My tinkering with the car did not invoke the question 'I wonder who designed this car?' Science doesn’t need to answer that question of biology, unless you are a philosophical naturalist opposed to the idea of a designer or a creationist in favour of finding evidence of a creator.

The two questions, "How did biological mechanisms come into existence without invoking the supernatural?" and "I wonder who designed this car?" are not equivalent. The first is still a 'how.' The second is a 'who.' Instead, in the process of taking the car apart, are they not valid questions to ask, 'how was the car designed?' and 'how was it assembled?' in the process of understanding how it works?

And shouldn't you be as suspicious of a Creationist Scientist 'in favour of finding evidence of a creator' as you are of the philosophical naturalist who is opposed to the idea of a designer?

Surely the job of science is to focus on the pursuit of the how everything works (methodologicalism) question.

I have to question that assumption. I propose that the job of science is knowledge, wherever it may be.

Both of your questions at the top of this post are 'how' questions, yet you wish only to allow one of them to be asked. It seems to me that you are trying to maintain belief in a creator by preventing the other question from being asked at all. (Did that break any commandments?)

Research of this sort is deserving of public and private funding. How else will medicine and our understanding of the physical world advance? This is real science with a worthwhile product.

'Science' is the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. The 'worthwhile product' is merely technology. Whether that technology (cloning, nuclear weapons) should be used lies in the realm of ethics. Why things are the way they are and Who, if anyone, is responsible for our existence, are in the realms of philosophy and theology.

But surely, only philosophical naturalists will pursue the 'how did it come into existence without invoking the supernatural' question.

I'm afraid I have to question that assumption as well. There are plenty of theists who see no conflict between studying the mechanisms of evolution and their faith. Many see this world with the mechanisms *predesigned* to play out in a natural way. In the end, your argument opposes theistic evolutionists as well as philosophical naturalists.

In the USA, 90% of the population believes that 'God' had some part to play in creation.

What my esteemed countrymen know about science in general leaves much to be desired. After all, surveys show that less than half of them know that the Earth revolves around the Sun or that the Sun is a star. (CNN)

But in all seriousness, don't theistic evolutionists by definition believe that God has/had some part to play in creation?

Why should Joe Public fund the research of philosophical naturalists who in their research pursue the evidence of a purposeless, random, material universe?

Im sorry, but that begs the question. Most researchers go where the science takes them. How they answer the 'who' and 'why' questions are best left to their own conscience. The few outspoken philisophical naturalists like Dawkins are already publishing through the private sector, are they not?

I hope you share this view that we can not support the squandering public money on the private pursuit of philosophical justification.

'Fraid not. I think that any increase in knowledge in general is a good thing. Would theistic evolutionists think the money is misused or squandered? You appear to keep drawing a theist/atheist line in the sand over the issue of evolution.

God exists; God doesn't exist. Research in evolution will never prove one over the other.

I share your sentiment that this thread not degenerate into a creationist vs. evolutionist slugfest.

Willy
 

willyburger, you concluded the debate on scientific evidence nicely when you implied that we'll never know God by looking at the results of research into life.

Speculating on this matter from the perspective of the cross, perhaps God doesn't want us to know about God from science. If our faith depends on the cross alone (simply to the cross I cling), it wouldn't do for us to say "I cling to the cross and the evidence of God in science".

Ruth & willyb, I am interested in the straw men you invented when referring to 'Joe Public' America. Apart from horoscope believing, driving is safer than flying believing bods and the unscientific young earth creationists, there are a number of people, scientists among them, who are rational and can still smell a rat.

I lived in Cambridge for a number of years. Some friends at church were fellows at various colleges. Among them were theoretical physicists and chemists. They each had a firm faith in Christ and an 'old earth' understanding of the universe.

When asked about their faith in Christ and their science, they would say that the more they knew about the way things worked, the more they were amazed at the way God had designed it - a simple observation of scientific fact in the light of faith in Christ.

We often commented at that time on the fact that there were very few Christian biologists. Why was that, when there were so many Christian physicists and chemists?

Is it because biologists are committed to methodological naturalism as the basis for research? Back to the Vauxhall Cavalier. I disagree with you willyburger about the 'who' question of biology. Asking 'how could this car work without invoking the supernatural' is the positive way of saying 'there is no designer, so how can I prove that it isn't designed (the blind watchmaker - there is no 'who' only an apparent 'who')?'

I propose that there are few Christian biologists because of the effect of Darwinian philosophy which has prevented biologists being wowed by the way God has designed life. If a biologist dares to say 'wow, look at the way God designed this', it is contrary to the philosophical naturalism of Darwinism, just look at the theistic evolutionists' response to Michael Behe et al.

Why don't theists spot this? Is it because we are so immersed in Darwinian philosophy that we can't see the woods for the trees, or rather we can't see the designer for the bio-chemical mechanisms?

Neil
 

No.

I believe in intelligent design from a philosophical viewpoint. I do not, however, expect to find scientific evidence of design. It is seen with the eye of faith.

If atheism has dominated biology, this is because we have allowed it to do so, and it has been through disavowing mainstream biology, not by embracing it, that Christianity has done so.

Our witness must be that God can create through the contingency of the evolutionary process, not that God is an alternative hypothesis.
 

Thank you. I meant it as much more than an implication. Please note the opposite proposition is also true. You will never prove the non-existence of God by such research either.

Neil Robbie:
Speculating on this matter from the perspective of the cross, perhaps God doesn't want us to know about God from science.

That is certainly possible. Science and theology have different goals. You may find that they complement each other if each is left to their respective business without the insistence that one dictate terms to the other.

Neil Robbie:
Ruth & willyb, I am interested in the straw men you invented when referring to 'Joe Public' America. Apart from horoscope believing, driving is safer than flying believing bods and the unscientific young earth creationists, there are a number of people, scientists among them, who are rational and can still smell a rat.

Could you restate this? I'm simply confused.

Neil Robbie:
I lived in Cambridge for a number of years. Some friends at church were fellows at various colleges. Among them were theoretical physicists and chemists. They each had a firm faith in Christ and an 'old earth' understanding of the universe.

When asked about their faith in Christ and their science, they would say that the more they knew about the way things worked, the more they were amazed at the way God had designed it - a simple observation of scientific fact in the light of faith in Christ.

We often commented at that time on the fact that there were very few Christian biologists. Why was that, when there were so many Christian physicists and chemists?

Is it because biologists are committed to methodological naturalism as the basis for research?

If your physicist and chemist friends were practicing good science, they would be as committed to methodological naturalism as any biologist.

Neil Robbie:
Back to the Vauxhall Cavalier. I disagree with you willyburger about the 'who' question of biology. Asking 'how could this car work without invoking the supernatural' is the positive way of saying 'there is no designer, so how can I prove that it isn't designed (the blind watchmaker - there is no 'who' only an apparent 'who')?'

Then we must disagree. Formal logic (which was a long time ago for me) demonstrates that you can't prove a negative. You will never prove by evidence the universal non-existence of anything, especially God. You will also never prove the non-existence of the metaphysical (God) through empirical (physical) means.

You are also drawing a false conclusion. Just because one is convinced that the world developed and runs by natural means doesn't necessarily mean that one believes that there is no design, which necessitates a designer.

Neil Robbie:
I propose that there are few Christian biologists because of the effect of Darwinian philosophy which has prevented biologists being wowed by the way God has designed life. If a biologist dares to say 'wow, look at the way God designed this', it is contrary to the philosophical naturalism of Darwinism, just look at the theistic evolutionists' response to Michael Behe et al.

Did your physicist friends express their belief and wonder among fellow believers? Or did they also consciously shape their research because of it and write it into their published research? There's a proper context for everything.

BTW, are you accusing theistic evolutionists of philosophical naturalism because they disagree with Behe? Is his theory so sacrosanct that you can paint with so broad a brush?

Neil Robbie:
Why don't theists spot this? Is it because we are so immersed in Darwinian philosophy that we can't see the woods for the trees, or rather we can't see the designer for the bio-chemical mechanisms?

Or maybe they have given it much thought and disagree with those conclusions....

All the best,

Willy
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
I am very sorry, Ruth, for upsetting you with my last post. I'll try to be more careful when I write.

---

I wasn't upset. I was appalled. Not the same thing at all.

I notice that you haven't tried to show how what you said does not amount to accusing literally thousands of people of wholesale intellectual dishonesty.

quote:

---

Ruth & willyb, I am interested in the straw men you invented when referring to 'Joe Public' America. Apart from horoscope believing, driving is safer than flying believing bods and the unscientific young earth creationists, there are a number of people, scientists among them, who are rational and can still smell a rat.

---

Most Americans don't know thing one about basic science. They think their stomachs actually shrink if they eat less food and grow if they eat more. They don't know why bread dough rises. They don't know why soap and water gets clothes cleaner than just water.

This is not a straw man. The scientific education of most Americans is woefully inadequate, and therefore what most Americans think or believe is a poor basis for deciding how to spend money on scientific research.

quote:

---

I propose that there are few Christian biologists because of the effect of Darwinian philosophy which has prevented biologists being wowed by the way God has designed life.

---

I don't see that your not knowing Christian biologists at Cambridge is evidence that biology as a science is somehow leading people away from God. Hardly a statistically significant sample!

There's already been plenty of discussion about whether state-of-the-art evolution theory can be properly characterized as Darwinian. And I don't see why you continue to insist that biologists have a Darwinian philosophy. And when I was reading Stephen Jay Gould, I thought he seemed pretty wowed by the mechanisms he was investigating.
 

quote:

---

"how" questions are not theological questions"

---

RuthW, I'm very glad you're talking straw men. I wrote this post offline and have just read yours, which ties in nicely to what I wrote.

The straw men which both SteveWaland you have drawn our attention to, the unscientific horoscope believing, 'driving is safer than flying', tummies shrinking when you don't eat Joe Public and the unscientific young earth creationists are, IMHO, not what make up the majority of the general public.

I don't know what kind of company you keep, but the Joe Public I know are rational, well educated, professionals who will not consider faith in Christ because their minds have been filled with philosophical naturalism from primary 6 (11 years old) at school. The biology lessons are supported by David Attenbourgh's 'Life on Earth' and TV programs of the sort, and the mainstream media.

What is taught in the classroom as biology, and the theories speculated about in popular TV programs do not reflect the ongoing scientific (not theistic) concerns about fossil records, irreducibility or the creation of information or so on, much of which we have discussed on this thread.

Our education system does not train the mind to think about the scientific discoveries in an open light. Darwinian theory (and the philosophy which accompany it) are taught as dogmatic 'fact'.

How do we want our children to grow up? Being taught dogma or being encouraged to think laterally and openly about science?

I am not a young earth creationist, but I want my children to be able to think for themselves, not to regurgitate Darwinian dogma.

I also want my friends and family to share in the love of Christ, and I know that Darwinian philosophy is a deeply ingrained barrier to that goal.

What matters to me, as a Christian, is honesty. Scientists are free to chase whichever philosophical goal they like, they can conclude what they like from the findings of science, but they must be honest about the current evidence. Joe Public deserves to be told the truth.

And the truth is, as Karl said

quote:

---

to give the exact sequence of developmental steps in each of those pathways is impossible

---

The biology classroom in the US is being defended by 'civil liberties' groups from 'creationists', the NABT do not want Darwinism questioned. But history has shown, as it did for the church in the sixteenth century, that humans will not stand for dogma. If Darwinism, and all its derivatives, are not allowed to be subject to criticism, the tide of public opinion will go against it and people will leave the cult of Darwinism in droves, searching for the honest answer.

Science should say to Joe Public, now, that 'we don't know 'how' it came into exisitence'. If science stands by the statement that 'we are sure we can prove what we believe', the battle is already lost. The problem is, the public still see only the latter statement.

I think in this light, I should rename this thread - 'Questioning Darwinism - a civil liberty' Then, back to the original question, how will our theology, or application of scripture change in light of the questioning of Darwinism? Perhaps we need to wait until the day!

Neil
 

If folk think that evolutionary science stands in contrast to faith, then it is because the creationists have told them so. It is our task to point out that it is not so. There is an unholy alliance between creationists and atheists at work here, spreading this lie. Whoever would have seen Dawkins and Hovind in bed together?
 

quote:

---

Science should say to Joe Public, now, that 'we don't know 'how' it came into exisitence'.

---

That is exactly what it says. I think it is your science teachers and text books who may have it wrong, not the scientists.
 

quote:

---

We don?t know about 'how' information as distinct to matter came to be.

---

I desperately don't want to start a fight here or sound put out (all though I am a bit) but I did try very hard to explain why discussion of "information" is a red herring and one fished for by Young Earth Creationists.

You say that you're not one and yet you pick up arguments and recommend books written by them (for example Philip Johnson, a law professor).

I don't actually see religion in conflict with science. As someone else put it, which is more powerful a tiger or a great white shark? The answer depends on the domain.

Personally I think the conflict is really between religion and science on the one side and people who couldn't care less about anything on the other.
 

Like Neil, I've heard some professional, degree-level educated folks in the U.K. reject Christianity because of their (mis-) understanding of Science, but my view is woolly and dumb thinking (and whatever one's religious views, scientifically speaking it is dumb thinking) are problems for Christianity, Hinduism, the Conservative Party (U.K.), business leaders, union leaders, etc. etc.

I think that the problem comes from many people, starting with contemporaries of Darwin and even earlier (let's be honest here - there's a lot of history to want to forget) with Gallileo, that Christianity is at odds with Science. In the Church we've got a lot of ground to make up to be able to get across that having half a brain and questioning the world is not incompatible with Christianity. Whether we like it or not, high-placed folks in the Church have implicitly and explicitly been sending that message out for years.

I could blow off about the problems of getting most clergy in the CoE to take science seriously - but that's a personal diatribe I'll do off line!

So, unlike you Neil, my view is it's our problem, not a Darwin problem. People like Dawkins or (worse) Don Cuppitt confuse the two disciplines, or perhaps more accurately, the three disciplines - the third being philosophy - in an awfully misleading manner to themselves and others. That doesn't mean we should reject the theories of evolution - that's just putting our head in a different patch of sand.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
Willyburger, your explanation of methodological naturalism has to be broken down into two 'how' questions to be able to answer this question:

• How do biological mechanisms work (methodologicalism)?
  
• How did biological mechanisms come into existence without invoking the supernatural (naturalism)?
  

[...]
Surely the job of science is to focus on the pursuit of the how everything works (methodologicalism) question.

Research of this sort is deserving of public and private funding. [...] But surely, only philosophical naturalists will pursue the 'how did it come into existence without invoking the supernatural' question. Let philosophical naturalists fund this research, but don't use public money.
[...]
It is by confusing the two 'how' questions that science and scientists are able to misuse the funds available.
Neil

---

Neil,
If there are limits to naturalistic explanation of life and the universe, if there is no explanation of how life came out of the pre-biotic soup, then the only way we are going to know that is by intensive research into trying to find natural mechanisms whereby these things might happen and failing.

If you are saying that you know the limits to biological investigation in advance (by divine revelation?) and that on that basis you wish to prevent research then you are back with the church against Galileo!

If there are limits then they will eventually be found, and even then the duty of scientists will be to try again to see if they may have missed something.

And none of this excludes the world being God's world, brought about by him by astonishing and discoverable mechanisms.

If you will insist that theism is only possible if we declare now that science can't explain origins then we will never know if theism is possible because none of us will live to see science reach its limits!

If you believe that Behe is right to say that certain biochemical systems are irreducibly complex and cannot be evolved but must therefore be designed, then your best method of supporting Behe is to encourage research to try and prove him wrong. If they fail to do so then his theory looks more plausible. If on the other hand you wish to prohibit such research you are declaring yourself beyond science and beyond the challenge of your peers.

quote:

---

But surely, only philosophical naturalists will pursue the 'how did it come into existence without invoking the supernatural' question.

---

Are you saying that a Christian biologist who wishes to try and find out whether mechanisms existed whereby life could naturally arise from the pre-biotic soup is denying God? Nonsense! She/He is just trying to find out HOW it might have happened. This still leaves open the question of the whole significance and purpose of the universe.

Glenn
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
The straw men which both SteveWaland you have drawn our attention to, the unscientific horoscope believing, 'driving is safer than flying', tummies shrinking when you don't eat Joe Public and the unscientific young earth creationists are, IMHO, not what make up the majority of the general public.

I don't know what kind of company you keep, but the Joe Public I know are rational, well educated, professionals who will not consider faith in Christ because their minds have been filled with philosophical naturalism from primary 6 (11 years old) at school. The biology lessons are supported by David Attenbourgh's 'Life on Earth' and TV programs of the sort, and the mainstream media.

---

The general public as a rule are not well-educated professionals. And most well-educated professionals are actually quite ignorant of basic science. I am well-educated and I used to be a professional (English professor). My colleagues in the school of humanities were bright people, yes, but most of them knew very little about science. Like me, they took the undergraduate science courses they needed to fulfill their general ed requirements and then promptly forgot most of what they had learned. I'd bet the rent that at least half of them couldn't explain how electricity works. I sure never learned that in school, and only know now because I got my brother the rocket scientist to explain it to me.

I'm not saying most people are bone dumb (although on not so good days I tend to think that) -- I'm saying most people don't know much about science (and don't care, either).

