material process can not be deduced by scientific measurement, experiment nor any other empirical means.

And so I have concluded that, even with the brightest minds of the scientific community being applied to the philosophical question for almost 200 years, that the philosophical question of origin remains out of reach for mankind. From a perspective of Biblical Theology, this is the way God must have ordained it, because biblically, our faith in God is to be established in Christ alone. From a biblical perspective, God wishes the natural world to be silent on the matter of objective faith, because the objectivity for our faith is found in Christ's birth, life, teaching, fulfillment of OT law and prophecy, death, resurrection and ascension.

In a way, you are right to say that

quote:

---

the last time this world view prevailed was the Inquisition vs Galileo

---

But let's drag the argument out of the past and put aside the mistakes of the medieval church, let's look at the governing philosophy of the present day. On which side is the dogmatic fear today? Which cherished philosophical view is dominant today? It is the view that 'science' has proved that God is dead. Philosophical materialism (naturalism) has held dogmatically for the last 100 years to the claim that 'science' shows that everything we see around us it the product of a purposeless, impersonal, random, material process. Anyone who dares question this philosophical statement by attacking 'science' is seen as a heretic, a dissenter and is dealt with severely, chastised and persecuted, not with fire but a lashing of the tongue.

The paradigm shift has started to swing against philosophical materialism and the result will be the dismantling secular humanism and all the systems which support it. If 'science' does not support an atheist philosophy then the morals, ethics and laws of relativism have no basis and should not be taught exclusively in schools nor be practiced exclusively in courts of law or government. The 'culture wars' are about to get interesting.

Neil

[UBB fixed]

I am tempted to conclude that there is no coincidence between your new thread
'picking and choosing scripture - why not - it's scriptural!' and my post regarding a Biblical Theology of the cross in response to your question about demonstrable evidence in science.

Are there any grounds to my suspicion?

I am now half way through Behe's Darwin's Black box and am reading Miller's Finding Darwin's God too plus Mark Ridley's Mendel's Demon. Will let you know my responses shortly. This thread of yours has cost me an arm and a leg in book purchasing.

The rest of your post seems convoluted and self-contradictory. For starters, your definition of science is only partially complete. A more complete definition would be that science is described as observing the functionality of material objects and drawing conclusions from those observations. A very simple, and relatively famous, example involving the previously mentioned Galileo would be his experiments with gravity. Galileo observed that the variously sized and weighted balls he used in his experiments fell at the same rate. The observations are that "these specific balls fall at the same rate when subjected to gravity". The conclusion drawn was "all objects are moved in the same manner by gravity, regardless of weight". The drawing of conclusions, the formulation of the general case from the specific instances, is probably the most critical step in the scientific process.

Which brings us to the contradiction. You stated that

quote:

---

ID is a philosophy which states that material objects, in all fields of science, display 'specified complexity' as opposed to 'non-specified random complexity' and that some biological functions display irreducible complexity', like the AMP development sequence.

---

In other words, you are observing "material objects" ("in all fields of science", no less!) and then drawing conclusions. This means your definition of ID falls withing the purview of science, and should then be subjected to examination, experimentation, and confirmation or disproof. But then in the very next sentence you state that

quote:

---

This view is philosophical and can not be deduced by scientific measurement, experiment nor any other empirical means.

---

Given your assertion that this philosophy cannot apparently be deduced or in any way measured materially, I have to wonder how this conclusion, which seens to deal exclusively with material phenomena, was reached. Your argument in favor of it, minus the material arguments you admit are irrelevant and unconvincing, seems to amount to "it must be true because I believe it".

Okay, let's take your wider definition of science, which is

quote:

---

science is described as observing the functionality of material objects and drawing conclusions from those observations

---

Your example of Galileo's gravity acting on objects, which was famously demonstrated with a hammer and feather on the moon, is a good example of your continued confusion between material scientific conclusions and philosophical scientific conclusions.

So let's use this example to separate science from philosophy.

Galileo concluded that all objects move in the same manner by gravity, regardless of weight. That is a scientific conclusion.

Galileo is not only famous for his scientific experiments and scientific conclusions. When Galileo declared the Copernican doctrine as scientific truth (which Copernicus had already established), he was found guilty of blasphemy by a mediaeval church which held a theologised version of the unscientific Ptolemaic theory of the universe as a core doctrine.

Galileo's confirmation that Copernicus was right is a scientific conclusion, and the church was wrong to hold dogmatically to an earlier and erroneous scientific theory.

In 1898 Andrew Dickson White, who was Professor of History at Cornell University wrote a two volume tome called 'A History of the warfare between science and theology in Christendom' in his concluding chapter he writes:

quote:

---

If, then, modern science in general has acted powerfully to dissolve away the theories and dogmas of the older theologic interpretation, it has also been active in a reconstruction and recrystallization of truth; and very powerful in this reconstruction have been the evolution doctrines which have grown out of the thought and work of men like Darwin and Spencer.

---

And that is what we have all, a century later, come to take as the truth, that science has disproved theology. But it has not. It has disproved 'theologic interpretation' of erroneous scientific theories.

Concluding that gravity effects all objects in the same manner and that the world spins around the sun says nothing about God. God could have specified gravity and planetary motion (and QM and the laws of thermodynamics). However, most people today disregard God, the Bible, Christ and His Church because they think that the doctrine and theology of Christendom had something to say about gravity of the rotation of the earth (loosely seen as the Genesis account of creation) and because it was wrong everything in the Bible must be wrong. But, we need to make the distinction between what the church believed and what the Bible said. The unscientific Ptolemaic theory of the universe is not in the Bible even though some theologians, even Luther, found scriptural reasons to believe this 'scientific' conclusion. This is bad theology, as well as bad science.

As I said near the start of this thread, the Genesis account of creation answers the who made it and why was it made questions, not the when was it made and how does it work.

Just as it was wrong for the church to adopt the Ptolemaic theory as scriptural, it is wrong for scripture to be applied to any scientific theories, because, as I said, we are all to trust in Christ alone and not Christ and observations of material objects. YECism, ID and philosophical materialism fall down as belief or faith systems on this simple Biblical truth.

But is it equally wrong to think that the discoveries of the action of gravity and the fact that the sun moves around the sun, or any other observations of science disprove God. This muddled thinking dominates western culture today, because no distinction is made between your example of 'scientific conclusion' and 'philosophical conclusion derived from a scientific conclusion'. There is no distinction made because one word is used to describe both kinds of conclusion. That word is 'science'.

Many thanks Alan…I'll try to check the background to my references in the future.

Regardless of Dickson White's philosophical bias or his biased historical account, the point remains that 'scientific conclusions' must be categorised as either functional or philosophical conclusions.

Crœsos used a functional conclusion to challenge a philosophical conclusion, but the two conclusions are mutually exclusive.

Would you agree?

Crœsos uses Galileos' experiment with dropping different mass spheres to demonstrate the way science works, at no point is the conclusion ("all objects are moved in the same manner by gravity, regardless of weight") philosophical. Except, science has, naturally, a philosophical basis - that the universe behaves in an orderly, predictable and comprehensible manner; one consequence of which is that it is reasonable to say that on the basis of a set of observations predictions about the behaviour of the physical universe can be made whether or not specific measurements are made.

Where ID and YEC differ from science is that underlying philosophical underpinning; both assume there may have been discontinuities in the orderly and predictable nature of the universe when God acted outside those bounds in a miraculous way, and that it is reasonable to assume that "science" will be able to observe the consequencies of such intervention. (I happen to believe that God has performed miraculous acts, but I don't expect there to be scientifically observable consequencies of such miracles)

I agree that reading "science" from Scripture is bad theology. I agree with your last 2 sentences too, with one amendment, I would say "There is no distinction made because one word is mistakenly used to describe both kinds of conclusion. That word is 'science'." That mistake is made by two different groups of people, the general public who generally don't recognise the distinction and a small group of scientific atheists who recognising the confusion in the thinking of the general public cynically use that to their own ends (ie: "science disproves God").

I gather from what you said

quote:

---

Where ID and YEC differ from science is that underlying philosophical underpinning; both assume there may have been discontinuities in the orderly and predictable nature of the universe when God acted outside those bounds in a miraculous way, and that it is reasonable to assume that "science" will be able to observe the consequencies of such intervention.

---

When you use the word science, it has the dual meaning we discussed. You have used it in the sense of empirical research into material function. I have tried to identify that role of science as a stand-alone activity.

That then leaves us with the other activity of philosophical conclusions which are drawn from science.

I, like you, believe that God has performed miraculously, the greatest miracle being Christ’s resurrection. But I do not wish to confuse occasional miracles with the question of origin.

The ID philosophy given on the Access Research Network Webpage states this quite clearly.

quote:

---

From an ID perspective, the natural vs. supernatural distinction is irrelevant. The real contrast is not between natural laws and miracles, but between undirected natural causes and intelligent ones.

---

The big picture difference between philosophical conclusions drawn for material conclusions is that ‘science’ in it’s philosophical sense, says that there is no intelligence behind the universe, whereas ID says that there is intelligence.

In short, ID says:

 Intelligent causes exist.
 These causes can be empirically detected (by looking for specified complexity).

And philosophical materialism says:

 No intelligent causes exist, that everything is random and purposeless.
 That material causes can be implied because God is beyond the knowledge of materialism.

Now, this has huge implications for post modernism, because modernism starts with the latter philosophical conclusion and permits subjective religious experience as a product of materialism (ie that God is a product of human imagination).

Challenging the philosophical materialist conclusions of science, not the scientific conclusions themselves, is to challenge the very foundation of post modernism and western culture.

Going back to the blood coagulation cascade, ID does not challenge the scientific conclusion, the functionality is plain for all to see. ID challenges the philosophical conclusion that blood coagulation is the product of non-intelligent causes. ID does this by postulating that intelligent causes produced the design and specification, the blueprints and process diagrams.

How material was assembled to fit this specification does not end with the answer, ‘it was a miracle’, it ends with the answer ‘the materials were always going to assemble this way, because that is the way they were designed’.

This theory does not postulate 'discontinuities in the orderly and predictable nature of the universe' (miracles) rather that the universe is orderly and predictable in nature because it comes under the unified theory of specification, design.

quote:

---

This theory does not postulate 'discontinuities in the orderly and predictable nature of the universe' (miracles) rather that the universe is orderly and predictable in nature because it comes under the unified theory of specification, design.

---

Have you ever come across Polkinhornes' concept of free process? He postulates that God gave the physical universe the freedom to develop through God given process however it "wishes" (not that the universe has a consciousness to wish anything) while still being under the sovereign will of God. It is a variation on the free will/sovereignty of God dialectic.

Neil - You seem to want to have it both ways.

quote:

---

• Intelligent causes exist.
• These causes can be empirically detected (by looking for specified complexity).