I sincerely doubt that most well-educated professionals aren't interested in Christ because their minds are full of philosophical naturalism. I suspect it's because they have not seen how Christ is relevant to their lives. Well-educated professionals are among the most difficult people to evangelize, IMO, unless you catch them at a crisis point. After all, they usually have satisfying careers that pay them relatively well, some degree of prestige, stimulating co-workers, and unless their private lives are disastrous, it's hard to show them that anything could be missing or awry.

It's not philosophical naturalism that's keeping them away from God -- it's that they see nothing wrong with their lives.
 

Glenn, you said:

quote:

---

If you are saying that you know the limits to biological investigation in advance (by divine revelation?) and that on that basis you wish to prevent research then you are back with the church against Galileo!

If there are limits then they will eventually be found, and even then the duty of scientists will be to try again to see if they may have missed something.

---

I realise that my posts have given the impression that I may have a prior commitment to 'divine revelation', but that is not what I meant. I agree with you Glenn that we must seek for the truth and that only thorough scientific research can unveil that truth. I was led by reading 'Darwin's Black Box' that bio-chemists have dug their way down into the finite limits of biological mechanisms and have already concluded that they are designed. According to Behe there is a total lack of serious explanations to the step-by-step development of the irreducible systems he highlights. The book was written in 1998 and I know there are responses to the challenges Behe put before the scientific community, but what I have read on the internet recently does not give rise to any confidence that irreducibility is a problem which will be easily solved.

Which brings me to what Karl wrote:

quote:

---

We are giving our reasons why evolution is science, not philosophy, and why it should be the model taught in school - because, like all scientific models, from the earth being a sphere upwards, it is the best supported model we have.

---

I can not argue with your point about the best supported model, Karl. But, if the truth is to be taught, school children should be presented with the facts, and the facts include the current problems outlined above.

John, I am sorry for not responding to your interesting post on information theory. To be honest, I've re-read it and don’t quite understand it. I am a Civil Engineer and have a good grounding in all three sciences (Physics to 2nd year undergraduate and the other two to final year high school), but your stuff on entropy was a bit beyond me. I see the principle of genetic information which shapes our bodily functions and shapes in an engineer's light. The information must be separate to the matter on which it is stored (DNA - amino acids and proteins) like the information on this post being stored on a hard drive server somewhere. I don't understand how entropy influences the difference between matter and the information needed to communicate something.

If you read Philip Johnson, you will find that, like me, he recognises the value of all science and does not have a young earth understanding of the world. But by applying his legal mind to the arguments of Dawkins et al, he can see the lack of evidence for their atheistic philosophy…that's all he concludes. The problem as Philip Johnson sees it, again as a lawyer, is that that the atheistic or deistic philosophy which results from their science supports much of today's law and ethics.

RuthW, it appears we do keep different company. Sadly, most of my friends are engineers, architects and medics (mostly dentists), I think I know two English grads. My engineering and medical friends have a strong scientific background and are generally reluctant to consider the God of the Old Testament who parted the Red Sea and raised Christ from the grave, because Darwinism has 'proved' that God is dead, or at best doesn’t get involved in the world.

Let me finish with a quote from an article in the Guardian newspaper recently. There was an article on the evolution of the tribes on the Andaman Islands. Throughout the Prof Singh stated that his research contradicted other theories, especially 'Out of Africa', but that in general he remained confused and that further research was required. The article concluded with the following quote from Prof Singh:

quote:

---

"These people have been able to survive by natural selection without any interference from modern medicine for thousands of years," he said. "Their genes are living proof of the survival of the fittest."

---

That statement was at best misleading and at worst untruthful. No doubt, the Andaman people have survived 60,000 years isolated from the mainland and they must have been fit to do it. But, in the context of the article, which was trying to provide answers for the origin of man, it implies that 'evolution' (step-by-step development from apes) is a fact (living proof) which needs no further proof.

What would be the truthful conclusion to the article? I fully support the search for the missing link (the proof) and empirical evidence to evolutionary theories, but Joe Public (including Guardian readers) deserve more than to be convinced that the theory has already been proved. That is not good science.

Neil

PS…I must force myself to checkout for the next ten days. I've got a sermon to prepare on Pslam 81 and need to focus myself to the task. Thanks again for your patience with me, sorry for all the long posts, perhaps we can pick up the thread the week after next.
 

quote:

---

I am sorry for not responding to your interesting post on information theory. To be honest, I've re-read it and don?t quite understand it. I am a Civil Engineer and have a good grounding in all three sciences (Physics to 2nd year undergraduate and the other two to final year high school), but your stuff on entropy was a bit beyond me. I see the principle of genetic information which shapes our bodily functions and shapes in an engineer's light. The information must be separate to the matter on which it is stored (DNA - amino acids and proteins) like the information on this post being stored on a hard drive server somewhere. I don't understand how entropy influences the difference between matter and the information needed to communicate something.

---

Neither does anyone else. It's not the same meaning of the word "entropy". For example "right" can mean the opposite of "left" or it can mean "correct" or it can mean "entitlement". That is what I was trying to explain about "entropy". The confusion and lack of understanding has arisen because some YECs have (deliberately in my view) confused the two meanings of the word so that the Second Law of Thermodynamics can have for them something to say about information. It hasn't.

quote:

---

If you read Philip Johnson, you will find that, like me, he recognises the value of all science and does not have a young earth understanding of the world. But by applying his legal mind to the arguments of Dawkins et al, he can see the lack of evidence for their atheistic philosophy?that's all he concludes. The problem as Philip Johnson sees it, again as a lawyer, is that that the atheistic or deistic philosophy which results from their science supports much of today's law and ethics.

---

Philip Johnson seems to me to have a very limited understanding of what science is about but that doesn't stop him from talking about it as if it was the ultimate enemy.

Richard Dawkins seems to me to have a very limited understanding of what science isn't about but that doesn't stop him from talking about it as if it were a religion.

I don't think that many scientists or atheists agree with him particularly and they certainly don't see him as a philosopher of merit. To tar all scientists or even all biologists with the same brush as him is unfair.
 

I don't have an awful lot to add, and we don't seem to be getting very far. Neil seems to remain convinced that evolution, or 'Darwinism' as he prefers, carries an atheistic philosophy. It does no such thing.

One thing remains seriously outstanding. If evolution is not 'the best supported model', could I please be informed what is? I have posted links to articles that scratch the surface of the massive support for it; I expect the same of any rival model.
 

I wonder which side of the philosophical fence he sits on!

John and Karl, it is not to provide a rival theory to Darwinism but to point out that the burden of proof currently rests with the theory to prove how the irreducible can be reduced.

And my point is not, now, to 'disprove' Darwinism, but for the media and schools to be honest about the problems with the theory.

'These are the observed facts of science…some of them cause great problems for Darwin's theories'.

Simple and honest

Which side are Christians on? A commitment to Darwinism or a commitment to truth?

Neil
 

Simple, honest, and wrong. They do not create great problems. Great problems would be observations that are inconsistent with the theory, not observations that merely point out things we don't know.

What we do know is that if the neo-Darwinian model is incorrect, the truth must look very close to it. And in that evolution is no different to any other scientific theory.

The following would constitute 'great problems':

• an animal outside the twin-nested hierarchy
• DNA similarity measurements that contradict fossil phylogeny
• and so forth...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
I have printed the '29 Evidences for Macroevolution' and note that Douglas Theobald lists only 4 references, 'The Origin of Species', 'The Blind Watchmaker', 'One long Argument' and 'Gradualism, punctuated equilibria, and the origin of species'.

I wonder which side of the philosophical fence he sits on!

---

Maybe none? Maybe he's just quoting things he thinks are relevant. Surely you don't expect someone talking about planetary orbits to have to quote works by Geocentrists and Flat Earthers?

quote:

---

John and Karl, it is not to provide a rival theory to Darwinism but to point out that the burden of proof currently rests with the theory to prove how the irreducible can be reduced.

---

Why? Who says? And why should anyone need "proof"? Theories of course cannot be "proved" only disproved.

quote:

---

And my point is not, now, to 'disprove' Darwinism, but for the media and schools to be honest about the problems with the theory.

---

Maybe they are being, but you've just bought the ideas of someone with an axe to grind in my view.

quote:

---

'These are the observed facts of science?some of them cause great problems for Darwin's theories'.

---

Examples?

But Karl has answered the rest better than I could.
 

Astro
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro:
Are there any arguements against the Hindi churning of the Seas or the Aboriginal Dreamtime for example? Or are Darwinists closet anti-sematists?

---

Alan
 

I have taken a step back from individual issues and look at the big picture. What has struck me is this:

When reading a single author, Gould, Theobald, Behe, Johnson or whoever, each presents a coherent arguement which seems to be well established in selected observational evidence.

But what happens when we start to compare theories? Do we find a unified conclusion? Here's a simple example.

Douglas Theobald in '29 evidences for macroevolution' says:

quote:

---

The oldest rocks we find on the earth are about 4100 Mya, and they are devoid of any life. For the next 2000 million years, rocks from the Archean have no multicellular life at all, just prokaryotes. Then, 2100 Mya, appear the first fossils of eukaryotes (single-celled organisms with a nucleus). For another 1000 million years, there is still no evidence of multicellular life. The first hints of the existence of multicellular organisms comes from trace fossils of tiny worm burrows, found in sandstone dating at 1100 Mya.

Near the Precambrian/Cambrian transition, only 580 Mya, in the Ediacaran and Burgess shale faunas we finally find the first fossils of multicellular animals. However, they are very unusual, small, soft-bodied metazoans, and most are superficially unlike anything found today. Precisely as we would expect from the standard phylogenetic tree, the earliest fossils of multi-cellular life are very simple sponges and sea anemone-like organisms (sea anemones and jellyfish are both cnidarians). Around 20 million years later, we find the first evidence of simple mollusks, worms, and echinoderms (organisms similar to starfish and sea cucumbers). Another ~15 million years later, the very first vertebrates appear, though most people would strain to recognize them as such. They are small worm-like and primitive fish-like organisms, without bones, jaws, or fins (excepting a single dorsal fin).

---

It all founds fair enough, a logical progression from single cell prokaryotes to multi-cell organisms to vertebrates. Theobald gives the distinct impression of a gradual change with 'bags of time'.

But then we read Gould on the same matter:

quote:

---

Two different kinds of explanations for the absence of Precambrian ancestors have been debated for more than a century: the artifact theory (they did exist, but the fossil record hasn't preserved them), and the fast-transition theory (really they didn't exist, at least as complex invertebrates easily linked to their descendants, and the evolution of modern anatomical plans occurred with a rapidity that threatens our usual ideas about the stately pace of evolutionary change)…If evolution could produce ten new Cambrian phyla and then wipe them out just as quickly, then what about the surviving Cambrian groups? Why should they have had a long and honorable Precambrian pedigree? Why should they not have originated just before the Cambrian, as the fossil record, read literally, seems to indicate, and as the fast-transition theory proposes.

---

Here we have two scientists, one stating that life evolved slowly and the other saying it must have evolved quickly then entered a long period of stasis.

Which one is speaking the truth? They both can't be right!

That is an example of contradicatory theories from the same field of science, but the picture becomes much more complex when different fields contradict or question each other.

So, is there a unified theory for all (neo)Darwinism (inclusive of all theories)?

The truth is that there is much confusion over the theories in the field of biology. But that is not the impression Joe Public is given by the media.

My next question is this: is Joe Public given a balanced report of what goes on behind the doors of our universities and laboratories? We see science as unified in the media, but it is apparently divided on many issues.

Has the fear of invoking the hand of a creator in the creation account of Darwinism driven science into the same mistake as the church when it tried (and sadly still tries) to defend the creation account in Genesis?

Is the literal understanding of (neo)Darwinism undisputed truth or philosophical dogma for 'the best theory we've got'?

Neil
 

quote:

---

Here we have two scientists, one stating that life evolved slowly and the other saying it must have evolved quickly then entered a long period of stasis.

---

Yes but they both say it evolved don't they? They are just arguing over some of the details.

I've met Christians who have different, indeed radically opposed views, on certain doctrinal points. Surely you're not saying it invalidates the whole thing are you?
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
John and Karl, it is not to provide a rival theory to Darwinism but to point out that the burden of proof currently rests with the theory to prove how the irreducible can be reduced.

And my point is not, now, to 'disprove' Darwinism, but for the media and schools to be honest about the problems with the theory.

---

...some of the problems you have posited are unrelated to the theory of evolution, aka the Origin of Species, except in sofar as you seem to tenaciously cling to the fallacious and illusory micro-/macro- evolution divide. Most of the problems are "origin of life" problems, within which in the latter stages Darwin-type theories play a role, but only, frankly, in terms of diversifiction, which is clearly species-related in fact.

Even neo-Darwinism has only the most loose of finger-holds on the origin of life, and is frankly somewhat conjectural at best, until we have a better variety of data.

As Karl has observed, some early material is now available in much better abundance than previously. However, on a macro-level we cannot be entirely sure of its perfect acuity.

For instance, any naval archaeologist can tell you that the preservation of carbon-based life forms post-mortem in deep-sea environments is essentially nil*, thus whatever period of the development of life one is at, many forms of life will not be preserved, or rather very poorly represented in the preserved profile, due to their environment of existence.

quote:

---

Which side are Christians on? A commitment to Darwinism or a commitment to truth?

---

This presupposes strong evidence that Darwins theories are fraudulent and/or grossly inaccurate - 100 years+ of research have only served to strengthen the fossil evidence in favour of the big picture originally layed out. Therefore, the presupposition is at best very weak; reiterating opposition to Darwin (which you continue to do. Despite your attack being in fact on philosophical Neo-Darwinism - which is in as closely related to Darwinism as political Darwinism is - i.e. only superficially and from completely different motivations).

As a Christian and a scientist, I see Christianity as a search for truth and science as a search for truth; Darwin's theories have proven highly robust indeed, and neither prove nor disprove God's lordship over the earth, not his role as the cause and shaper of it's creation.

In other words, I see no contradication and hence no question whatsoever.
 

* most deep-sea/oceanic shipwrecks for instance contain no discernable human remains, though clothes may survive in a form suggesting the previous existence of a corpse in them; the bodies generally just dissolve away.
 

I realise my understanding of the science is weak and the arguments I employ regarding neo-Darwinian philosophy weaker.

Can I just ask one question?

From the evidence to date, can the National Association of Biology Teachers in the USA make the following statement legitimately?

quote:

---

'The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.'

---

gbuchanan you said:

quote:

---

As a Christian and a scientist, I see Christianity as a search for truth and science as a search for truth; Darwin's theories have proven highly robust indeed, and neither prove nor disprove God's lordship over the earth, not (sic - nor?) his role as the cause and shaper of it's creation.

---

If this is the case, if the theories of life are robust, insofar as they show they way life adapting to its environment, and if God is neither proved nor disproved, why does modern liberal humanism, which has its roots in evolutionary science, have such a strong hold on modern ethics and law? If the basis of their (pseudo)science is evolution, and the theory of evolution neither proves nor disproves absolute morality, why do they have the only voice?

I am referring to popular media coverage such as

• A recent BBC World Service interview with an 'evolutionary behavioral scientist' who stated that beautiful women are the product of evolution because men are attracted to beauty.
  
• Then there is the media coverage of Dr. Craig T. Palmer, an anthropology instructor at the University of Colorado and co-author of the new book, "A Natural History Of Rape: Biological Bases Of Sexual Coercion", who has argued that the gene for rape has survived because of natural selection.
  

Does this pseudo science of blaming the gene, which is clearly contrary to Christian theology of personal responsibility and free will choice for our actions, find a basis in Darwinism?

Why is there so little debate in the main stream media? Has Christian theology been sidelined in these cases by the 'fact' of evolution, which in turn supports neo-Darwinian philosophy (like the NABT statement I quoted above) which in turn supports the kind of behavioral science I mentioned?

I hope I have used the terms correctly. Surely, if Christians show the world that the theory of evolution does not extend to the proof or otherwise of God, then we should have a louder voice in matters of behavioral science.

Neil
 

The statement about evolution being unsupervise and unpredictable is correct, from a scientific viewpoint, and that is all it means. I have no problem with it. History is the same - contingent, but by faith we believe God works His will through it. Evolution is the same, but this is not part of the science.

As regards beauty in women being selected for evolutionarily, I'd be surprised if there was not a selection pressure of this type.
 

quote:

---

posted by Neil Robbie:
I realise my understanding of the science is weak...

Can the National Association of Biology Teachers in the USA make the following statement legitimately...

(oops, looks like the software can't cope with a quote within a quote...)

---

Neil,

Don't worry about the science, worry about the philosophy.

My understanding is that science is methodologically incapable of concluding that the universe is purposeful or purposeless, designed or random.

The step of reasoning from random process in nature to purposeless universe was always philosophically flawed, thus in the unlikely event that a totally different scientific theory of origins becomes accepted in science, it should make no difference to the church.

Imagine you're watching a play, and one of the characters on stage rolls some dice, and says "double 6! I win!" and this goes on to be a significant element in the plot of the play. Within the context of the play, this is a random event. But the play had a writer and director and the outcome was fully intended by them. Science can't tell us about the off-stage writer and director; it only tells us about the little universe we find ourselves in. All the world's a stage...