---

It's your second postulate that gets you into trouble. By stating that "these causes can be empirically detected", you have placed your theory of Intelligent Design within the realm of science, not philosophy. As a parallel example, I could state that:

• Electrons exist.
• Electrons can be empirically detected.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
The idea that the Universe behaves in an orderly, predictable, and comprehensible manner has been borne out repeatedly by our experience and experiments ..... Given the overwhelming success of inquiries founded on this premise, I expect you to come up with something truly spectacular to refute it.

---

Is this making sense?

We are caught in the ‘scientific’ word puzzle again, sorry for causing you frustration, please continue to bear with me as we work this one through, and thank you for your patience.

I do not see my statement

quote:

---

These causes can be empirically detected

---

The important word is not empirical, but detected.

Taking your electron example.

• electrons exist – this is a scientific conclusion
  
• electrons can be empirically detected – this is also a scientific conclusion
  
• electrons display behaviour consistent with intelligent design – this can be detected from the empirical evidence – this is a philosophical conclusion
  
• electrons display behaviour consistent with a random, purposeless, material process of an uncreated universe – this can be detected from the empirical evidence - this is an alternative philosophical conclusion
  

I find it helpful to remember in this example that it is people who do the detecting, scientists are material detectives. It is their individual and corporate philosophy through which they look at the empirical conclusions and draw their own philosophical conclusions.

You have managed to avoid the point I am trying to make by turning the argument against ID for implying that intelligent causes can be 'empirically detected' and you say that this claim is unscientific.

As you are aware, I am more interested in attacking the philosophical legitimacy of 'science', for the reasons I explained from a Biblical Theology of the Cross of Christ. So, please allow me to ask you this question. You said

quote:

---

Most philosophies are said to be "deduced", not "detected". Of course, "deduced" is probably too strong a word to use in this instance, since most deductions, in the typical sense of the word, are the result of reasoning and evidence which lends a comfortable degree of certitude that the conclusion reached is the correct one.

---

I say that from a perspective of sound Biblical Theology and well informed scientific reason, it is legitimate to adopt the philosophy that the universe is indeed the product of intelligence.

Accepting your interpretation of the words 'empirical' and 'detected' (which I see as a semantic difference and which does not detract from my point - that 'science' can make no legitimate philosophical claims), can you tell me, using your definitions of these words, on what basis science can legitimately make the philosophical claim that the universe just is…that there is no intelligence behind the orderliness of creation?

1) First up, this quote:

"Yes, that’s exactly what I meant. I didn’t want to speculate on how matter organised itself into living organisms, nor how long it took, but that the universe and everything in it displays the evidence of specification (everything from the precise constants of physics which allow the universe to exist, through the logic of all matter being the product of chemical reactions between 92 elements, to the carbon dioxide-oxygen cycle, to the functionality of complex organisms – there is evidence of engineering specification)."

Surely only points to a way of percieving the world, i.e. one sees the specification where it may or may not be there because of one's own pre-existent expectations and paradigms, taken to its silly extreme, rather like the incidences of Jesus' face appearing on a tortilla etc.

2) Lots of suggestions that philosophy and science are mutually exclusive. I was always under the impression that philosophy
was the original and purest form of science.

3) The assumption that 'Darwinism' has led to a loss in belief which in turn has lead to a decline in Christianity implies very much that the belief was there in the first place even when 'active' Christian numbers were much bigger and I would dispute that on a variety of historical grounds, such as a) dropping Christian activity prior to Darwin and b) a steady decline in the 20th century rather than a preciptous drop.

4) There was a mention of evolution theorists being 'split' into gradualists and 'crisi' types. I see no reason for the two schools to be mutually exclusive as clearly they are not.

5) The idea that God can be proved OR disproved by scientific method is patently silly, as He is outside the created order. This goes for both the more fundamentalist Christians and the more fundamentalist scientists.

6) Young Earthers. Oh dear. I didn't realise quite how silly things are getting over in Fundamentalist land.

First it appears that the Creationist method is to 'disprove' evolution. Even if this were possible, the question would be- and? Disproving the 'evolutionist' account obviously does not prove the 'creationist' one. We are, however, from all evidence as far away as it is possible to be from Creationists offering any worthwile evidence so no worries there.

But more importantly, surely, seeking to 'prove' the scientific validity of the Genesis account is missing the point big time, in the same way as 'biblical archaeology' or all those ingenious arguments designed to show how, for example, the plagues could have occurred through volcanoes etc. God does not need proof. If the entire Old Testament were shown to be non-historical and scientifically impossible it would make no difference.

Your contribution is welcome at any time, and it is refreshing to have a new voice in this discussion.

I would like to pick up on a few things you said.

In broad terms, this thread is not about creationism. It is not about justifying the Genesis 1-2 account of creation (I believe that the world is 4.6 billion years old, because science has observed it). Primarily, the thread is about the effect of a shifting philosophy of the observed world on theology, but at present we are still debating whether that philosophical shift is taking place.

To help me clarify this, you said:

quote:

---

Surely [ID] only points to a way of perceiving the world, i.e. one sees the specification where it may or may not be there because of one's own pre-existent expectations and paradigms

---

Yes, indeed. In fact every since humans started investigating the world around them (detailed astronomical observation was recorded by ancient Babylonians and the ancient Greeks had theories on the structure of matter) we have been matching those observations to our pre-existent expectations and philosophical paradigms.

This was the mistake of the medieval Church, it adopted erroneous observations of the world as doctrine. It is also, surprisingly, true of YECism, which does the process in reverse by adopting erroneous observations of the world (I am reading ‘The Early Earth’ by John C Whitcomb which is scientific tish-and-pish) because of their prior commitment to a literal reading of Scripture.