If by "unsupervised" NABT are saying that any biological theory proves an absence of divine intervention, they've made a philosophical error. If they mean that it is not necessary to postulate divine intervention in order to understand biology, then seems to me they're right.

You've raised an important question. I think you're right in suggesting that lots of non-believers have gained the impression that science has somehow disproven Christianity, and that this is a serious issue for the Church.

But the answer is not to try to improve the science in the belief that a better theory will necessarily give a pro-Christian outcome.

Still less to engage in dogmatic creationist pseudo-science.

The answer is to tackle the fundamentalists. Those within the church who bring Christianity into disrepute by linking it with historic ideas of this world - that we now know to be untrue - do far more harm to Christianity than does the outright opposition of honest atheists.

The Church needs to ensure that its house is not built on the sand. That spiritual truth isn't being justified by questionable cosmology.

Christ and evolution are not in conflict. Science and a fundamentalist attitude to truth will always be in conflict. Whether in religion or politics (compare the Nazis' rejection of "jewish physics").

Russ
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
If this is the case, if the theories of life are robust, insofar as they show they way life adapting to its environment, and if God is neither proved nor disproved, why does modern liberal humanism, which has its roots in evolutionary science, have such a strong hold on modern ethics and law?

---

I strongly dispute that "modern liberal humanism ... has its roots in evolutionary science". And I don't agree that it has a strong hold. And I don't agree that if it had it would be a bad thing. Not everyone, in fact not even a majority or anything like it, are Christians. The ethics and law should in my opinion reflect the views of a representative cross-section not some small minority with a loud voice.

But even ignoring all that, it isn't a reason to attack the theory of evolution. It's just a tool in the scientific armoury so to speak. Like any other tool it can be abused. Would you want to ban hammers because people could go around whacking people over the head with them?
 

quote:

---

why does modern liberal humanism, which has its roots in evolutionary science, have such a strong hold on modern ethics and law?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:
A 'rape gene', if it exists, does not contradict Christianity. We still have free will as to whether we follow the promptings of that gene.

<....>

As regards beauty in women being selected for evolutionarily, I'd be surprised if there was not a selection pressure of this type.

---

These theories are not strictly evolutionary but are extrapolations made by anthropologists to explain behavior. That doesn't make them wrong necessarily, but it doesn't make them right either. They are also prone to muddy this discussion because they are controversies of the nature-nurture variety. How much of behavior is inherited and how much is influenced by environment? This is by no means a settled issue. Selection pressure for beautiful women? I have no problem that male sexual response is hard-wired for a set of common general characteristics, but the fine points of beauty are clearly influenced by society. We can see that the shift of what is considered beautiful happened several times in the last century alone. The controversy happens because theorists wish to draw the line in different places.

Neil, you might consider that this is why we have theories. The advance of science results from the testing of competing theories, a kind of 'natural selection' that produces a working paradigm. (not a philosophical one)

Going back to banging on Behe for a moment, his theory of irrreducible complexity is published. It doesn't fit the present paradigm. He may be seen as a nut. If his theory actually has merit, some other scientist will find something that doesn't fit the ruling paradigm. He may publish and/or will find Behe's work from a literature search. Eventually, if that happens enough, people will reconsider his ideas and the paradigm will change.

But I expect Behe to have a hard pull simply because he is trying to assert and prove a negative. He is trying to say that we can't and we will never be able to explain the evolutionary steps necessary to get to certain complex systems. This is a logical negative, which I was taught is unprovable.

I really think you are grabbing the wrong end of the stick by arguing particulars instead of going back to the primary disagreement: God or no God.

As Russ said:

quote:

---

Don't worry about the science, worry about the philosophy.

My understanding is that science is methodologically incapable of concluding that the universe is purposeful or purposeless, designed or random.

---

The way I like to put it, and was going on about in another thread, is either/or:

• The Universe is an uncaused entity.
  
• God is an uncaused entity.
  

That is the disagreement to settle. All else is detail.

All the best,

Willy
 

quote:

---

A 'rape gene', if it exists, does not contradict Christianity. We still have free will as to whether we follow the promptings of that gene.

---

It will surely not be long now until genetic research gives us the true answer to this hypothesis. Let’s say for now that geneticists find a rape gene, then what you state is true, but only if we see it from a theistic perspective of responsibility. If, however, the science of evolution leads people to conclude that we are only ‘living’ matter, purposeless and without supervision, then we have a problem.

We have a similar problem in our church in Singapore. That is…no one wants to take responsibility for his or her actions. The only way people see of taking responsibility and of avoiding judgement is to use that phrase of childhood when we’re caught doing something naughty; “it wasn’t me, Mum” and pointing the finger at someone else we say, “he made me do it”. In our church, people say “it wasn’t me, God, the devil made me do it…I have been possessed by evil spirits”. Atheists will say “It wasn’t me, society, my genes made me do it…I am possessed by the natural process of evolution”.

If a gene is discovered for rape or theft or greed or jealousy, will we deduce that we have moral responsibility? If evolution of humans from cosmic dust is unsupervised, random and material rather than supervised, planned and made in the image of a Righteous God, then we can blame the process and literally get away with murder, or rape (because it’s survival of the fittest). And I respect anyone who states that because it is truthful adherence to the theory of evolution.

Russ, you said

quote:

---

The step of reasoning from random process in nature to purposeless universe was always philosophically flawed, thus in the unlikely event that a totally different scientific theory of origins becomes accepted in science, it should make no difference to the church.

---

Can you explain how your statement fits with what I pointed out above?

You also said

quote:

---

I think you're right in suggesting that lots of non-believers have gained the impression that science has somehow disproven Christianity

---

My wife and I went to see the film ‘evolution’ last night (her choice). It was a great Saturday night, switch of your brain and laugh affair (has anyone seen it?). What I found disturbing is the subtle reinforcement of the ‘life came from outer space’ theory and the single cell, mutiple cell, flat worm, dinosaur, Neanderthal progression (in 4 weeks not 2 billion years) both of are yet unproven theories. However, Joe Public will have a lasting impression from the film that both theories are true…Ruth, here’s your Straw Men.

Then you said

quote:

---

The answer is to tackle the fundamentalists. Those within the church who bring Christianity into disrepute by linking it with historic ideas of this world

---

I agree, and this is exactly what Johnson and Behe were doing. Neither of them holds a historical ‘Genesis’ view of the world.

I get the distinct impression from everyone’s post that there is no one who has actually read Philip Johnson’s work. Please prove me wrong. Please list which of the following books you have read…’Darwin on Trial’, ‘Reason in the Balance’, ‘Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds’, ‘Objections Sustained – subversive essays on evolution, law and culture’ or ‘The Wedge of Truth’. I will assume that silence from any member means that you have read none of the above. (BTW, I went looking for Kenneth Miller and Wills in Borders last night…they don’t stock either, I’ll have to order them).

John, I will not neglect what you said,

quote:

---

I strongly dispute that "modern liberal humanism ... has its roots in evolutionary science". And I don't agree that it has a strong hold.

---

Onto Wulfstan, you said

quote:

---

I'm a great believer in the idea that all scientific knowledge is provisional i.e. we accept it only until something better comes along

---

Correct, this is real science. Now, I do not want to imply a ‘God of the gaps’ theory, but with an open mind to God, theistic scientists will see the laws of nature which God put in place and which go on working day after day. But they will also see the times (like irreducibly) when science can not find an answer and which required intervention by the creator to move biology to the next level.

Willy, I get the gist of Behe’s logical negative, but if science can’t prove it then the negative must be true. It seems the lack of probability of irreducibly eliminates the possibility of chance, no matter how many billions of years that chance has had to happen, but it will never be provable.

Walfstan, I realise that I leapt about a bit in my previous posts, sorry. Remember that I had hoped that we could discuss the life of the church without the influence of the matters discussed in the thread above. We’ve had to go back a few steps and I am relieved that someone agrees that

quote:

---

There are deep disagreements within the scientific community about the mechanisms/speed etc of evolution.

---

You said

quote:

---

Failure to accept this leads IMO to bad science. I remember some grotesque drivel being produced about girls having a "sociability" gene.

---

I would like to ask you about what you said about law and political leaders in the UK:

quote:

---

In Britain legislation goes through the House of Lords which has a proportion of bishops in it. Both the current P.M. and the Chancellor profess religious convictions which are the basis for their political views

---

Going back to my original question on this thread, do you think the Bishops of the CoE have a theology which is untainted by last century’s scientific revelation and the philosophy which accompanied it? I am an Anglican, but I believe that most liberal theology is not a product of pure, clear, unconfused Christian thinking (I don’t mean YEC, I mean the nature of God, the nature of man, the fact of sin, the resurrection of Christ etc). Liberal theologians were honest men making efforts in the latter half of the twentieth century to reinterpret the Bible in the light of what science was stating very boldly about God and God’s role (or lack of it) in the origin of life and man. Most Bishops hold this theology and so struggle with the ‘authority’ of liberal humanism, which stems from Darwinian philosophy (I’ll come back to this John). Let’s say that (neo)Darwinian philosophy is undermined by open and honest doubts of the scientific theory’s ability to explain the origin of life and species by a totally naturalistic means, our theology will adjust (if we allowed the philosophy to pollute or theology in the first place…and I think we all, including conservatives, suffered philosophical pollution to some degree (see previous posts).

As for Tony and Gordon, the former is alleged to see himself as a modern messianic figure on a crusade to put right the excesses of materialism.

Behavioural scientists are gaining a strong position at the media microphone (BBC World Service). We are beginning to ‘blame the cavemen’ for our behaviour. Does society need to have yet another means of escaping personal responsibility…’It wasn’t me God, my genes made me do it’?

Neil
 

quote:

---

I get the distinct impression from everyone’s post that there is no one who has actually read Philip Johnson’s work. Please prove me wrong. Please list which of the following books you have read…’Darwin on Trial’, ‘Reason in the Balance’, ‘Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds’, ‘Objections Sustained – subversive essays on evolution, law and culture’ or ‘The Wedge of Truth’. I will assume that silence from any member means that you have read none of the above.

---

You may assume as you like.

quote:

---

Willy, I get the gist of Behe’s logical negative, but if science can’t prove it then the negative must be true. It seems the lack of probability of irreducibly eliminates the possibility of chance, no matter how many billions of years that chance has had to happen, but it will never be provable.

---

Your statement demonstrates that you don't "get the gist."

Willy
 

quote:

---

I get the distinct impression from everyone?s post that there is no one who has actually read Philip Johnson?s work. Please prove me wrong. Please list which of the following books you have read...

---

None. However he is not short of words to say, and what he has to say does appear in places such as
this debate with Kenneth Miller which he totally loses in my view.

As far as I can see, if I don't accept what he says in these "executive summaries" for the web or the blurb "on the back cover", why should I waste time reading the whole thing?

Time isn't limitless, it is plain to me that he has an axe to grind, a very limited understanding of the subject he's talking about and a propensity not to let that stop him churning out books attacking what amount to strawmen. I'm sure we can all think of authors we have opinions of that we don't feel we need to read the books to verify. Erich von Daniken comes to mind. I'm sure Philip Johnson is a higher level than him, but I'm sure he's still wrong. Dangerously so, in my view, as people take him seriously.

Turning to Behe a moment, where his argument (and I have read it, not his book) to me breaks down is the whole issue of "chance".

The real point here is that if a thing is possible, however improbable, then he has lost the argument. If life is like a game in which you have to throw a double-six to start, but you have any amount of throws and no time limit, you will get started eventually.

If life is so improbable that you need trillions of planets to try it out on and billions of years to do it, fine, the universe offers that and we're the "winners". We might feel unique, like a lottery winner might feel unique, but we just won, that's all. The "losers", as it were by definition, aren't around to argue the point.

But then again, I don't accept that "Liberal Humanism" has a relationship to "Darwinism", that it has a hold, or it would be a bad thing if it did.

In two other (quite disjoint) BB's (I somehow find time to subscribe to) of a rather different nature to this one, I see that people are more concerned that the "religious right" are setting about a new wave of "book-burning" and that science will be the first casualty. I'd be more concerned about that myself.
 

Dawkins is too extreme evebn for me, but one memorable phrase stands out about not being able to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist before Darwin.

Johnson, as you say misunderstands science, but he should be read by anyone hoping to popularise Evolution. He points out the pitfalls in language use that many fall into.

The problems in Evolution should not be taught before at least 'GCSE' level, and preferably at 'A' level.

There are known problems in number theory (search for Omega numbers on the net). Should we teach pupils learning maths about the doubts some have about its validity?

If we examine the Holocaust there are some Historians that have trouble accepting that, does that mean we should teach revisionism in schools? They actually use The same techniques as Creationists.

Moslems also attack evolution, see here: Evolution Deceit. I have writeen a partial rebuttal to a couple of the chapters in this book.
 

http://www-polisci.mit.edu/bostonreview/BR21.6/orr.html

Orr’s key point, amongst others, is that:

quote:

---

An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required.

---

Behe's argument fails. Even if irreducibly complex systems exist that does not prove that they could not have evolved, indeed one would expect to find many such systems in existence.

Your insistence that we believe Behe until scientists can provide the individual steps by which say, the clotting system evolved is asking for the moon. Such steps may now be irrecoverably obscured by the process of evolution.

Orr deals with several other points and all in all it is an excellent article.

Glenn
 

Is there a connection? We should be told!
 

quote:

---

Since you seem to be so impressed by Behe’s argument I recommend that you read this review article by Allen Orr which demolishes it.

---

I've read it. Having read the book, unlike anyone else on the thread, I note that Orr has summarised Behe's observations well, though Behe actually spends 200 out of 300 pages (that’s 60% not 30% of the book - but perhaps Orr isn't very good at Maths) describing five irreducibly complex bio-systems. It is fair for Orr to say that Behe draws no conclusion about the designer, only that he thinks cellular mechanisms look like they have been designed and it is now the job of bio-chemists to prove that there is no designer. That's a great challenge which good scientists will relish.

I respected Orr's observation that Behe, like me, is disturbed by the ill will between science and theology (though I think we will soon come to this matter on this thread, but not yet). If Behe is seen as a creationist, Orr points out, it is because YECs and Evangelical Christians have been quick to associate with him. But Behe is not a creationist, he's not even an Evangelical. Orr points out that Behe is the 'real thing', unlike creationists. Behe is simply a very well informed (Roman Catholic) Scientist who happens to pose a particularly difficult question for step-by-step random development of molecular mechanisms. End of chat.

I gather, that no one on this thread has read Behe, and John I appreciate that our time is a limiting factor, but it is not an excuse. If something is important, we should prioritise it. May I humbly suggest that the only way we can form educated opinion about a theory is to read the book for ourselves before reading a potted account and coloured criticism? Everyone, will you please stop telling me to read this or that, I'm getting sick of being patronised…go away and read 'Darwin's Black Box' for yourselves, it is not creationist clap-trap but is a serious challenge to the scientific community. And when you've read it come back with your own opinions.

Glenn, if you had bothered to read it before condemning it as creationist clap-trap (which it isn't), you would you would know that Orr's main argument (which you proudly quoted) is discussed in the book and Behe demands a more scientific approach. The A's and B's of Orr's theory, says Behe, are scientifically insufficient. We need hard facts, not fairy tales.

Orr either ignored or misunderstood Behe's argument (either he is wicked or stupid) knowing that scientists are unlikely, as John pointed out, to bother to read the book for themselves. So Orr was free to quote part of Behe's disproof back to us as proof that systems are not irreducible. I'd quote you part of the book, but I think it better you read the whole. Then you'll see that Orr's mistake (or deliberate deception) does not demolish Behe's argument, and that the scientific work still needs to be done.

I'll say it again for everyone's benefit, I have no issue with the methodological work of science. There should be no ill will between science and theology, but sadly there is and this thread should avoid it.

Has anyone ever wondered why it gets so heated between scientists and theologians?

Before I post my next thread, can anyone offer me the scientific credentials of Richard Lewontin? I am reading some of his stuff now, and would like to move the debate up a few levels.

Neil
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
(snip)
I gather, that no one on this thread has read Behe, and John I appreciate that our time is a limiting factor, but it is not an excuse. If something is important, we should prioritise it. May I humbly suggest that the only way we can form educated opinion about a theory is to read the book for ourselves before reading a potted account and coloured criticism? Everyone, will you please stop telling me to read this or that, I'm getting sick of being patronised?go away and read 'Darwin's Black Box' for yourselves, it is not creationist clap-trap but is a serious challenge to the scientific community. And when you've read it come back with your own opinions.(snip)

---

The operative words here are "if something is important" and I disagree with you about whether it is.

Other people on this thread have said that their faith is unaffected by the theory of evolution. I don't have faith, neither do I work in biology, but from what I gather from those who do evolution is an extremely well-founded theory.

Why should I waste time, as I see it, reading a book which won't make any difference to what I think or spend my time on and that people who know anything about the subject matter discussed and whose opinions I have reason to respect say is wrong? Even that won't cover all the subject matter you've brought up either.

I don't think it's been patronising - you've admitted ignorance or lack of understanding of various issues and yet you're still plugging the assertion (inter alia), unsupported by any evidence, that "Darwinist Philosophy" is "the root of liberal humanism", which I disagree with for one thing and am not convinced is a bad thing for another. Where does Behe discuss such things?

The tone of comments about "getting sick of being patronised" and "go away and read (Behe)" sound dangerously like the petulant responses of someone who has lost the argument to me.
 

It is flawed to begin with.

Behe's only argument "is I don't know, so God must have done it." Many do know, their was a lot of published work on these subjects that Behe ignored. But even if there wasn't this is an "argument from personal incredulity"
 

It seems to me important to distinguish carefully between two different arguments that Behe may be making:

1) The first is the greater claim that irreducibly complex systems cannot in principle be evolved by natural selection. This argument fails, and Orr's argument shows why. Orr's As and Bs in his argument are perfectly legitimate since the argument is, in effect that all irreducibly complex systems cannot in principle be evolved. Orr need only show that natural selection can in principle explain some.

2) The second is the lesser claim that some particular irreducibly complex system cannot have been evolved by natural selection. Here the jury is out because it is hard to see how Behe could prove this beyond reasonable doubt, and proving him wrong by constructing a step by step explanation of a particular case is likely to be exceptionally difficult even if it is actually an evolved system.

Given that the evidence for evolution is so widespread and compelling and that there are mechanisms which can in principle bring about irreducible complexity many of us feel that the chances of Behe being right about 2 are small. His is a challenge to the theory, certainly, but not such as to throw the theory into crisis at the present time.

His view also has odd theological consequences - given that God, in Behe's view has allowed evolution to operate, why couldn't God let evolution take care of all cases of irreducible complexity too?

Glenn
 

There is a problem here. Non-functional DNA mutates freely, because there is no selection pressure against deleterious mutations. The DNA would for the blood clotting cascade would not work by the time it was required.
 

John, I'm sorry for sounding petulant. I was quite frustrated, because I know what I've read and so can see that many arguments are covered in the books. I wouldn't have to argue the points if you had all read the same books.

You helpfully pointed out previously, John, that Philip Johnson is not a scientist but a lawyer. I'll get to get to the science supports liberal humanism and vice versa once this argument is concluded. Please bear with me.

Regarding Johnson, we can ask, what right can a lawyer have to question science? None, right? Scientists are best qualified to question science.

But, if you would have an open enough mind to prioritise the reading of Johnson's books (I am a Christian and read Dawkins and Lewontin without it affecting my faith and you should have the same confidence to do the same) you'd see that whilst Johnson sites simple scientific examples (examples even a lawyer or an engineer can understand), Johnson's primary concern is not with the science but with unraveling the complex arguments philosophical materialists use to defend their 'science'. Johnson shows, with his lawyer's mind, how defenders of 'evolution' use complex rebuttal techniques which mask the underlying science.

Allen Orr is a classic case in hand. The formula for rebuttal is classic.

• outline the criticism of Darwinism
  
• give a solid sounding theoretical response
  
• attack the person
  
• attack secondary or tertiary arguments (Orr even admits this)
  
• throw in a few straw men
  
• cross reference a few vaguely related scientific theories
  
• do anything (quite rightly perhaps) not to give creationists a foot in the door
  

'Demolition' job done!

Not at all, says Johnson. The main criticism has been left unanswered. In the case of Allen Orr, Behe asked in his book for scientists to replace A+B=C with the real scientific chemical names and reactions. Can you see the weakness of Orr's response to Behe? It is not that he might be right and Behe wrong, it is that Orr has not given a solid answer as demanded by Behe in 'Darwin's Black Box'. A+B=C is not a valid scientific answer. A+B=C is a fairy story based on a prior commitment to materialism. Read the book.

Johnson has exposed many more rebuttal examples that are similar and all he is doing (like me but much better - he's a lawyer used to spotting flaws in arguments, I'm an engineer used to designing steel structures) is exposing the argument techniques of philosophical materialists committed to keeping the supernatural out of modern thought. Can you see the difference? When people begin to understand the way scientists argue, the debate will be much more open and, more importantly, honest

Neil
 

Let me see if I've got this right. You seem to believe that:

a) It's only a dishonest pre-commitment to a materialistic philosophy which keeps scientists from treating God as a major factor in their theories about how the world came to be.

b) Honest scientists should be able to draw a distinction between those matters which future scientists may somehow be able to explain, and those things that science will never be able to explain.

c) Having identified a list of inherently inexplicable phenomena, all scientists should automatically accept a supernatural explanation for these.

d) That once their false scientific backing has been removed, various unspecified liberal philosphies will collapse, leaving the world a more conservative evangelical and thus better place.

I have to say that I don't find any of this in the slightest bit plausible.

I'd really prefer that scientists didn't go on about God. Hawking may think that his research gives him insight into the mind of God, or it may just be a way of boosting sales of his books, but the "how" of creation, however fascinating, doesn't really say anything about the "why are we here?" religious question.

Perhaps all the "heat" arises because our language isn't very good at distinguishing the empirical and spiritual realms, so that what sounds like a scientific question is actually a philosophical question, or vice versa ?

Russ
 

The closing question of your post is indeed part of the complex and unnecessarily 'heated' relationship between science and theology. You said

quote:

---

perhaps...our language isn't very good at distinguishing the empirical and spiritual realms..

---

Before investigating the relationship between science, philosophy or ideology and theology, can we further consider the rebuttal methods adopted by opponents to creationism?

In relation to the rest of what you said, you demonstrated a number of the flawed techniques used by Darwinists to rebut scientific challenges which have been outlined by Johnson. Can we use your response an example of the flaws of these arguments? This is not a personal attack, your post merely demonstrates our learned behaviour in light of the evolution/creation debate. And note, that creationists are guilty in many cases of using the same erroneous rebuttal techniques.

In the context of recent posts, your four point summary refers to the issue of irreduciblity.

• outline the criticism of Darwinism - you skipped this technique, quite rightly. There is no need to summarise what has just been said on the thread, though it would have made your rebuttal more convincing (not necessarily right) if you'd demonstrated that you understood what had been said about Behe and Johnson.
  
• give a theoretical response - you theorise a situation of 'theistic' science. Theorise what you like, it is not answering the scientific challenge posed by Behe.
  
• attack the person - you were gracious enough not to do this.
  
• throw in a few straw men - 'leaving the world more conservative evangelical' - not an orthodox straw man but a straw man nonetheless, it leaves the reader to imagine an arm waving charismatic or bible-bashing conservative, or whatever their coloured personal perception of 'evangelical' is.
  
• cross reference a few vaguely related scientific theories - none, no problem
  
• do anything (quite rightly perhaps) not to give creationists a foot in the door - all four points demonstrate this rational fear.
  

Christians of all persuasions need to unlearn this conditioned response. With clear thinking we will see that it is nothing more than a knee jerk reaction to YECs from what we believe is the only alternative.

But it is not the only alternative. One technique a omitted from my original list was 'contorting the conclusions'. I didn't say scientists have 'a dishonest pre-commitment to a materialistic philosophy'. I said that scientists have an honest commitment to a materialistic philosophy, it is their coloured responses that are dishonest.

The honest response to Behe is not to demolish his scientific challenge using the flawed rebuttal methods outlined by Johnson but to acknowledge Behe's challenge and set off to the lab to do some experiments to prove Behe wrong. As Behe said, A+B=C is not science it is a fair story used to mislead Joe Public.

Neil
 

The Independent described it as 'the most subversive book to be published in English this year (1993)'

Stephen Jay Gould said of the book:

quote:

---

'The very best in genetics, combined with a powerful political and moral vision of how science, properly interpreted and used to empower all the people, might truly help us to be free'

---

Wake up Christendom! 'Science' has not just claimed but already assumed the moral authority for western culture. Can the Christians on this thread see what has happened? While we've backed science verses YEC, science has stabbed us in the back and buried Christianity with philosophical materialism and liberal humanism.

The honest position for all involved (scientists, Christains and aetheists) in the debate is scientific agnosticism. A simple statement of 'science is neutral' (which we have already agreed) would be enough to re-establish the possibility of the Almighty in the minds of Joe Public. Christians do not need to be hostile to methodologicalism, science and theology can live at peace. But as soon as science made the claims of Lewontin, and assumed moral legitimacy and as long as science keeps Christians on side against YEC, then science has won the moral high ground, and Lewontin knows it.

Clear scientific agnosticism is called for. A third postion in the evolution/creationism debate. Sit on the fence, say we can't tell, I'm not saying that we need to give serious consideration to YEC, but to the cretaor. Whatever theistic position we hold, do not agree with the evolutionists who have claimed moral authority through the 'fact' that science proves God is dead.

Neil
 

I think both sides here are trying to confuse science and philosophy. In Lewontin and Dawkins' case the confusion is obvious. It is the Intelligent Design people whose confusion is not so clear.

Intelligent Design says (reduced perhaps a little too far, but for the purposes of explanation) 'X looks designed, therefore it is'. But that is a philosophical question. Science does not ask whether the blood cascade reaction is designed, but how the design was realised in the natural world. I agree with ID as philosophy, but not as science.

As regards refuting Behe in the lab, this has been done and Miller refers to some lab experiments that do just this, so I'll leave that until you've read his book. Besides, my father in law currently has my copy...

Turning finally to combatting atheist philosophy from the likes of Dawkins and Lewontin - the solution, surely, is to accept the findings of science (and even Behe considers that to reject common descent is ridiculous given the evidence) but to point out how, philosophically, this does not actually have any bearing on the existence or nature of God.
 

• Lewontin, R.C. 1989. Inferring the number of evolutionary events from DNA coding sequence differences. Mol. Biol. Evol. 6(1): 15-32.
  
• Lewontin, R.C. 1984. Detecting population differences in quantitative characters as opposed to gene frequencies. Amer. Nature 123: 115-124.
  
• Lewontin, R.C. 1995. The detection of linkage disequilibrium in molecular sequence data. Genetics 140: 377-388.
  

I may be stating the obvious to you, but you're a scientist (at least I think you are…what is your field?). You sit on the inside of the impenetrable world of science, at least that's the way it seems to Joe Public.

In the eyes of Joe Public, the common man, Lewontin's scientific pedigree makes him a legitimacy voice on the matter of science and the world. And Lewontin knows it.

Here is an abridged version of Lewontin's preface and first chapter 'The Doctrine of DNA - biology as ideology'. It makes interesting reading.

quote:

---

Western society has become more secular and more rationalist, and the chief sources for social theory have become the professional intellectuals, the scientists, economists, political theorists, and philosophers who work largely in universities. These intellectuals are aware of the power they have to mould public consciousness, and they constantly seek ways in which they can publish their ideas.

For almost the entire history of European society...the chief institution of social legitimacy was the Christian church. It was by the grace of God that each person had an appointed place in society...Even the most revolutionary of religious leaders pressed the claims of legitimacy for the sake of order...

For an institution to explain the world so as to make the world legitimate, it must possess several features. First, the institution as a whole must appear to derive from sources outside of ordinary human social struggle. It must not seem to be the creation of political, economic, or social forces, but to descend into society from a supra-human source. Second, the ideas, pronouncements, rules, and results of the institution's activity must have a validity and a transcendent truth that goes beyond any possibility of human compromise or human error. Its explanations and pronouncements must seem to be true in an absolute sense to derive somehow from an absolute source. They must be true for all time and all place. And finally, the institution must have a certain mystical and veiled quality so that it its innermost operation is not completely transparent to everyone. It must have esoteric language, which needs to be explained to the ordinary person by those who are especially knowledgeable and who can intervene between everyday life and mysterious sources of understanding and knowledge.

The Christian Church or indeed any revealed religion fits these requirements perfectly...but this description also fits science and has made it possible for science to replace religion as the chief legitimating force in modern society...

Not only the methods and institutions of science are said to be above ordinary human relations but, of course, the product of science is claimed to be a kind of universal truth...

Despite its claims to be above society, science, like the Church before it, is a supremely social institution, reflecting and reinforcing the dominant values and views of society...The most famous case is Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection...Most of the ideological influence from society that permeates science is a great deal more subtle...

Our genes and the DNA molecules that make them up are the modern form of grace, and in this view we will understand what we are when we know what our genes are made of...we will know what it is to be human.

---

I found the above statement refreshingly honest. Lewontin has stated the truth clearly and concisely…God is dead…science rules ethics, morality, culture, purpose and meaning.

Joe Public has no way of questioning Lewontin's philosophy because, as Lewontin pointed out, no one understands his science.

My questions are these?

• What gives science this legitimacy?
  
• What keeps Darwin's philosophical train in motion?
  
• How will the church counter this legitimacy?
  

Neil
 

I am not a scientist; I'm a computer engineer. I have science A levels and a scientific degree, but that's as far as it goes.

As to your questions:

What gives science this legitimacy?

It doesn't have it. If people look to science for ultimate meaning that is very foolish of them. The fact that so few look to the church reflects the vacuosity of much Christian output.

What keeps Darwin's philosophical train in motion?

You need to be specific what you mean here, because I'm not sure. Darwin proposed a scientific model and didn't relate it to philosophy, so I don't know what his philosophy was. I understand he was a theist.

How will the church counter this legitimacy?

See my last post. Certainly it doesn't happen by finding gaps in current scientific knowledge and saying 'Ha! Goddidit!'

[edited for typo and to add bit I forgot because I can]

[ 17 July 2001: Message edited by: Karl ]
 

I think the quote you gave is actually a fairly accurate description of the way things are (not, of course, how they should be). The general public do tend to give a greater credance to the views of scientists, who have effectively replaced the Church as the source of truth. Now that may be great for the ego of individual scientists, it is not good for society since it results in an implicit rejection of other sources of truth (in art for example) that are not capable of being investigated with the tools of science. As a scientist I am worried by this over emphasis on science; I would be horrified if my thoughts on areas outside environmental radioactivity or physics were considered more worthy of consideration because I'm a practising scientist.

I'll have a stab at answering your three questions in a later post.

Alan
 

Many thanks for your response, I re-read your last post on the way back from work in the taxi (the joy of Palm computing...I write most of my posts in the taxi too).

I realised, once I'd re-read past the first line of your post that I agree with everything you said and I agree with everything on your response to my slight rant. Sorry.

Whew...I am pleased that the science and philosophy, including the philosophy of ID, are now clear in my mind), thank you.

May I summarise so that you can make sure I agree with you:

Methodologicalism is science…plain investigation into the way things work. It is by definition natural and requires no philosophical commitment.

Philosophical naturalism, or materialism are fancy ways of saying that a scientist is committed to finding natural ways to explain everything, due to a prior philosophical commitment to atheism.

Intelligent Design is a way of saying that a scientist holds a philosophically theistic understanding of the universe, due to faith in a creator God, but without trying to invoke a literal understanding of Genesis 1 & 2.

Creationism is a way of saying that a scientist is committed to finding scientific ways to explain the creation account in Genesis 1 & 2, due to a prior philosophical commitment to theism.

Remember, I’m a bear of very little brain. Are these definitions accurate?

You said

quote:

---

The fact that so few look to the church reflects the vacuosity of much Christian output.

---

My next question was meant to open up some thinking about the complex relationships between science, the media, the public, government and so on. What systems exist which support liberal humanism and the ‘scientific’ philosophy of the West?

I must go for dinner.

Talk tomorrow

Neil
 

quote:

---

What gives science this legitimacy?

---

Interestingly it seems that things are changing. The image of science to be able to solve problems is badly marred by the problems of pollution and climate change brought about by technological advances, as well as concerns about GM food, nuclear power, emerging diseases etc. There is a move within the general public away from science as the only (or primary) source of truth, hence the growth in "New Age" spiritualities, alternative medicines and the like. The challenge to the Church is to gain a hearing as being a genuine source of truth.

quote:

---

What keeps Darwin's philosophical train in motion?

---

This, of course, relates to the comments above. While science is seen as the preferred (or only) source of truth then philosophical materialism is a fairly natural extension of that idea. This means that scientists who hold such a philosophical viewpoint have a ready audience in the general public, because as a scientific expert the impression is they have authority to speak as philosophers. As I've said this is incorrect, but the perception is there nonetheless. Of course, it doesn't help when emminent scientists who recognise that they have no expertise in philosophy, and hence no authority to get involved in philosophical discussion, therefore keep quiet on such issues.

quote:

---

How will the church counter this legitimacy?

---

On a practicle level this means the Church needs people sufficiently versed in science and philosophy with the communication skills of the likes of Dawkins to be able to get Christian views of science into the public consciousness. This means trying to get TV in particular to show things which don't depict some form of conflict between science and faith, and to debunk some of the more persistant myths which support the view that science and faith have always been in conflict. It also means we've got to find ways of supressing those within the church who, through some prior commitment to the nonsense of YEC for example, do see science as the enemy.

Sorry for the length,

Alan
 

Sorry, I take "conservative" to be the opposite of "liberal", and therefore tend to assume that if you're against the one you're in favour of the other. No offence or straw man intended. If you're not intending to put a conservative argument, you might consider whether the word "liberal" adds anything to what you're saying? Is it simply humanism that you're against ?

Perhaps we should treat the philosophy of scientists as we treat the political convictions of pop musicians. Each individual has a right to their own view on philosophical and political issues. (But this isn't a licence to ignore empirical findings).

Can anyone ever be said to speak "for science" ? Not if they're spouting philosophy. Perhaps if they're talking about the method of science and the conclusions drawn from the application of that method...

I'm happy to leave science to the scientists. It doesn't threaten genuine faith in God (although I think that those who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis correctly perceive that such a belief is contradicted by "scientific" knowledge). I feel no obligation to agree with (or even to read) books of the philosophies held by particular scientists just because they are scientists.