From a Christian perspective, one of a Biblical Theology of Salvation by Christ alone, I have pointed out that Christians do well do avoid adopting a strong belief of the how and when questions regarding God’s created the world.

But at present on this thread, my issue is to help atheists and agnostics see that their observations of the world around them can not be detected in science but are deduced from their own pre-existent expectations and paradigms.

The only logical answer Crœsos can give to my question is that is it a pre-existent expectation and naturalistic paradigm which states that the world just is…that it is not the product of intelligence but that the universe just exists because it just exists…and that the empirical conclusions of science are interpreted under this paradigm (I know, because I lived under this paradigm until 1993)

Francis Bacon was instrumental in freeing science from medieval superstition and philosophy, but science is now bound by an equally dogmatic philosophy which emerged at the Enlightenment and reached its natural conclusion when Neitzche pronounced that ‘God is dead’ towards the end of the nineteenth century.

So, science is never independent of philosophical paradigms, humans will always try to understand the world in light of their own pre-existent expectations and paradigms. I am speculating that we are now moving from post-modernism to a new paradigm. The modernism or philosophical naturalism of the mid-twentieth century gave way to post-modernism when people began to hunger for spirituality. That spirituality has left people hungering for something more than a subjective experience of religion, as the paradigm shifts, people are beginning to view the world around them as designed. If empirical conclusions support a ‘design’ philosophy then the paradigm shift will gain momentum.

The ID movement says that empirical conclusions can support philosophical conclusions of design.

I am excited by this potential paradigm shift, because the philosophical landscape will be much different in ten years time and we don’t know what it will look like yet. I still hope we can discuss, on this thread, the potential outcome for theology.

Neil - I never said that your claims of empirically detectable intelligent design were "unscientific". On the contrary, I have repeatedly pointed out that any claims of an empirical nature fall within the realm of scientific inquiry. What I have objected to is your statement that this is a philosophical position not subject to material verification, which would make your position unscientific. These are contradictory positions and cannot BOTH be correct. And though your claim of intelligent design is indeed of a scientific nature, your repeated failure to posit a possible test of this hypothesis leads to the conclusion that you don't have the data to back up your assertion. Perhaps you can clear this up once and for all. Is Intelligent Design verifiable through scientific measurement?

Many early scientists studied such things as astrology and alchemy; however they were eventually shown to not be as ordered as astronomy and chemistry, and were relegated first to pseudo-science and later superstition on the basis that they didn't work.

I would say again, science works because the universe is ordered. It is also very likely that the reason modern science developed in Christian (and to a lesser extent Islamic) societies is that theism results in an expectation of order. If you were in a society which, say, put everything down to the actions of a pantheon of capricious gods then the incentive to go and look for order in the way things work wouldn't be there since you wouldn't expect there to be any order.

My point is that in moving away from theistic to atheistic philosophies the basis for a belief that the universe is ordered is lost, to be replaced by what is essentially mere pragmatism (assuming the universe is ordered works).

Let me try to capture both my understanding of scientific investigation and the philosophy which derives from it by quoting from Kirsten Birkett’s (BSc, PhD) book, ‘Unnatural Enemies, an introduction to science and Christianity’.

quote:

---

Naturalism is a belief (my emphasis added) that only natural laws and forces work in the world…Since the eighteenth century, this view has grown in popularity…The public assumption of (belief in) naturalism has been greatly bolstered by twentieth century scientific discoveries. It has grown to be a grandiose view…The Theory of Everything.

On a rather more limited basis, science has, in practice, traditionally assumed naturalism as a working hypothesis ‘in the lab’…In the writings of Francis Bacon, and the early discussion of the Royal Society, we find an agreement to leave theology outside the laboratory…this was not a basis for atheism…Francis Bacon, and most of the members of the Royal Society, considered themselves devout Christians (I add- remember the governing paradigm of the seventeenth century was Reformation Theology).

---

You said

quote:

---

I have repeatedly pointed out that any claims of an empirical nature fall within the realm of scientific inquiry.

---

Francis Bacon would agree with you. What he would not agree with is bringing theology into the laboratory, be that theism or atheism. In other words, we can work out how things work in the lab without asking why they work (God made them or God didn't make them).

That is the point I am trying to make. I do not wish to consider the ‘rather more limited basis’ of assuming naturalism in the lab, that’s fine by me. It is the grand vision of a Theory of Everything, which is a philosophical position excluding God, and which most people take for granted in public life, that I would like divorce from science. It is not science to exclude, disprove or discredit God, that is philosophy.

You define yourself as an atheist in your profile. I am genuinely interested, in light of our discussion about naturalism, in the basis for your atheistic philosophy. Can you explain on what grounds do you believe that there is no God and that the universe ‘just is’?

This inability to think outside the box is due, IMHO, to the complexity of the relationship between science, culture and theology. It is because the place of science in society and its effects on culture are not defined by a single simple relationship, but a very complex and multi-facetted one. There are many interwoven and interacting aspects of the relationship of science with society, and they have all been addressed at some point on this thread.

I would like to try to summarise some of these issues. This list is not exhaustive, but it demonstrates the complexity of the argument which each of us needs to appreciate if we are to understand the effect of the philosophy that governs science and corrupts much Christian theology.

• We must identify and separate the practice of 'scientific observation of material phenomena' from the practice of 'developing scientific philosophical theories' (atheistic, deistic or theistic) which are derived from those observations. At present empirical research and the development of materialistic philosophy is gathered under one banner, which we call science, but the latter is not science it is philosophy.
  