So I'm not sure there's anything to get worked up about...

Is it perhaps the case that most Christians today do not believe that the existence of God can be proved, whereas most Christians in medieval times did think that ? So that we believe in God in a different way than our medieval ancestors did ? Is God now a private conviction rather than a publicly acknowledged fact ?

If you're saying that the rise of science and increasing knowledge of the natural world has something to do with this philosophical change (has the argument from design joined the argument of the first cause in the philosophical dustbin ?) then I wouldn't argue with you.

But to suggest that the change is reversible through any particular scientific finding seems to me a misunderstanding.

Is this where the liberal/conservative thing comes in - are liberals happier with modern pluralism while conservatives hark back to the days of crusades against the infidel ?

Or am I going round in circles ?

Russ
 

quote:

---

Is it perhaps the case that most Christians today do not believe that the existence of God can be proved, whereas most Christians in medieval times did think that ? So that we believe in God in a different way than our medieval ancestors did ? Is God now a private conviction rather than a publicly acknowledged fact >

---

As a tangent, I think this is the past that the YECs are hankering for. Because if the earth was created in 7 days it needs God.
 

Various comments have been made about R. C. Lewontin which may have mislead readers of this thread about what his views actually are. Neil quoted/paraphrased a bit from the first chapter of his book The Doctrine of DNA Biology as Ideology as:

quote:

---

Our genes and the DNA molecules that make them up are the modern form of grace, and in this view we will understand what we are when we know what our genes are made of...we will know what it is to be human.

---

But this is Lewontin stating the view of biology that the rest of his book seeks to attack and show to be false.

Neil then said:

quote:

---

I found the above statement refreshingly honest. Lewontin has stated the truth clearly and concisely…God is dead…science rules ethics, morality, culture, purpose and meaning.

---

But for Lewontin such reductionism is what he argues against. On page 16 he says that he seeks to

quote:

---

acquaint the reader with the truth about science as a social activity and to promote a reasonable skepticism about the sweeping claims that modern science makes to an understanding of human existence.

---

Lewontin has co-authored various articles and books with Stephen Gould and also with Steven Rose, and the three of them have much in common with Neil Robbie in that they are very critical of much of Evolutionary Psychology and the way biology is applied to ethics. (see for example the collection
Alas, Poor Darwin: arguments against evolutionary psychology edited by Hilary and Steven Rose).

These people are scientists who dislike the way biological ideas are sometimes improperly applied to people, and naturally get passionate in their protests about it. Bravo, for their part in the debate!

Glenn
 

Karl, you said

quote:

---

Fascinating. And highly illustrative of the disingenuous way in which quotations can be used.

---

Regardless of whether Lewontin agrees with us or not, his quotes make a valid and honest point. Science is the current legitimating force in western society.

Karl, I agreed with you that the church needs to put it's house in order to attract scientists who see Christianity as an empty shell. To be fair, the church has been defending itself against philosophical attack over the last 100 years by trying to adapt to the powerful message of science, but the adapted Christian message has little relevance to everyday life, and Christianity of that ilk has, sadly, become a subset of humanism.

If this process is to be reversed, perhaps we must not only revert to the original message of the gospel, but at the same time undermine the authority of science to claim legitimacy in the realms of the meaning and purpose of life.

I've been thinking about my question regarding the systems which keep humanism (liberalism - call it what we will) in place.

Below is a slightly tongue-in-cheek description of the beliefs, people and institutions of the cult of humanism and the part (neo)Darwinism plays in the cult (what's happened to John Collins? This is what he wanted to discuss)

Perhaps, if Christians understand the interaction between science and humanism, it may help us establish how theistic scientists can aid the recovery of the role of the church in shaping Western culture.

Here goes, if anyone wishes to expand or amend these initial definitions, feel free.

Beliefs

• Gospel - freedom from the oppression of God - Gould said 'science, properly interpreted and used to empower all the people, might truly help us to be free (from God)'
  
• Creed - NABT statement is a pretty concice statement of belief - 'The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.'
  
• god - the natural world is idolised - (read Dawkiws 'Unweaving the Rainbow' - Dawkins literally worships creation)
  
• Creation account - (neo)Darwinism
  
• 'Grace' - genes which determine our position in society (this is Richard Lewontin's limited definition of grace in his book 'The Doctrine of DNA - biology as ideology')
  
• Law - relativism? Can anyone expand on modern ethics and law? What is the current basis for these?
  

People

• 'Theologians' - Richard Lewontin identified that the 'chief sources for social theory have become the professional intellectuals, the scientists, economists, political theorists, and philosophers who work largely in universities.'
  
• 'Prophets' - Dawkins et al who confidently predict the day when science will give us complete knowledge of a godless universe.
  
• 'Bishops' - liberal politicians (see new French law restricting religious freedom)
  
• 'Pastors' - 'civil liberties' campaigners repressing challenges to the 'fact' of Darwinism - see recent court cases against teachers in the USA who have taught both the facts of and problems with natural selection as a theory for explaining life and species.
  
• 'Sunday school teachers' - secondary school biology teachers
  
• 'Scribes' - civil servants, the law makers
  
• 'Congregation' - TV watching, media influenced Joe Public
  

Institutions & Buildings

• 'Theological seminaries' - universities (see theologians above)
  
• 'College chapel' - university lecture halls
  
• 'Pulpit' - all media
  
• 'Christian Church' - permitted by humanism as a crutch for simple, superstitious people like us.
  

I've been thinking about the role of Galileo et al in the undermining of the dogmatism of the church. Science disproved many dogmatically held beliefs of the church and the church lost credibility and confidence in the process.

Just as no one within the church questioned its legitimacy in the days of Galileo, are scientists now unwilling to question the legitimacy of science today?

Please remember that we do not want to advocate a YEC approach to science. But can scientists, like Behe, be part of the dismantling of humanism (liberalism)? If theistic scientists break rank with the established church of science, openly questioning the philosophical assumptions of many scientists (like Lewontin is reported by Glenn to have done…my appetite is whetted again for his book), if theistic scientists publicly announce that science is neutral on the questions of God, how will it effect the (Joe) public perception and authority of humanism?

Neil
 

quote:

---

Gould said 'science, properly interpreted and used to empower all the people, might truly help us to be free (from God)'

---

quote:

---

'Grace' - genes which determine our position in society (this is Richard Lewontin's limited definition of grace in his book 'The Doctrine of DNA.

---

As a liberal christian humanist (if that makes any sense to you) when I hear other Christians protest about humanism I wonder what it is about it that they are objecting to -what is it that they think of when they hear the word 'humanism'? I am deeply suspicious of the authoritarian aspects of some styles of Christianity and I get alarmed that they might wish to impose some drastic limits on free speech (that's my knee jerk private nightmare). I would be interested to know what you see as the alternative to the humanism you seem so opposed to.

By the way, I did not think you were being disingenuous with your earlier Lewontin quote. Enjoy Harry Potter, (I’m on No. 4).

Glenn
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
Below is a slightly tongue-in-cheek description of the beliefs, people and institutions of the cult of humanism and the part (neo)Darwinism plays in the cult (what's happened to John Collins? This is what he wanted to discuss)

---

I hadn't gone away I just occasionally remember to shut up if I can't think of anything useful to say.

Besides which I thought this belonged on another thread.

I don't really know what planet you live on but all this stuff seems quite unconnected with any philosophy I recognise in the context in the UK of having the most religious PM since Gladstone and in the US (oh well better shut up).

Why "liberal humanism", whether or not that is a fair definition of its philosophy, is the ultimate enemy in the face of rampant Islam etc escapes me. But then I don't agree with much else you've said.
 

I'm sligtly disappointed that I didn't read Harry Potter 3 when my wife read it...before no 4! 3 loses something of its suspense when you know Harry lives for no 4. Never mind, it's still very well written.

You're right, Gould didn't write (from God) I added it as I thought it was implied, sorry for that.

I realise humanism has numerous definitions, I use it in the modern sense as given in Chambers dictionary:

quote:

---

Humanism (n) literary culture; classical studies; any system which puts human interests and the mind of man paramount, rejecting the supernatural, belief in a god, etc; pragmatism (philos); a critical application of the logical method of pragmatism to all the sciences.

---

I realise Christian Humanism is an oxymoron in this sense and that you must therefore mean that your theology is post-Renaissance but pre-Reformation (are you interested in any particular aspect of humanism? Northern European, Swiss, French or English?).

If your theology includes Christianismus renascens, from a modern perspective, then our faith as Christians is probably similar.

But, now that you have described your theological position, may I ask how adopting the various adjectives which are used to describe different branches of Christianity help in this context? The context being the unifying of theism in science. John Collins mentioned Islam as the common enemy of the West, but when it comes to science, Islamic scientists share a common understanding of the world as a product of an intelligent design. (Mr Collins your response was illustrative of the type of arguement highlighted by Philip Johnson - attack the person and produce a straw man. Your arguement will hold more water if you stick to the issues).

Can I ask, Glenn and Karl, is it possible for theisists of every shade and colour stop the petty infighting over our understanding of God and unite under the banner of Intellgent Design as a philosophy?

In its simplest form, intellgent design as a philosophy (if it grows in public perception) will at least turn people to consider the creator. God will lead people to the truth and, I believe, that the ressurected Christ is the only objective truth which will satisfy the minds of people who have trained to seek objectivity. Liberal Christian Humanism will be one of many branches of theism which will benefit.

Neil
 

You also wrote:

quote:

---

God will lead people to the truth and, I believe, that the ressurected Christ is the only objective truth which will satisfy the minds of people who have trained to seek objectivity.

---

You also wrote:

quote:

---

Can I ask, Glenn and Karl, is it possible for theisists of every shade and colour stop the petty infighting over our understanding of God and unite under the banner of Intellgent Design as a philosophy?

---

Finally, one of the reasons why I like this place so much is its atmosphere of cordiality between practioners of extremely different schools of thought. If I may be so presumptious, I find it sad on that basis that you have evolved one attitude from "John" to "Mr.Collins" in your reply here; John may be somewhat abrasive, but I think he has raised some points which need more answering, and in any case I don't think he's abrasive enough to warrant the response you gave just above.

In any case, in a lighthearted manner, let me observe that there are now at least two people on this thread who have atually read Behe.
 

Please accept my apologies gentlemen.

Neil
 

Neil

PS. It's great to know someone else has read Behe!
 

quote:

---

Can I ask, Glenn and Karl, is it possible for theisists of every shade and colour stop the petty infighting over our understanding of God and unite under the banner of Intellgent Design as a philosophy?

---

Perfectly. But the leaders of the ID movement don't want that. They want us to unite under ID as a scientific alternative to evolution by natural selection. That is, of course, not an option for those of us who accept the case for the latter.
 

Also, I.D. tends to be a very particular take in how God was involved in the creation process, and I'm not convinced at all that it is certainly correct theologically or scientifically - indeed personally I think it's pretty unconvincing both ways - or rather it is easily assailed by what I might term "hard evolutionists". It seems rather close to a house built on sand...
 

Philip Johnson on Dawkins - 9th July 2001

quote:

---

My point is not that his statement is arrogant, but that it is just so much empty rant.

---

Reading the article, Johnson gets unwittingly drawn into putting his cards on the table by Dawkins regarding his position on common ancestry.

However, I've never read Johnson scientifically, the bloke's a lawyer, he should stick to exposing the fallacious arguments of Dawkins statements on philosophy.

The way I read the article is that Johnson accuses Dawkins, as graciously as he can, of a grossly one-sided philosophical view of the empirical scientific evidence.

Now, I agree that mixing philosophy with science is a dangerous business and that science should be left to its methodologicalism, but I would like to relate this argument to my own experience to state my view on why theists should unite under an 'intelligent design' banner.

I was converted from a position of philosophical materialism, secular humanism, call it what you like, by faith in the resurrected Christ (which I believe is objective truth) to philosophical theism. With my conversion came the almost instantaneous view that the world was designed.

As a simple example. I see that animals consume oxygen and produce carbon dioxide and that plants reverse that process, maintaining the atmospheric balance. Philosophically, I saw this, ten years ago, as intelligent design. There is no way we can prove, using science, that the oxygen-carbon dioxide cycle is a product of intelligence or evolution. We can theorise about it, speculate and hypothesise, but we'll never prove it.

Is this a valid position all theistic scientists can hold? If it is, why don't theistic scientists hold this philosophy more strongly?

Neil
 

Getting back to liberal or secular humanism. I commend to you the reading of the Council for Secular Humanism - A Secular Humanist Declaration

Let me quote some parts of the declaration, to give you the gist of why philosophical materialism is the enemy of Christian, and all other monotheistic, faith:

quote:

---

Secular humanism is a vital force in the contemporary world. It is now under unwarranted and intemperate attack from various quarters. This declaration defends only that form of secular humanism which is explicitly committed to democracy. It is opposed to all varieties of belief that seek supernatural sanction for their values.

We reject the divinity of Jesus, the divine mission of Moses, Mohammed, and other latter day prophets and saints of the various sects and denominations.

We believe the scientific method, though imperfect, is still the most reliable way of understanding the world. Hence, we look to the natural, biological, social, and behavioral sciences for knowledge of the universe and man's place within it.

---

If you visit the webpage, you'll find that Richard Dawkins is a chief contributor. What does he contribute? Scientific observations and philosophical derivations.

Before saying anything else, I agree with Dawkins revulsion of totalitarian and sectarian regimes. I am perhaps more patient, but no less horrified in the rise of superstition and subjective spiritualism in the West. We only disagree on where our efforts for education should be focused. I agree that we should each be free, but I do not agree that the freedom Dawkins espouses is real freedom. Jesus said 'know the truth and the truth will set you free, and this brings us closer to the real issue and motivation behind secular humanism.

Now, back to Philip Johnson who is the secular humanist's chief antagonist, but why is Dawkins finding Johnson's attack 'unwarranted'? On what basis does Dawkins argue that the attack is unwarranted? He can not argue on the basis of philosophy, because it is subjective, so he turns to his 'objective' science as the undergirding evidence for secular humanism. Philip Johson replies, your science is objective but your subjective interpretation is one-sided and misleading.

That's how the two are linked. And that's why undermining philosophical materialism as an interpretation of scientific empirical evidence is one key to re-establishing public confidence in theism.

Neil
 

quote:

---

Is this a valid position all theistic scientists can hold?

---

Yes

quote:

---

If it is, why don't theistic scientists hold this philosophy more strongly?

---

This is not the banner the ID people want us to unite under. They want ID as science, as an alternative to mainstream science. That's the problem.
 

This may be your first Singlish lesson, it means 'I see the problem. We can not argue like that, can we?'

I agree with you Karl, we can not abandon methodological naturalism. From your post, I think I may be beginning to see the reason for the scientific community's reaction to ID.

It seems the scientific establishment has labled ID as anti-scientific. But, I have not detected the abandonment of methodological naturalism in any of the books I've read by Behe or Johnson. In Johnson's letter to Dawkins, (which has a hyperlink above) Johnson states that he will accept the age of the earth from any valid scientific source (currently 4.6 billion or more if science changes its mind). Methodologicalism is not his issue for Johnson.

What is an issue is the adherence to philosophical materialism with the claim that the philosophy has solid empirical grounds. It doesn't, we've agreed that on this thread.

Turning to Behe, the observations of irreduciblity are simply more complex examples of the carbon-dioxide/oxygen cycle. His view is that empirical science may never prove that irreducible systems occurred by chance or by design, but that philosophically and perhaps statistically, ID scientists see the design in the empiricism.

May I postulate that the adverse reaction by theistic scientists is because YECs have been quick to adopt Behe and Johnson as their own, when Behe and Johnson couldn't dream of anything worse.

Can we separate the wheat from the chaff, and see ID as distinct from YEC?

ID is committed to methodologicalism. It just sees the empirical results with different eyes of faith.

Methodologically speaking, ID is behind science all the way. There's no twisting science to suit a Genesis account of creation.

But, philosophically, there is a spectrum, with Dawkins et al at one extreme and YEC at the other. Neither philosophy has irrefutable scientific support, although Dawkins has the support of the massive majority, but not all, of empirical evidence. ID fits somewhere on the spectrum. I'd say if Dawkins is the red end of the visible spectrum and YEC the violet, then ID may be the yellow or green philosophically, with blurring at both edges, depending on the individual eyes of faith.

Where would other board members fit on the philosophical spectrum? I like the colour green.

Neil
 

As you may surmise from my previous postings, I'd think that the problem space is not one-dimensional as in a spectrum; there are several debates which lead on from on to another; philosophical neo-Darwinism moves on from, but is not the same as, the scientific principle of evolution - to portray it as parallel to and continuous from Darwinism is exactly the sleight of hand philosophical neo-Darwinists themselves play; a more accurate representation would be for it to diverge at right angles to the line of evolution vs. creationism at the end point of hard evolutionism.

I believe that in portraying the path as continuous, you are both supporting the interpretation of the problem space favoured by the neo-Darwinists for their own reasons, which I'd argue that we should all challenge and refute; and that secondly this sets up a tension between faith and evolution which is unnecessary (and further supports the neo-Darwinist philosophers).

Thus, I can't place myself on the spectrum - though I'm probably close to the intersection of the two lines.
 