• We need to remind each other that the work of empirical research in the last two centuries has been incredibly fruitful and that the ongoing results of empirical research are crucial to the wellbeing of humanity.
  
• However, given those two centuries, we must honestly confess that the brightest minds on the planet have been unable to prove or disprove God either by developing philosophies from the results of scientific material enquiry or by trying to confirm philosophies from the same results. Indeed, today, there are more problems with a unified naturalistic, material, godless theory than answers.
  
• We need to openly admit that 'the theory of everything' is not a theory waiting to be proved by empirical evidence, but that it is a materialist philosophy which has developed highly speculative 'scientific' theories like 'imaginary' time to justify itself.
  
• We need to openly admit that challenges still exist to the unified theory of 'evolution' (a purposeless, random, material process). Many observed biological functions and mechanisms remain beyond the current understanding of this theory.
  
• We also need to openly that challenges still exist to the circumstantial evidence for 'evolution'. These challenges are numerous and well documented, but are rarely admitted by scientists.
  
• We need to point out that the philosophical conclusions which were drawn from the results of science over the last 120 years were made under a philosophical mindset or paradigm which excluded the possibility of a creator.
  
• We need to realise that philosophical materialism has marginalised religion and reduced Christian faith to a subjective experience given that philosophical materialism states that God is the product of human imagination (hence, IMHO, the 'success' of the Alpha Course which is laden with sub-Christian subjectivity).
  
• Theists need to understand the underlying relationship between philosophical materialism and secular humanism. The Council of Secular Humanism has stated that 'science' is the foundation of their beliefs.
  
• We must understand that Young Earth Creationism is not science but a philosophy based on a literalist interpretation of Genesis 1-2, which tries (unsuccessfully) to adapt material observations to suit a literal reading of the Bible.
  
• We need to clarify that individuals do not face a dichotomy between a philosophy of evolution and young earth creationism, that there are valid alternatives to both.
  
• We need to understand that theistic evolution is another philosophical position which attempts to marry the theory of evolution (random, purposeless and material) with theology (a specified and created universe).
  
• We need to develop the understanding that specified complexity, intelligent design, is another philosophical statement derived from the same material observations as the statements made for philosophical materialism and theistic evolution.
  
• We must admit that there is no empirical proof for any of the philosophies outlined above, only deductions made by humans from the material evidence.
  
• We need to develop the understanding that specified complexity is not 'God of the gaps' because under this theory, everything is specified, from physical laws, through chemical laws to biological laws.
  
• Under a unified theory of specification, sense can be made of all empirical material evidence just as a unified theory of random chance has sought to unify all empirical material evidence.
  
• Theists need to understand that science remains objective and productive under philosophical theism (useful products such as planes, trains and automobiles will continue to develop but others such as missiles, guns and chemical weapons may disappear as we become aware of our moral responsibility to the creator). Under theism, more efforts may be spent on eradicating disease and the ethics of cloning might become clearer.
  
• We should all acknowledge, as the secular humanists have, that there is a possibility that we are witnessing the beginning of a significant paradigm shift from philosophical materialism (atheism) to philosophical theism.
  
• We must establish that Christian faith is not subjective, but based on the objective realism of the birth, life, teachings, fulfillment of OT law and prophecy, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ.
  
• Christians with a healthy Biblical Theology and Christology know the reality of a loving, personal God and Lord and Saviour, empirical material evidence is irrelevant to Christian faith and belief.
  
• Once we have understood the relationship between 'science', secular humanism, law, culture, government and education, we can see why the debate centered on 'science' (philosophical materialism) is critical to the survival of secular humanism and to the continued marginalisation of Christianity.
  
• By undermining the legitimacy of 'science' as a basis for philosophical materialism, secular humanism, the way will be open for other sources of wisdom and knowledge to compete for a say in how our society operates.
  

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
No one has discussed the effects of naturalism, philosophical materialism, on our theology. It is clear, however, that not only has philosophical materialism polluted Christian thinking

---

Which brings us to one of the points on your list,

quote:

---

• We need to understand that theistic evolution is another philosophical position which attempts to marry the theory of evolution (random, purposeless and material) with theology (a specified and created universe).
  

---

Now for a fairly light hearted illustration of complementary views:

Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson were camping. Holmes awakes during the night, and shakes Watson awake. "Watson," he asks, "what do you see?"

"Lots of stars", Watson answers. "What does this tell you?" asks Holmes

"Well", replies Watson, "astronomically speaking that there are countless millions of stars and galaxies, doubtless orbitted by countless millions of planets. Horologically speaking that it is shortly after 3 in the morning. Meteorologically speaking I reckon it'll be a wonderful day tomorrow. Tell me Holmes, what does it tell you?"

Holmes is silent for a while, then replies "Elementary my dear Watson, it tells me that someone has stolen our tent"

Alan

[edited because I left out the vital "Elementary my dear Watson" phrase that every Holmes story needs!]

I assume that once again you are using scientific terms out of context, though since Kirsten Birkett has a Ph.D. I'm not sure the same can be said of her (his?) book. The "Theory of Everything" usually refers to a theory unifying the three particular forces (strong, weak, and electromagnetic) with gravity. I take it that this is not your meaning and that your theology bears no more animosity towards particle physics than it does any other branch of science. At least, that is the "Theory of Everything" I am most familiar with. What you seem to be objecting to is the philosophical assertion that science can explain all material phenomena. While I would not be so grandiose in my claims, not being familiar with all material phenomena, I would say that thus far science has done a lot better job of explaining the material Universe than any theological formulation. So getting down to specifics, which material phenomena do you believe are outside the realm of scientific inquiry? So far the list seems to include molecular biology and speciation. Are there others? And how do you decide what's on the forbidden list and what's okay for science to investigate?

You also said that "It is not science to exclude, disprove or discredit God". Actually, it is science to exclude God. By its nature, science does not include supernatural or unnatural phenomena, such as a Deity. As for "disproving" or "discreting" God, that would only become an issue if your formulation of God was subject to material verification.

Your longer list post has some interesting points some of which I'd like to touch on. For instance, you stated:

quote:

---

We need to openly admit that 'the theory of everything' is not a theory waiting to be proved by empirical evidence, but that it is a materialist philosophy which has developed highly speculative 'scientific' theories like 'imaginary' time to justify itself.

---

The existence of imaginary time is strongly suggested by Special Relativity, particularly the Lorentz transformations. Do you reject relativity, or is there a more specific cause of your objection to imaginary time?

quote:

---

We must admit that there is no empirical proof for any of the philosophies outlined above, only deductions made by humans from the material evidence.

. . .

Under a unified theory of specification, sense can be made of all empirical material evidence just as a unified theory of random chance has sought to unify all empirical material evidence.

---

By defending the ‘enrichment’ of Christian thinking by philosophical materialism rather than admitting its pollution, you are stating a subjective position based on what you believe to be ‘enrichment’. I'm sorry, but this is going to be another lengthy missive.

Your argument that neo-Platonism (a system of idealistic, spiritualistic pagan polytheistic philosophy, which tended towards mysticism and which flourished in the pagan world of Greece and Rome during the first centuries of the Christian era) and Zoroastrian dualism both influenced Christian thinking helps demonstrate my point. The former post-dated Christ, the latter pre-dated Moses. The latter may have been influential in shaping early Biblical manuscripts, but the latter is a reaction to Christian doctrine. Philosophical materialism is, in much the same way as neo-Platonism was, an intellectual reaction to the success of Christian doctrine (post Reformation).

Recent external influences, which you see as a positive enrichment, are nothing more, IMHO, than post-scriptural influences on Christian doctrine and are pollutionist, not adding anything to the divine plan of redemption in Christ revealed in scripture.

Focusing only on theology developed during the post-enlightenment period (which is the particular period this thread is concerned with and the period from which secular humanism emerged as the governing western philosophy and to which the liberal church tried (unsuccessfully) to adapt Christian theology to suit) we can trace the seepage of pollution into Christian thought:

• The Enlightenment – the idea that religion is fundamentally a corruption of a primeval rational worldview, engineered by priests as a means of enhancing and preserving their positions within society…and whatever lay behind the various world religions was ultimately rational in character, and thus capable of being uncovered, described and analysed by human reason.
  
• Ludwig Feuerbach: Religion as an Objectification of Human Feeling – The essence of Christianity (1841) – “purpose of this work is to show that the supernatural mysteries of religion are based upon quite simple natural truths”.
  
• Karl Marx: Religion as the product of Socio-Economic Alienation. This followed on from Ludwig Feuerbach.
  
• Sigmund Freud: who developed a reductionist approach to religion.
  
• Emile Durkheim: states that all religions display totemism, by which a society gathers around the totem of central values.
  
• Karl Barth: Religion is an upward search for God on the part of humanity (which contrasts sharply with God’s self-revelation).
  
• John Robinson: Honest to God is typical of the final product of this paradigm shift.
  

My argument is that philosophical materialism and, most prominently, Darwinian theory and its derivatives support secular humanism and liberal theology. If Darwinian theory is relegated from a position of supremacy amongst biologists to only one of a number of competing theories as to the development of life, the ‘Darwinian’ post-Enlightenment rationalism, philosophical materialism, will be relegated with it to one of a number of competing sources for truth. This is post-post modernism or realism.

You are entitled to a theistic materialism, but I believe that if you promote evolution in its purely materialist form (random and purposeless) you only serve to maintain the supremacy of secular humanism and the marginalisation of Christianity.

All this is wishful thinking on my behalf if the material observations of science support a material philosophy. But, recent publications such as Behe's 'Darwin's Black Box' and Schroeder's 'The Hidden face of God' demonstrate that material observations are far from supporting such a philosophy and can be used, legitimately, to support a theistic understanding of origins.

Once philosophical materialism is demonstrated to have shaky foundations in science, or that material observations can support a rational theism, Realism will become the new governing paradigm, and realism includes a healthy critical assessment and application of revealed religion, because God is far from dead, God is not the product of human rationalism…God is very real indeed.

quote:

---

If Darwinian theory is relegated from a position of supremacy amongst biologists to only one of a number of competing theories as to the development of life,...

---

Tough. It isn't 'only one of a number' - it is by far the best supported theory by the evidence. I can give you a nice list of this evidence if you like. Or are you persisting in using 'Darwinism' to mean 'things that might be peripherally related to common descent but which I disagree with'?

quote:

---

but I believe that if you promote evolution in its purely materialist form (random and purposeless)

---

Again, tough. As far as science is concerned, the forces and natural processes which drive evolution are indeed purposeless, and are contingent on random events. Stop reading this as a philosophical statement with implications beyond the scientific sphere; it is not, and does not.