Many thanks. The perpendicular lines are an interesting and helpful concept. Philosophical position on one line and I think you say the interpretation of the empirical evidence on the other.

Taking the 3D nature of the problem a step further, perhaps we should view the empirical results of methodologicalism as an object to be viewed like a sphere.

We orbit the sphere philosophically and our philosophical position is geostationery until we have a philosophical shift of orbit.

Let’s say Dawkins views the sphere with a geostationary position directly above the North Pole. And YECs view it fixed above the South Pole. Both view allows a very restricted view of the empirical evidence, and neither can see the way the other person views the sphere.

To move laterally from North to South is to shift one’s philosophical position from atheism through agnosticism through theism to YECism, based on interpretation of the empirical, statistical, scientific evidence.

To move around the sphere at the equator is to consider all the aspects of the argument with an open mind, seeing both the North Pole and the South Pole. Dawkins and YECs are geostationery, the rest of us can consider new empirical evidence by moving longitudinally around the sphere viewing all empirical evidence with a more open philosophy. Perhaps, as we see new empirical facts, our philosophical orbit will shift in the process.

I’m orbiting around the sphere, looking at the empirical evidence and slowly shifting from a northern hemisphere scientific agnosticism to an equator or just 2deg south scientific theism.

Neil
 

But suppose that all the complexity present in our world, including the irreducibly complex systems Behe talks about evolved. Would that make God any the less amazing or any the less a designer of the universe? He still created a universe capable of evolving such complexity. (Is that not a greater feat?)

Glenn
 

Neil, I decided to stay off this thread for a bit when it deadlocked over the scientific method as it relates to Behe. I disagree with your logic on this but I offer my apologies for any patronizing on my part.

Now for the venting: The attitude and assumptions behind the idea that "if you'll just read this list of books, I won't have to explain it" is itself patronizing. People don't need to read Behe, et. al, when multiple critiques of them point out the same flaws in their logic, method, evidence and assumptions. Though I *have* read a fair range of the authors in question, I am not going to submit to a 'required reading list.'

OK, I feel better.....

For a few days, this thread struck me as a little 'crusade-ish' between "Wake up, Christendom!," to the analysis and breakdown of the "Humanist Religion" to the call to unite under the Banner of ID. Since the subject is about competing philosophies, I suppose that can't completely be avoided.

However, it struck me, as an outsider looking in, that the idea of uniting under the Banner of ID is very close to the mindset of the YEC. The only difference is where you draw the line on what evidence you accept and into which theoretical framework you fit your evidence. For example, the YEC feel that any scientific evidence that contravenes their literalist interpretation of Genisis is deception and make that part of their doctrinal purity test. It appears to me that ID sets up irreducible complexity as its touchstone doctrine and insists that only particular analyses of phenomena (e.g. clotting factors) be allowed and that such be placed beyond the reach of scientific investigation.

quote:

---

Glenn Oldham:
But suppose that all the complexity present in our world, including the irreducibly complex systems Behe talks about evolved. Would that make God any the less amazing or any the less a designer of the universe?

---

From a theistic point of view, I would say no. After all, what good is omnipotence if you can't use it? The universe could have been designed with all these details and factors built in from 'before' the Big Bang. If that were so, all of the astrophysical, geological and biological data would point to the natural formation of our universe, the Sun and Earth and the evolution of life. Of course, that leads back to the question, "Why is there anything?" (I forget who said that)

Willy
 

Nicely put.

It seems to me part of the tortures of purgatory to find oneself bombarded with many book recommendations!

You say,

quote:

---

Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?

---

When I joined my secondary school in 1967 they had just scrapped compulsory Latin. Could you provide a translation!

Glenn
 

Willy
 

I think we all know where we all stand philosophically with regards our view of science. None of us are North Pole philosophical materialists (except perhaps John Collins) and none of us are South Pole YECs (except perhaps Bobr).

So, how can we be labeled philosophically? Can we be united just north and south of the equator? All those between the two tropics losely unite under a 'design banner'.

Given that materialists are divided, Gould and Lewontin think Dawkins is an extremist, a fundamentalist, and they more liberal. But Dawkins says in response,

quote:

---

‘at least he (Gould) is on our side against the creationists’

---

Is there a way that theists can united, under a broad banner, even though we have slight philosophical differences (different orbits around the sphere) we can say ‘although we differ slightly philosophically, at least Glenn or Willy or Neil or Karl or whoever is on our side against the creationists and against the materialists’?

Neil

BTW, Glenn, as your school cancelled Latin, you’ll remember that I asked if your theology included ‘Christianismus renascens’ which means ‘Christianity being born again’, which was the call of the Northern European Humanists and, as you know, their prayers pre-dated the Reformation. I am praying for ‘Christianismus renascens’. How it is born again will be up to God, it is God's church after all.
 

I find it encouraging finding an increasing and healthy skepticism regarding the ability of science to provide all the answers, especially as secular humanism rests heavily on science to support its creed.

Way back in the thread, there was a summary of how humans have engaged in God shrinking since the Reformation. From seventeenth century Lutherans and Arminians exalting God's human creatures to deism and then Immanuel Kant who silenced God. The atheist philosophy of Feuerbach and then to Neitzche who pronounced God dead, and whom Marxists, Darwinists and Freudians decided in due course that they could get on better without

The process has undoubtedly been reversed since science began to draw a blank, even point toward a creator (I am now reading Gerard Schroder's 'The Hidden Face of God - How science reveals the ultimate truth' which is enlightening).

When Marxism collapsed a decade ago, the west smugly commented that Marx had taken no account in his ideology of human greed. Christians refer to human greed as part of the very unfashionable concept of sin (rejection of God).

As Darwinism and the secular humanism it supports collapse (and die) we will look back and comment, 'secular humanism took no account in its ideology of sin'.

I am looking forward to the next ten years. The philosophical landscape is about to change significantly following the death of Darwinism.

Neil
 

Yet once more you continue on the track of Darwinism is undetachably connected to Dawkins et al, which most people don't believe.

Yet once more you compare Darwinism with Marxism, which is a bit like comparing my car to your fruit bowl.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
(rejection of God).

As Darwinism and the secular humanism it supports collapse (and die) we will look back and comment, 'secular humanism took no account in its ideology of sin'.

I am looking forward to the next ten years. The philosophical landscape is about to change significantly following the death of Darwinism.

Neil

---

darwinism is ideologically neutral - people
using it to justify a particular worldview
doesn't mean that darwinism ( whatever you mean by that - can i assume the neo darwinist
synthesis ) *is* that worldview.

i don't think many people think that the death of darwinism is imminent - most people
in the field would say that its stronger than ever.

d.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
Many thanks. The perpendicular lines are an interesting and helpful concept. Philosophical position on one line and I think you say the interpretation of the empirical evidence on the other.

Taking the 3D nature of the problem a step further, perhaps we should view the empirical results of methodologicalism as an object to be viewed like a sphere.

---

...erm - what is the "third dimension"?

quote:

---

Let’s say Dawkins views the sphere with a geostationary position directly above the North Pole. And YECs view it fixed above the South Pole. Both view allows a very restricted view of the empirical evidence, and neither can see the way the other person views the sphere.

---

quote:

---

To move laterally from North to South is to shift one’s philosophical position from atheism through agnosticism through theism to YECism, based on interpretation of the empirical, statistical, scientific evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
I am looking forward to the next ten years. The philosophical landscape is about to change significantly following the death of Darwinism.

---

To "modern" thinkers the idea that there is but one truth lends credence to the extension of truth determined in one field (eg: biological evolution) into another (eg: philosophy or theology). Whereas the gradual erosion of the concept of absolute truth will probably make such claims (that science can lead directly to philosophy) harder to justify.

Post modernity offers new challenges and opportunities for the interface between science and faith. The erosion of absolute truth in favour of contextualised truths could result in further comparmentalisation of scientific and religious truth claims into unrelated fields, conversely the situation could develop where the different truth claims of science and religion are seen as having equal validity as complementary explanations of the same reality from different perspectives. I hope for the second possibility.

Alan
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by gbuchanan:
...erm - what is the "third dimension"?

...erm, but you are again confounding the theistic and philosophical points, returning to your continuing line (the axis 'twixt the poles) which then does Dawkins->"Modernist theist"->YEC; I don't agree with that continuum at all.

---

indeedly. i'd say the yecs need a whole separate planet

d.
 

EINSTEIN

Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 18:54:42
Subject: Einstein's Concepts

Dear Bruce,

I'm reproducing the following & sending it to you because
the best place I have to file it is in my Bruce S. E-mail
file.

My immediate answer to anyone about who are my science or
engineering heroes is Newton & Einstein. Newton's laws of motion
& gravitation, because they always worked for me for any occasion
in day to day engineering for anything having to do with motion,
force, velocity or mass, and I was aware of the accuracy of their
derivations.

Einstein, my hero because his deductions based on the
observed fact that the velocity of light is constant allowed him
to predict celestial and other facts not previously noticed. In
particular, in 1905, when asked how he could prove any of his
theories, he replied that if astronomers knew of any double stars
that revolved around a common center, if his theories were
correct they would find that the light spectrum from the star
moving away from the earth would be shifted to longer wave
lengths than the spectrum of the star moving towards the earth,
i.e. the so called "red shift". Sure enough, the astronomers
looked, and for the first time became aware that this prediction
was true. Of course, one of his other conclusions was that E =
mc^2 (m-c squared), where c is the constant speed of light. Of
course, this, too, was found to be correct and the basis for
nuclear bombs and nuclear energy.

Many years ago, I began collecting several booklets of a
series, Science Study Series" with the best of intentions of
reading them right away. Most of them I didn't, but now I have
time, so I am. About the same time, I picked up "The Universe
and Dr. Einstein, by Lincoln Barnett. The best book I ever read
on Einstein was "Einstein, His Life and Times, by Phillip Frank,
1947.

Anyway, in "The Universe and--------" at pages i , 36, 108 &
109, I discovered the following quotes from Einstein:

"My religion," he says, "consists of a humble admiration of
the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight
details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds.
That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior
reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible
universe, forms my idea of God." (Quoting Einstein)

"Einstein more than once expressed the hope that the
statistical method of Quantum physics would prove a temporary
expedient. (Quoting Einstein "I cannot believe," he wrote,
"that God plays dice with the world." "

"The most beautiful and most profound emotion we can
experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of
all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can
no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To
know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting
itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which
our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive
forms---this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true
religiousness." (Quote of Einstein)

(Frontispiece) "Frequently called an atheist by those who
have failed to grasp the meaning of his philosophy, Einstein
himself was strongly convinced of the creation of the universe by
a Supreme Intelligence."

Anyway, whoever may assume scientists and engineers are all
atheists may be incorrect as regards some of the BEST scientists
& engineers.

Sincerely, Al Mar. 22 Mon. 6:50 PM CST
 

If I said to you, "I've read Philip Johnson so I don't need to read Dawkins 'the selfish gene' or Gould '8 little piggies", would you say "good for you, Neil, there's no need to read Dawkins or Gould, you've read the critics."?

Now, here's an expansion of the 3D model of the link between philosophy and empirical science:

At the poles are the extreme philosophies of atheism and creationism. In between are agnosticism and theism. Dawkins and YECs are 'poles apart'.

Let's say that the second dimension (longitudinal) is scientific specialty or a narrow field of science. Starting at the Greenwich meridian there are, say, paleontologists. Move to +1GMT there are zoologists. At +8GMT we have embryologists. +12GMT molecular scientists, bio-chemists and so on.

Scientists in any one field orbit very close to the sphere, seeing great detail of the locality of the empirical evidence and relying at the same time on other scientists to inform them of findings on other parts of the sphere. This is the way science interacts and maintains the 'purposeless, meaningless, material and random' process of 'evolution'.

Now, the third dimension is the distance we orbit from the sphere of empirical science. Research scientists orbit somewhere just above the ground. Science educated graduates might orbit at the cruising height of commercial aircraft, seeing the empirical evidence and understanding the principles in general. Somewhere with the satellites are the people who think their stomachs shrink when they eat less food, they can see the sphere but have no idea about the details or principles of empiricism.

The fact is that those who orbit closer to the sphere have always had philosophical authority. Those of us in the outer orbits trust the scientists on statements of philosophy derived from empirical evidence (popularised by Dawkins et al, but scientists can be no less philosophical in organs such as Nature)

Now, the problem today for the philosophical materialists is that some scientists on the inner orbit (near the ground) are looking at the sphere of empirical evidence and are shifting from 'random, purposeless, material universe' to 'a designed universe' as their observed philosophy, and scientists with a materialist philosophy find this conclusion repugnant and are furious.

Scientists on the board will no doubt have heard of Thomas Kuhn, who proposed the system by which scientific theories are tested and revised. To summarise the system goes something like this:

quote:

---

Experimental research produces data, and a scientific theory is an interpretation of that data which ties everything together in a coherent system. As more data comes to light, or the original data is scrutinised more carefully, old theories are discarded and new theories take shape. But the time between theories is characterised by bitter controversy

---

'Purposeless, material and random' is a theory which supports and is supported by a philosophy.

A theory of 'design' supports a different philosophy.
Hence, we have a bitter controversy.

Are in the beginning of the bitter controversy stage of a shift in the theory of the origin of life and the origin of species? Only time will tell.

You said,

quote:

---

Yet once more you compare Darwinism with Marxism, which is a bit like comparing my car to your fruit bowl.

---

I've already said that Darwin and Marx started at the same point, under the fashionable philosophy of Neitzche (God is Dead). Their products are indeed like my fruit bowl and your car, but their philosophies were closely linked by the fashion of their time. The only difference is this; it was easy for the West to see the problems of the derivatives of Marxism from the outside. Seeing the problems with the derivatives of Darwinism from the inside are proving much more difficult.

It was dramatic and exhilarating when the people of East Germany were freed from the tyranny of Communism (the godless derivative of a godless Marxism). The collapse of the Berlin Wall was the start of a freedom for the oppressed masses. It will be more dramatic still when the masses are freed as the wall of godless Darwinian dogma crumbles and falls and with it, its greatest derivative, secular humanism.

Neil
 

And we've already pointed out that you were wrong. Darwin proposed that "The Creator" put the first organisms on the earth. He was never an atheist, although he became agnostic in his later years. 'Origin' is a purely scientific work.
 

quote:

---

Scientists on the board will no doubt have heard of Thomas Kuhn, who proposed the system by which scientific theories are tested and revised. To summarise the system goes something like this: I've already said that Darwin and Marx started at the same point, under the fashionable philosophy of Neitzche (God is Dead).

---

Which is UTTER RUBBISH and furthermore an OUTRIGHT LIE - firstly, Origin of Species was published when Neitzche was 15 years old - so how on earth could Darwinism have emerged from Neitzche's philosophy? Marx was already an established academic at this date as well - okay, it was 8 years before Captial was published, but his theories were already well developed.

I don't know what "references" you expect me to read and frankly given your fixation with a few contemporary secondary sources I don't really much care - I have degrees in both Science and History, and the latter rather disapproves of depending upon secondary sources.

If your sources have articulated to a dependency upon Nietzche from Marx and Darwin, they are categorically and unquestionably being deliberately misleading.

Yes, I am sick and tired of going around in circles - perhaps if you read the original texts of Darwin et al rather than relying upon some else's hearsay, we all might get somewhere.
 

P.S. not everyone agrees with Kuhn's take on science - not by a long chalk, though it is clearly influential.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by gbuchanan:

Marx was already an established academic at this date as well - okay, it was 8 years before Captial was published, but his theories were already well developed.

---

Although Marx was a great admirer of Darwins rather fearsome intellect, and its fair to say that some of his thinking was influenced by evolutionary theory. He sent him a copy of Das Kapital as a token of his esteem.

Which was found, pages uncut, amongst Darwins effects after his death.

d.
 

Or, to put it more bluntly, it doesn't matter if Darwin never heard of Neitzche or if he, Neitzche, and Marx got together every weekend for a twisted S&M threeway. The value of a scientific theory is how close it descibes the Universe, not how closely it mirrors your own philosophical prejudices.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by doug:
Although Marx was a great admirer of Darwins rather fearsome intellect, and its fair to say that some of his thinking was influenced by evolutionary theory. He sent him a copy of Das Kapital as a token of his esteem.

---

...an interesting sidenote - but I was referring to the postulation that Marx and Darwin were both influenced by Nietzche - not Darwin and Marx's influence on each other (to clarify).
 

I also apologise for the misappropriation of the phrase 'Darwinian' theory in my last post. I acknowledge Darwin's own stated philosophy and when I use the term 'Darwinian' theory, it is in its broad sense as material, purposeless and random, not as Darwin's individual philosophy. What term should we use for such a theory? Neo-'Darwinian' synthesis?

Glenn said that philosophical paradigms have never been static. This thread is a discussion of just such a paradigm shift. It is not secondary or tertiary issues, but the primary issue of the governing western paradigm.

Whether or not Marx, Darwin & Neitzche ever met or corresponded, or Neitzche post-dated Marx and Darwin by a couple of decades, the fact remains that they lived under the same philosophical paradigm, which Neitzche neatly summarised. Marx and Darwin were too busy employing their significant intellect in ways that were more practical.

Glenn pointed out that post modernism is the current western paradigm. Reading the Council for Secular Humanism's statement of belief, we find that post-modernism is a sub-set of secular humanism, because 'religion' is only for weak people who can not face a material world boldly and honestly. What is the basis for secular humanism? According to their Article 8...it's science.

But science is being 'attacked' by Behe et al, which in turn is undermining the authority of secular humanism.

The question in relation to science and secular humanism then is this:

• Are ID scientists making unreasonable or untruthful statements reading molecular systems?
  
• Are ID scientists adopting their view of the empirical evidence due to a prior commitment to theism (i.e. misinterpreting the empirical evidence) or is there a genuine reason for their conclusion?
  
• Are ID scientists simply a product of a shifting philosophical paradigm, which, as the paradigm shifts, will grow in number?
  

Much of the scientific objection is being made by Dawkins et al who see this as 'unwarranted attack', but on what basis? The scientific challenges are real and empirical. The problem with Dawkins, Orr, Miller et al is that they are arguing philosophically from a philosophically static position.

Behe et al are not regarded by any of the scientific establishment as making unreasonable or untruthful statements about the complexity of molecular systems. Irreducible complexity is a fact of science.

I don't believe Behe et al have a strong prior commitment, unlike the creationists, to discredit neo-Darwinian synthesis from a prior commitment to theism. Their conclusion seems to have been drawn, quite naturally, from what the empirical evidence suggests to them, and so their vague theistic philosophy has been reinforced at best.

This reinforcement of a theistic philosophy is the start of a paradigm shift, given the monolithic commitment of the scientific establishment to materialism before the mid nineteen nineties, any scientists who say life might be the product of intelligence risk ridicule and termination of contract.

ID philosophy stems simply from the fact that scientists are beginning to see evidence of design. The theory of intelligent design stems from a philosophical paradigm shift from material, purposeless and random to the product of intelligence.

This is why I make extravagant claims about the death of Darwinism (neo-Darwinian synthesis). It is not because empiricism has ceased, nor will it cease, but that the empirical results are beginning to be viewed from a shifting philosophical paradigm. This paradigm shift is in its infancy. It is barely a decade old. As the paradigm shifts, it will (as all paradigms do) effect law, morals, ethics and theology. The next 10 or 20 years may see this shift accelerate. In the mean time, there will be bitter controversy, because what is at stake is more than just a precious scientific theory, it is a whole way of thinking for society.

I find that thought exciting and refreshing.

Neil

BTW, I have Darwin's 'Origin of Species'.
 

What me, Alan, Glenn and so on have been calling it all along - philosophical materialism.

Irreducible complexity is not a fact of science, and much ink has been spilt showing how Behe's systems are not unevolvable.
 

quote:

---

But the time between theories is characterised by bitter controversy ... A theory of 'design' supports a different philosophy. Hence, we have a bitter controversy.
Are [we] in the beginning of the bitter controversy stage of a shift in the theory of the origin of life and the origin of species? Only time will tell.

---

As you say 'Only time will tell'. As I understand Kuhn what presages the paradigm shift is an accumulation of problems which the existing theory is, after repeated attempts, unable to explain, and which tell against the theory. We have a long way to go before that stage is reached. I think it unlikely that it will be.

Bitter controversy is no guarantee of paradigm shift (astrologers are in bitter controversy with science about their theory but there is no chance that astrology will end up mainstream science).

Glenn
P.S. In your last post you credit me with a number of excellent comments which I think are actually from Alan Cresswell.
 

quote:

---

what is at stake is more than just a precious scientific theory, it is a whole way of thinking for society

---

The above quote illustrates what is probably one of the worst ways to pursue scientific inquiry. While social "sciences", such as economics or psychology, may concern themselves with the "way of thinking for society", such considerations are (or at least should be) far outside the realm of the physical sciences. And biology, including evolution falls under the heading of physical science.

I think part of the negative reaction to evolution as a scientific proposition is our own sense of vanity. I have never heard anyone object to either the Special or General Theories of Relativity because they were formed under the "philosophical paradigm" (to borrow Neil's phrase) of Moral Relativism. To cite another example, Einstein himself admitted that his objections to Quantum Mechanics were probably the worst scientific mistake of his life. This objection spawned his oft quoted (and rarely understood) statement that "God does not play dice with the Universe". In essence, Einstein's objections were based on the philosophical unpalatablity (to him, at least) of a probabilistic, chaotic, and (potentially) non-causative Universe rather than any particular physical and scientific reason. Of course, Einstein was at least scientist enough to admit his error when he recognized it.

At any rate, the reason so many people object to Evolution while there is little hue and cry about Relativity or Q-Mech is that neither of these assault our own ego the way that Evolution does. Both of these theories present radically non-Christian themes, but they don't deal with humanity itself. It wounds our self-image to be taken down from our pedestal as something special and separate from the rest of the Universe, whereas we don't really care about the "moral degradation" of electrons or the current malaise of spacetime.
 

Does this mean you all agree that we are witnessing the start of a potential paradigm shift?

Neil
 

quote:

---

The above quote illustrates what is probably one of the worst ways to pursue scientific inquiry.

---

Philip Johnson agrees with you on that.

Neil
 

quote:

---

At any rate, the reason so many people object to Evolution while there is little hue and cry about Relativity or Q-Mech is that neither of these assault our own ego the way that Evolution does.

---

Arguing human ego from the biblical side of the coin, evolution is perhaps the product of an oversized human ego. The Hebrew word groups describing worship include 'homage to', 'service of' and 'respect of' God.

By rejecting God, and appealing to materialism as the mechanism driving 'evolution' man's ego swells beyond humble homage, service and respect.

As I postulated earlier, the west saw how Marx neglected human greed. Perhaps we'll look back in years to come and see how philosophical materialism neglected the unfashionable concept of rejection of God.

Neil
 

For example, many coming from the position which you are assaulting believe that, as humans are no more than advanced animals, we should not expect to be able to control the fate of other animals through farming, meat-eating etc. They probably see traditional Christian teaching as egoist.

Certainly philosophical naturalism does have an impact on the way morals are being shaped in our society, but I do not believe that it really provides a sufficient framework to provide a useful philosophical or ethical baseline - indeed one can argue that Marxism and Fascism were philosophically inspired by the concept of the "survival of the fittest", though in differing directions. I don't think anyone will contest the Origin of Species is a weak baseline for ethics, and most secular philosophers I've heard of would agree - remember that for instance Dawkins is primarily a scientist and scientific philosopher, not a social one, so he is far from being dominant in that other sphere. What many philosophers mean when they use the same label is significantly different, btw.

It is interesting that you are attacking the moral impact of philosophical naturalism through the science which underpins it. Firstly, ID for example is not science by any means, and I can't see it currying favour before it moves towards something that is testable rather than rhetorical.

Secondly, the connection between science or even the philosophy of science which emerges from scientific conclusions, has a very poor record indeed in surviving long term or contributing to the general patina of philosophy. Clearly many scientific discoveries and practices, e.g. innoculation, genetic modification, the nuclear weapon, have profound impacts upon moral philosophy and the philosophy and morals of scientific practice, but this is quite a a different phenomenon. Your attack would be much better based upon the inadequacies, well proven, of the route folks like Dawkins are walking.

Many moral dilemmas and ethics will be impacted by scientific discoveries in the physical and biological sciences, but that's also a different matter.

P.S. I've actually had to read Behe in the last two days (hooray for a historians' reading speed!) for a tutorial I was assisting in leading on scientific methodology. Oh dear, it is generally bad science - Karl et al were all too generous.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cr?sos:
(snip)
At any rate, the reason so many people object to Evolution while there is little hue and cry about Relativity or Q-Mech is that neither of these assault our own ego the way that Evolution does. Both of these theories present radically non-Christian themes, (snip)

---

What are you talking about? What is non-Christian about relativity or quantum mechanics?

You are staring at a monitor attached to a computer which relies almost entirely for its operation on the "tunnel effect" - a quantum
mechanical notion.

If you think that you'd better log out now
and get rid of your computer.
 

He suggests that this is because, as to the the theory of evolution

quote:

---

It wounds our self-image to be taken down from our pedestal as something special and separate from the rest of the Universe

---

I think that this is correct. In a few hundred years we (in the christian west) have gone from seeing ousrselves as at the centre of a small, young universe, to being on a small planet in an immensely big and old universe. The theory of evolution is seen by some as denting even further our reasons for feeling special. Hence the resistance to the theory.

Of course being special is possible still even if, as I believe, the theory of evolutionn is correct.

Glenn
 

However I should have thought that relativity and QM would be helpful to the argument (against some Darwinist philosophy).

Relativity - the speed of light is an absolute barrier that cannot be exceeded. Here's something we can't do. Only geocentrists need complain.

Uncertainty principle in QM - the more you know about one aspect of something the less you can know about another. We can't know everything.

So if God is omnipresent and omnipotent he's not bound by relativity and if he's omniscient he's not bound by QM. Surely there's food for a good few sermons out of that?
 

As far as Neil's question about what is non-Christian about Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, allow me to clarify.

Relativity presents us with a Universe where space and even time are relative, dependent upon one's frame of reference. If A happened before B in one reference frame, it is possible for B to happen before A in another, posing all kinds of problems for cause-effect order. Time itself is malleable and can shrink down or expand out. A length of time which is six days long in one frame of reference may be 14 billion years long in another. The Relativisitic Universe is a Universe which denies absolutes and everything is a matter of perspective. This is very different than the Christian Universe which contains an absolute God who deals out absolute truth and perspective is irrelevant. Considering the number of times I've heard various Christians decry "moral relativism", the analogy to physical Relativity doesn't seem so much of a stretch, and I'm surprised it hasn't suggested itself to more Christians before this.

As far as Quantum Mechanics goes, it presents us with a probabilistic Universe, one driven by chance and chaos. This is a radically different Universe than the Christian Universe, in which God has a Divine Plan, which is deterministic, immutable, has even the smallest details worked out in advance, and cannot be thwarted or changed in any way. The philosophical gulf between these world-views is a question of Schroëdinger's cat versus God's falling sparrow.

These and other questions might be better addressed if more time was spent considering Darwinist science (or any other science for that matter) and less time worrying about "Darwinist philosophy" [from John Collins post of 28 July 2001 09:57].

And as for how I get the 'o' and the 'e' to stick together, I exist in a frame of reference where space is contracted enough that some letters actually touch. Besides, it has been established that vowels are not Fermions, and are thus not bound by the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
 

Dark ages II here we come....
 

I have been accused of attacking science, and believing bad science. I am probably guilty of both, I don't know. Perhaps my misappropriation of the myriad of terms used in this field has led to that impression and my confusion. The reason I have been so persistent is I know that my argument is true, I just need to be clearer about what I'm arguing.

This morning, the good old BBC World Service provided an example which will clarify my argument. The article shows that I am not attacking good science, but I am attacking philosophical materialism dressed up as science. On the BBC this morning, scientist Heather Cooper provided a perfect example of what I have been attacking as 'science'.

Cooper was describing the work of the 'Genesis' space probe, which will sample particles from the solar wind and bring them back to earth for analysis. The mission will take two years, so we can expect results of this research in perhaps 4 to 5 years time at the earliest. So far, so good science.

But then Cooper said this

quote:

---

'What I find incredibly exciting is that 'Genesis' will explain our origins. We will know where we come from and how we got here.'

---

My point throughout this thread, though not put clearly, is that that is not good science!

It is at best hopeful speculation that the particles of solar wind will provide one of the many hundreds of missing pieces in the 'origin of life by natural process' puzzle.

But worse than that, Cooper's statement is of a prior commitment to philosophical materialism. She states boldly that it is just a matter of time before scientists find and place all the hundreds of missing pieces of the puzzle, proving the natural causes, and disproving God. Is Cooper's prophetic statement based on scientific fact or faith? I say faith.

Lastly, Cooper's confident, bubbly, cheerful and excited delivery (which I can not replicate in the quote) gave the listener hope that what she said would come to be. She practically adopted the style and techniques of a TV evangelist. Indeed, naming the probe 'Genesis' has to be one of the most barefaced statements of how science will provide our new creation account, without God.

But, there was no science in her statement, just faith and hope in philosophical materialism. If I wasn't skeptical, I might have believed her. My concern is that millions of World Service listeners will have swallowed her 'scientific' statement and will go on believing that God does not exist.

Collecting particles from the solar wind is good science, I have never intended to argue otherwise. The rest of Cooper's statement is just wishful thinking, faith and hope in material causes.

Heather Cooper, like every other philosophical materialist, does not wish to consider the prospect of moral accountability to a creator God. I don't have a problem if that is her choice of religion, she is free to chose her faith. I do have a problem that she is given free reign to proselytise and evangelise freely under the label of 'science' when she is clearing talking about matters of her religion.

Neil
 

Now as for the specific statements of Ms. (Dr.?) Cooper, many scientists, particularly those involved with particle physics and/or space exploration, do tend to get caught up in grandiose language. I can't speak for her specifically, but I suspect that it has something to do with repeatedly trying to explain very abstract concepts to laymen (in the scientific, not ecclesiastical, sense). I've also noticed that this tendency tends to be directly proportional to the attention of the media, though this last seems to be true not just of particle physicists but of people in general.

At any rate, materialism seems to be emminently suited to the study of material objects and phenomena, which includes solar particles and biological organisms. I have yet to hear either an argument in favor of the wholesale abandonment of scientific inquiry or a suggestion for a suitable replacement for materialism in the scientific process. Perhaps Neil could suggest one, since this issue seems to be of particular significance to him.
 

Neil, you still seem to be wed to the idea that if it is shown that the entire Universe, and us included, can be explained in scientific terms, without invoking God as an explanation, then God will be disproved. This is a load of rubbish. If the Genesis probe does explain our origin, then great, another piece in the puzzle of how God made us is found.

Why do you require unexplained scientific questions for God to exist? This seems to be 'God of the Gaps'ism of the first degree.
 

There is no need for me to suggest an alternative to the study of material objects, I have never meant to propose one. The study of material objects is a good and healthy pursuit. What is not good and health is atheists claiming that the study of material objects disproves God. This thread has already agreed that the study of material objects is neutral on that question.

Regarding your own response to my example of Heather Cooper, you can not seriously mean that the Boeing 747, telephones and vaccines disprove the existence of God. You also used a classic 'religious' straw man of holy wars and burnt heretics as the alternative. May I humbly suggest you read the outline of fallacious argument techniques I outlined earlier in this thread before posting such thoughts, they do not address the issue.

Scientifically, I am as excited as Heather Cooper at the prospect of collecting particles of solar wind using a space probe, it is an amazing result of science. I am as excited as you that science has advanced to the stage that we can send probes into space, and that I can write this post on a Palm device whist eating lunch. The products of the investigation of the material world are exciting and useful.

However, with reasonable skepticism, something we should all posses in large quantities, I can see through Heather Cooper's science to her probable underlying philosophy. She appears to believe that there is no God. That's fine, I don't have a problem if that's what she believes, it's her choice.

But when she speculates that the 'Genesis' probe will provide the final pieces of the materialist creation story, my skepticism tells me she's no longer in the realms of science but philosophy, day dreaming, thinking wishfully, postulating, putting an atheist spin on it, proselytising the public, evangelising her belief that God does not exist.

She's entitled to do that, but she needs to be honest that that is what she is doing. She should clarify that this is her belief (if that is what she believes). She should say that she hopes that the probe will provide some clues, because that will support her alleged philosophical belief that God does not exist. To say that the probe will tell us the origin of life it not a true statement. How many scientists believe that the only piece of the puzzle which it missing are particles of solar wind?

My problem is this: that Heather Cooper is typical of philosophical materialists (if that is how she would label herself) who evangelise their atheism or deism, illegitimately, under the banner of science. Saying 'solar particles are the last piece in the puzzle of the origin of life', is not good science it is bad philosophy.

All I propose is that we learn to distinguish between the times when scientists are talking about material objects and the other times they are proselytising their materialist atheist faith.

Neil
 

The answer is quite simple. I don't believe the universe is the product of a random, material, purposeless process.

I believe, as I pointed out with the carbon dioxide-oxygen cycle, that the universe displays evidence of specified complexity.

Specified complexity is displayed by any object or event that has an extremely low probability of occurring by chance, and matches a discernable pattern. According to contemporary design theory, the presence of highly specified complexity is an indicator of an intelligent cause.

As a simple illustration, I am a structural engineer...no jokes about engineers being simple please. As an intelligent designer, I must specify the grade of steel, size of weld, diameter of bolt, length of beam, depth of concrete and so on to make a building stand up. Any school child can draw a house, but it takes intelligent specification to give the right combination of materials and sizes to make the house stand up.

Engineers who design manufacturing processes have a much greater complexity to their specification to get the process to produce the right goods at the end of a process (anyone who knows anything about the production of semi-conductors will know what I mean).

I believe that the results of objective study of material objects display this specified complexity. This is a purely philosophical view as someone else looking at the same results might see them as the product of a purposeless and random material process.

It is a simple distinction. It is not God of the gaps, because everything is specified.

Neil
 

quote:

---

She states boldly that it is just a matter of time before scientists find and place all the hundreds of missing pieces of the puzzle,

---

I think she's probably correct.

quote:

---

proving the natural causes, and disproving God.