First, about my comments about Greek (eg: neo-Platonism) and Babylonian (eg: Zoroastrianism) philosophies influencing Judeo-Christian thinking. You've conceded that the Babylonians introduced new concepts to the Jews during the Exile (the concept of Satan as the Adversary of God in Chronicles and Job is a good example of dualistic thought). I'm not quite sure how you can say neo-Platonism developed in the first century as a reaction to Christian doctrine; at this stage it appears Christian doctrine was still forming, and besides was hardly in the position to be a dominant philosophy to worry neo-Platonists. Instead, I would say, the Christian message was packaged into Greek philosophical (including Aristotlean as well as neo-Platonic) terms inorder to communicate to people versed in Greek philosophy. In the process a lot of Greek philosophical ideas were introduced to the Christian faith, the Creeds are much more in tune with Greek ways of thinking than Jewish ones. We can debate the extent to which this was good for the Church, clearly some of it wasn't (for example Gnostic ideas) and were rejected early on. However, I think such a debate deserves a thread of its own.

quote:

---

Recent external influences, which you see as a positive enrichment, are nothing more, IMHO, than post-scriptural influences on Christian doctrine and are pollutionist, not adding anything to the divine plan of
redemption in Christ revealed in scripture

---

quote:

---

You are entitled to a theistic materialism, but I believe that if you promote evolution in its purely materialist
form (random and purposeless) you only serve to maintain the supremacy of secular humanism and the marginalisation of Christianity.

---

My philosophical position is materialistic, but not exclusively so. It is one of theistic materialism (I'm wondering if that's a term I've invented, but it fits what I believe); where theism and materialism offer different ways of seeing and thinking about the same reality (which was the point of my Holmes story if you missed that). In some contexts (such as when I'm at work) the materialistic becomes more important, at others (for example in church on Sunday morning) the theistic comes to the fore. But they are never entirely seperate.

quote:

---

...if the material observations of science support a material philosophy. But, recent publications ... demonstrate that material observations are far from supporting such a philosophy and can be used, legitimately, to support a theistic understanding of origins.

---

As far as the proposed connection between scientific thought and theism, I presume Alan is referring to monotheism, rather than general theism. Polytheism and Pantheism are still theism, even if they involve "capricious gods". But I find the explanation that "montheism expects order" is somewhat unconvincing.

The origins of scientific thought lie not in Christianity or Islam but in late Archaic/Classical Hellas. (That's Greece, to you Latinates out there.) Despite being burdened by "a pantheon of capricious gods", people like Thales, Anaximander, Pythagoras, and Archimedes originated the materialism that makes science possible. In fact, I would argue that the Hellenes' capricious deities was one of a number of factors that allowed them to originate a mode of thought that would allow them to investigate the world without reliance on miraculous explanations, a mode of thought absolutely critical to science. The lack of satisfying religious explations for the world led them to investigate along other lines.

It is good to have you back on this thread. Did you read on in my post beyond the two quotes you used? I said, immediately after those quotes:

quote:

---

All this is wishful thinking on my behalf if the material observations of science support a material philosophy.

---

It is amazing that you can not see that there is a difference between assuming naturalism for the purpose of science (which I have perhaps inconsistently supported as scientific on this thread) and adopting naturalism as a philosophy based on the results of science. It's a chicken and egg scenario. Naturalists operate within a closed loop. Their argument for a philosophy of naturalism goes something like "I am a naturalist because I use naturalism to investigate the material world which justifies my naturalism."

As I said, if you read Behe, Schroeder and Birkett, three well qualified scientists, they each say that 'material observations or the products of naturalistic scientific investigation do not support a material or naturalistic philosophy' it is not a closed loop. The first two go a bit further to say that 'material observations of science support a theistic philosophy'. I say that they have gone too far, because I believe from a Biblical Theology that 'material observations of science are mute on aspects of philosophy' (which is why I asked Crœsos to define the basis of his atheism, because 'science' (material investigation) is not a legitimate basis for disbelief in a creator - it's a closed loop).

Philosophical materialism is currently the loudest voice amongst the cacophony of voices that surround the material observations of science. Darwinism is only the 'best theory we've got', because the naturalist voice is the loudest and most widely supported (even by theists like yourself). Dawkins rants the way he does because his philosophical beliefs rest on Darwinism being true. But there is a growing voice amongst the cacophony which says 'we see design, wisdom and intelligence in creation'.

Try turning the conclusions you drew on your own philosophical beliefs (which I have read and understand from your webpage). You can try and shout ID down, or rant about why it is wrong, but as you say 'reality doesn't play that way'.

You seem to be saying 'let's reject this (ID), not because it isn't true, but because I think this position (random, purposeless evolution) supports my philosophical position better'.

You know from previous posts on Darwin and Neitzche that I have not been too hot on my dates (lack of attention in 'O' grade History).

The gist of your post is summarised when you said that

quote:

---

The lack of satisfying religious explanations for the world led them to investigate along other lines

---

In the context of your post the 'other lines' are scientific investigations. Is science the basis for your atheism?

I am delighted to say that I do not disagree with anything you said.

The matter of application of scripture to life today is a matter for another thread, though I might clarify that I believe human nature to be the same today as it was 2000 years ago (effectively egocentric or 'Ptolemaic' with all the related relational problems that come with our selfishness). Christian doctrine takes our egocentric nature and turns it inside out and scripture is sufficient to reveal this to us and to offer the remedy for the situation. I do not deny that wisdom is found in many philosophies and religions and that we can learn from others, but I believe that nothing adds to the understanding of our relationship with the creator and outside the Bible.

When I said I didn't disagree with you, your summary neatly ties up what I have tried to say rather awkwardly that

quote:

---

Evolution is a scientific theory, therefore by definition is purely materialistic. It is only when evolution is discussed as though it were a philosophical position that it supports secular humanism at the expense of theism. But, no matter how much the likes of Dawkins may want it to be, evolution is not a philosophical position.

…OK, can I make this clear. Material observations can be legitimately used to support both materialist and theistic philosophies, they cannot be used to disprove either position. In matters of philosophy, material observations are largely irrelevant.

---

My observation has been that when we (theists) try telling materialists, like Dawkins, that they can not use material observations to support their philosophy, we are told that we are being 'unscientific'. The term 'science' has come to engender both 'material observation' and 'philosophical materialism' in the minds of the public.

quote:

---

A foreign publisher of my first book confessed that he could not sleep for three nights after reading it, so troubled was he by what he saw as its cold, bleak message. Others have asked me how I can bear to get up in the mornings. A teacher wrote to me reproachfully that a pupil had come to him in tears after reading the same book, because it had persuaded her that life was empty and purposeless. He advised her not to show the book to any of her friends, for fear of contaminating them with the same nihilistic pessimism. Similar accusations of barren desolation, of promoting an arid and joyless message, are frequently flung at science in general, and it is easy for scientists to play up to them.

...To accuse science of robbing life of the warmth that makes it worth living is so preposterously mistaken, so diametrically opposite to my own feelings and those of most working scientists, I am almost drive to the despair of which I am wrongly suspected. But in this book I shall try a more positive response, appealing to the sense of wonder in science because it is so sad to think what these complainers and naysayers are missing...The feeling of awed wonder that science can give is one of the highest experiences of which the human psyche is capable.

---

I emphasised the word 'science' for good reason.

Karl, my gripe is not primarily with evolution as a theory nor with theistic evolution as a philosophy, it is with the confusion, as Alan established, between naturalism as a method of investigation and naturalism as a philosophy.

Dawkins has confused 'material observations' and 'philosophical materialism', he's caught within the closed loop that scientific investigation assumes naturalism therefore naturalism is true. He uses the term 'science' interchangeably between his 'feeling of awed wonder' from his work of observing material objects and his personal philosophy of 'nihilistic pessimism'.

But, 'material observations' are mute on philosophy. Nihilistic pessimism is not science, it is a philosophy derived from material observations.

quote:

---

It is amazing that you can not see that there is a difference between assuming naturalism for the purpose of science (which I have perhaps inconsistently supported as scientific on this thread) and adopting naturalism as a philosophy based on the results of science.

---

Oh in the name of all that is holy! All that is amazing is that after reading all I've written on this thread, anyone should think that I don't understand the difference! I understand it perfectly well - how else could I agree with the statement that evolution is 'random and non-directed' - because I understand that that is a scientific, not a philosophical statement.

quote:

---

Darwinism is only the 'best theory we've got', because the naturalist voice is the loudest and most widely supported (even by theists like yourself).

---

No. It is well supported by the evidence. Do you really want an in depth defence of Darwin's theory of evolution. It's ready if you want it.

quote:

---

But there is a growing voice amongst the cacophony which says 'we see design, wisdom and intelligence in creation'.

---

Which of course is a philosophical position, not inherently opposed to Darwinian evolution. So it's not two systems in conflict as you seem to think.

quote:

---

You seem to be saying 'let's reject this (ID), not because it isn't true, but because I think this position (random, purposeless evolution) supports my philosophical position better'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
As far as the proposed connection between scientific thought and theism, I presume Alan is referring to monotheism, rather than general theism.

---

quote:

---

The origins of scientific thought lie not in Christianity or Islam but in late Archaic/Classical Hellas.

---

quote:

---

Christian and Islamic societies did not develop science because of their monotheism ... Christian and Islamic societies developed scientifically (at least in parts of their history) because they were the inheritors of Hellas.

---

Western Christians (I don't know about the eastern church at that time and how they may have viewed science) had a different philosophy than the Greeks, generally more interested in science as an investigation of the works of the Creator than an exercise in philosophical thought. As such were much more empirically minded, so for example when Copernicus realised that a helio-centric model for the motion of the planets worked better than the Ptolomaic geo-centric perfect spheres model the more philosophically pleasing model was dumped in favour of one that fitted the data better.

Alan

[fixed my own UBB]

quote:

---

You know from previous posts on Darwin and Neitzche that I have not been too hot on my dates (lack of attention in 'O' grade History)

---

Neil - Here's a story you might find informative. Once upon a time in my country there was a Vice President named J. Danforth Quayle, sometimes called "Dan" by his followers. This J. Danforth was not a very bright man and was an attrocious speller, but that didn't matter much because his chief duties were attending state funerals and formal dinners. One day, the Press Office thought it would be a good idea for him to be photographed with the winner of his country's National Spelling Bee. At one point J. Danforth, ever helpful and cheerful, decided that he would "assist" the National Champion in spelling a three syllable word. Of course, as I mentioned earlier, J. Danforth was an attrocious speller and only succeeded in embarassing himself by forcing a panic-stricken ten year old to put an 'e' on the end of the word 'potato'. Of course since this was a photo opportunity, the Press was there to fully document J. Danforth's foolishness.

Now the point I'm trying to make here is that J. Danforth was not foolish or stupid because he was a bad speller. There are lots of otherwise intelligent people who can't manage to string three written words together without at least two spelling mistakes. No, J. Danforth was foolish and stupid for not figuring out that he had no business anywhere near a spelling bee or, failing that, he certainly should have known better than to arrogantly assume his spelling skills were greater than a National Champion.