---

Non-sequitur. Why do you relate these two? Does a full understanding of embryology mean God didn't make me?

quote:

---

Is Cooper's prophetic statement based on scientific fact or faith? I say faith.

---

It's based on the historical fact that science has, indeed, gradually explained more and more of the universe. That we may get a fully understanding of abiogenesis is a reasonable extrapolation.

As for 'specified design' - well, yes. Of course. But this is not an alternative to naturalistic explanations, but complementary to them.

How did I come to be? Human reproduction, sex, gametes, chiasmata, embrylogy, diploidy - lots of things come in to it.

Why did I come to be? God so deigned it.

Who caused me to come to be? God on one level, my parents on another.

See - lots of complementary explanations. Only the first one of those is in the realm of science. The others are not, and for the same reasons, nor is ID.
 

quote:

---

The answer is quite simple. I don't believe the universe is the product of a random, material, purposeless process.

---

Nor do I!

[UBB fixed]

[ 30 July 2001: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 

Alan
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
... I can see through Heather Cooper's science to her probable underlying philosophy. She appears to believe that there is no God. ...

... she's ... putting an atheist spin on it, proselytising the public, evangelising her belief that God does not exist.

... she needs to be honest that that is what she is doing. She should clarify that this is her belief (if that is what she believes).

... Heather Cooper is typical of philosophical materialists (if that is how she would label herself) who evangelise their atheism or deism, illegitimately, under the banner of science.

---

Atheist? deist? Even a theist could talk (rather incompletely of course)as she does on the level of science if she rejected the need of a God of the gaps idea for theism to be correct.

I have ordered Behe's book, by the way.
Glenn

[UBB fixed]

[ 30 July 2001: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 

An overall process isn't random if "failures" are eliminated, which is exactly what natural selection does.

To take a bizarre illustration, if everyone who did the lottery and didn't win the jackpot were instantly shot dead, then everyone in the country who had played the lottery would be a winner. If someone then said that these lottery winners "couldn't have got there by the random process of the lottery" they'd be right.

In the lottery of being here, the penalty for losing is - not being here.

If the odds against being here are 1 in (however many planets there are in the universe) over (the age of the universe) and that one planet is the one we're sitting on we may feel very special, but we're not. None of the other planets have got signs up saying "congrats Earth, we didn't make it" because there is no one to put them up.
 

Life on Earth is not random. Natural selection is not a random process.

It may still have no purpose though!
 

I'll quote myself first:

quote:

---

I believe that the results of objective study of material objects display this specified complexity. This is a purely philosophical view as someone else looking at the same results might see them as the product of a purposeless and random material process.

It is a simple distinction. It is not God of the gaps, because everything is specified.

---

Now you:

quote:

---

As for 'specified design' - well, yes. Of course. But this is not an alternative to naturalistic explanations, but complementary to them....lots of complementary explanations. Only the first one of those is in the realm of science. The others are not, and for the same reasons, nor is ID.

---

This means we agree, doesn't it? ID is a philosophy. ID is not science, but a way of viewing the results of methodical science into the way material objects function.

Just to make sure. Please explain what you mean by naturalistic explanations

Neil
 

quote:

---

you can not seriously mean that the Boeing 747, telephones and vaccines disprove the existence of God

---

No, I don't mean that and I didn't say anything even remotely like that. What I indicated was that these are examples of the validity of materialist examination when dealing with material phenomena, the validity of which you, Neil, called into question with your posting of 30 July 2001 02:05.

Which begs the question that if there is a dividing line between what material phenomena can be investigated rationally and those which are "Not Meant for Man to Know", where is that dividing line and how do you determine where it is?

As far as the question of specified complexity goes, it is only significant if it can be demonstrated that other combinations of events have a significantly higher probability of occurring. For an American example, last year's professional baseball season had an extremely low probability of working out the way it did, hit for hit, strike for strike, and run for run. And given the fact that baseball follows a structure of rules it can definitely be said to have a "discernable patter". However, the fact that there was a baseball season last year and that it worked out in such an improbable manner does not mean that it was divinely ordained, or even that some human agent fixed all the games in advance to work out the way that they did.

What troubles me most is Neil's statment that

quote:

---

I believe that the results of objective study of material objects display this specified complexity. This is a purely philosophical view as someone else looking at the same results might see them as the product of a purposeless and random material process.

---

If it is a "purely philosophical" view, then how is it an "objective study of material objects"? If you're going to be injecting your own "philosophical view", your study can hardly be described as "objective".
 

quote:

---

"a way of viewing the results of methodical science into the way material objects function" Neil Robbie, 31 July 2001 00:13

---

Does it really matter what your view is? For example, if the "results of methodological science" indicates that the mass of an electron is 9.1×10¯³¹, does the electron "function" any different because of your "way of viewing"?
 

Exactly what it says.

Explanations that make no mention of, nor make any reference to, nor ascribe anything to, God, a god or gods. Or anything else supernatural.

i.e. scientific explanations.
 

quote:

---

If it is a "purely philosophical" view, then how is it an "objective study of material objects"? If you're going to be injecting your own "philosophical view", your study can hardly be described as "objective".

---

Thank you, that is exactly my point. If you are a philosophical materialist, you look at the results of science as purposeless, random, impersonal, undirected, meaningless or in other words, godless. A philosophically materialist conclusion is not objective. It is philosophical.

Karl, you and I do not agree after all. If all deductions from the scientific observations are that the process are

quote:

---

Explanations that make no mention of, nor make any reference to, nor ascribe anything to, God, a god or gods. Or anything else supernatural.

---

Let me give an example from mutation-selection.

Here's a quote from Elliot Sober's, Philosophy of Biology.

quote:

---

The fact that the mutation-selection process has two parts…is brought out vividly by Richard Dawkins in his book The Blind Watchmaker. Imagine a device that is something like a combination lock. It is composed of a series of disks placed side by side. On the edge of each disk, the twenty-six letters of the alphabet appear. The disks can be spun separately so that different sequences of letters may appear in the viewing window.

How many different combinations of letters may appear in the window? There are 26 possibilities of each disk and 19 disks in all. So there are 26 times 10 to the power of 19 different possible sequences. One of these is METHINKSITSAWEASEL…the probability that METHINKSITSAWEASEL will appear after all the disks are spun is 1/2,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, which is a very small number indeed…

But now imagine that a disk is frozen if it happens to put a letter in the viewing window that matches the one in the target message. The remaining disks that do not match the target then are spun at random, and the process is repeated. What is the chance that the disks will display the message METHINKSITSAWEASEL after say, fifty repetitions?

The answer is that the message can be expected to appear after a surprisingly small number of generations of the process…

Variation is generated at random, but selection among variants is non-random

---

Now, Scientifically, we have observed that DNA sequences are not random but contain codes, or language. So, Dawkins has proposed that DNA sequences form a bit like the words in 'The Wheel of Fortune' or 'Hangman', where once a letter is in the right slot it slicks. Perhaps he was thinking of a one arm bandit with a hold feature, which allows the player to freeze a wheel.

Can you see the flaw(s) in this argument?

Neil
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
Can you see the flaw(s) in this argument?

---

Alan
 

quote:

---

You seem to say you think things are specified,

---

With the eye of faith. This is not a scientific deduction, but a philosophical one. It is outside the realm of science.

quote:

---

but then disagree that God could have specified them.

---

No I don't. I just say that talk of specification and so on are not part of science. With my scientist hat on, I do not talk about them.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
This means we agree, doesn't it? ID is a philosophy. ID is not science, but a way of viewing the results of methodical science into the way material objects function.

---

...erm, what do you mean by "viewing... inthe the way material objects function" - sounds like a philosophical view of a mechanistic process - is this what you intend?
 

quote:

---

Although the analogy between this process and the mutation-selection process is not perfect in every respect, it does serve to illustrate an important feature of how evolution by natural selection proceeds. Variation is generated regardless of whether it "matches the target" (i.e. is advantageous to the organism). But retention(selection among the variants that arise) is another matter. Some variants have greater staying power than others.

... Variation is generated at random, but selection among variants is non-random.

---

This makes it clear that the common feature between the discs making METHINKITISAWEASEL and DNA in this analogy is random generation plus non-random selection, not some other feature.

Hence I cannot see a flaw in Sober's argument. What flaw(s) do you see?

Glenn
 

Gbuchanan, you asked

quote:

---

sounds like a philosophical view of a mechanistic process - is this what you intended?

---

That is exactly what I intended, and have been trying to say all along - that we can all view the results of mechanistic processes through one of two philosophical eyes - either atheist or theist, unless you can propose a third way of considering mechanistic objects philosophically.

Karl, you have helpfully stated that you wear two hats, a scientific hat and a Christian hat. Well I wear two hats, an engineering hat and a Christian hat. I hope my engineering hat will help you see the way specifications fit into the picture, just as you and other scientists on this thread have helped sort out much of my messy thinking about science.

But first, let me start by asking you this question. Richard Dawkins famously said of Paley's watch something like (this is my paraphrase)

quote:

---

biological organisms give the appearance of being designed, without having been designed

---

How does that statement differ from what you said that science is finding

quote:

---

Explanations that make no mention of, nor make any reference to, nor ascribe anything to, God, a god or gods. Or anything else supernatural.

---

Is there a philosophical difference? I can't see one?

Glenn and Alan, can I come back to your questions about the flaw(s) in Sober's argument once we have clarification on the question I have asked Karl?

Neil
 

The thing is, Dawkins' statement there is philosophical, because it addresses a 'how' question. My statement was about the nature of science. That is the difference - they are addressing different questions.

Let's cut to the chase. The difference is that you seem to think that 'there was an intelligent designer' is a valid scientific position, I think it is in the realms of philosophy.
 

The question of an object having been designed by an intelligence rather than being the result of non-intelligent processes is a legitimate scientific question. In the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence we have to think of ways to try to determine if certain radio and other emissions from space might show features of design. An archaeologist looks at an artefact or site and tries to determine if regularities in its features indicate any element of construction by an intelligence rather than by non-intelligent natural forces alone. Suppose too, that humans went extinct and another intelligent life form evolved in a few hundred million years time. Their scientists would have to assess whether artefacts preserved from our time were naturally evolved or intelligently designed.

In these cases we (or the future scientists) can compare the artefact or emission with our ideas of how we might design things, or, for the archaeologist with examples of similar artefacts known to have been made by other cultures.

Behe’s claim that certain biological systems are designed is thus not one that can be ruled out as unscientific. However, the only means for assessing his claim is to pursue research into whether natural unintelligent processes could have evolved the systems in question i.e. carry on sciense as normal. He believes he has shown natural explanations of these systems to be impossible, others disagree and think that his arguments are flawed. There is no reason in principle why natural selection cannot evolve irreducibly complex systems, but at the moment our knowledge of biochemistry is insufficiently sophisticated to ascertain the steps involved in his example cases.

There is a bigger issue behind Behe’s views and that is the question of whether there should be a theistic science, one which has an explicit place for God’s direct actions in its explanations. The problem with this is how to determine when God’s action needs to be invoked. Do we defer to some persons interpretation of scripture or other alleged revelation from God? Surely not, how do we know he/she is correct? One way we would have to try to test such claims is by trying to see if an explanation can be constructed that does not rely on God’s intervention. In other words we would do what scientists already do, operate using a non-theistic methodology. Science is thus necessarily non-theistic, but since this is only true of its methods it need not be a worry to anyone.

Glenn
 

But this is to miss the point pretty thoroughly. The analogy, as I explained in my earlier posting, is about random generation plus non-random selection i.e. it is about the power of cumulative selection. Both Sober and Dawkins make this clear in their discussion of METHINKSITISAWEASEL. Any system which replicates itself reasonably faithfully but with some variation will evolve if there is non-random selection of the different variants amongst the offspring regardless of whether the selection is done by intelligent or non-intelligent processes.

Pennock is excellent on this whole topic and once again I thoroughly recommend his book which also critiques Phillip Johnson.

Glenn
 

The vision of ID is to allow scientists the freedom to consider whether material objects display intelligence in their design or whether they are products of pure naturalistic forces. Therefore, 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.

BTW, I’ll add Robert Pennock to my reading list, thank you.

Before going on to Karl’s post, I would like to say that all bets are off. Yesterday I was given conclusive proof that intelligence and wisdom are behind the beauty of the universe. Ship Board has a new baby, I am now a father. My wife gave birth to a beautiful girl at 5:00pm yesterday afternoon, Singapore time. I was not going to post anything for a few days, but it’s the middle of the night and I can’t sleep because I’m still buzzing from the birth, so what else can I do?

Karl, let’s go back to specification. You said

quote:

---

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

---

In light of what Glenn wrote and focusing on the concept of a specified universe, can you answer two questions for me?

• Firstly, what do you understand by the term specified? What is specification?
  
• Secondly, is it a legitimate scientific question, at the end of painstaking methodological scientific examination, to ask if material objects display the properties of intelligent specification?
  

I’ll try to keep posting, but my frequency may decrease proportionately with my expected forthcoming lack of sleep.

All the best

Neil
 

Now back to the scheduled programme ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
The vision of ID is to allow scientists the freedom to consider whether material objects display intelligence in their design or whether they are products of pure naturalistic forces

---

Of course the philosophy of the scientist must affect the work done by individual scientists and the scientific community, but there are limits on how much philosophy affects the practice of science before the science itself is adversely affected. For example, I currently work in a branch of environmental science and my philosophical view that the evironment is the creation of God means I view what I do as being of greater importance and value than I might do if I was an atheist (not that I'm claiming atheists don't care about the environment, just that their reasons to care for it may be different from mine). Other scientists, because of philosophical views, may choose not to participate in experiments that involve animal testing; many nuclear scientists were actively involved in campaigning against nuclear weapons on the philosophical ground that they saw no reason they would ever be used.

These are examples of how philosophical views of scientists affect why/what science they do. I happen to believe that ID, as I've heard it expressed as an alternative to methodological materialism, puts science into too tight a strait-jacket such that the resulting science isn't as good as methodological materialism.

Alan
 

Karl, you’ve not answered my question about what you understand by the term ‘specified’, so I’ll attempt to do it for you.

Firstly, however, we need to clear up the difference now between methodological science and the philosophy drawn from that science.

When you said

quote:

---

Explanations that make no mention of, nor make any reference to, nor ascribe anything to, God, a god or gods. Or anything else supernatural.

---

To clarify the difference between functionality and origin, let's take Behe’s examples of bacterial flagellum, the mammalian blood coagulation cascade or the biosynthesis of AMP (the first building block of DNA). The functionality of each of these examples is now understood, so the job of science is done in that regard. Having understood how these biological mechanisms work, science can now work on understanding diseases where these mechanisms are found to be involved.

Can I assume that everyone agrees that understanding functionality and using that knowledge for the benefit of mankind is good science?

Now, philosophically, there are two views of how bacterial flagellum, the mammalian blood coagulation cascade or the biosynthesis of AMP (the first building block of DNA) came into existence, philosophical materialism and philosophical theism. One says the bacterial flagellum, the mammalian blood coagulation cascade or the biosynthesis of AMP (the first building block of DNA) are products of a random, purposeless, material process, the other says that they are the product of intelligence.

Is this still science? No, it is interpreting the results of science philosophically.

Agreed?

So, now we come to that word, ‘specified’ which you agreed with Karl. You see the universe as specified.

I am an engineer, involved in building tall office buildings from steel. When we tender contracts, the consulting engineer supplies the information required in two forms

• plans, sections and elevations - these were once called ‘blueprints’ when printing involved ammonia and the drawings had a blue tinge
  
• a specification, which states the properties of the materials and workmanship to be used in the contract.
  

So, specification is information. My Chambers Dictionary defines to specify as ‘to mention particularly, to make specific, to set down as required’.

Now, we agree that the universe was specified, but you believe that explanations for good science

quote:

---

make no mention of, nor make any reference to, nor ascribe anything to, God, a god or gods. Or anything else supernatural

---

As I outlined, working out how bacterial flagellum, the mammalian blood coagulation cascade or the biosynthesis of AMP (the first building block of DNA) function and applying that knowledge to practical applications is good science. Questions of God or the supernatural are not involved in this work of science.

But, using science to justify a philosophical viewpoint is philosophy not science. Saying something is ‘specified’, and yet only subject to natural forces can be a philosophical viewpoint. But there is a flaw in this argument (if that is what you mean by specified but natural).

This takes us back to Elliott Sober's METHINKITISAWEASEL and the flaw(s) in his argument.

According to the theory of step-by-step development, DNA or AMP must have developed randomly and when a function develops which benefits the organism, the organism is able to reproduce more effectively and so the function is retained in the population. But, DNA sequencing is specific and without the full sequence of METHINKITISAWEASEL, we have no functionality. Even if only one letter was wrong in the sequence, it doesn’t function. If the sequence read METHINKITISAWABBIT, the functionality is completely different. If the sequence was MWTFIGKHTASDWQAVEM, every second letter is correct but it is meaningless and has no function.

But, let’s say for this argument’s sake that somehow the genes did not require functionality as they assembled the correct sequence. Sober may well be right in his analogy that as the letters in the sequence stick in position, the genetic sequence could be assembled in 50 or 60 non-random attempts rather than being of negligible probability. The flaw is this, how do the letters know that they must stick in position? If they have no functionality, why don’t they just re-shuffle?

Sober’s analogy concludes as Glenn pointed out

quote:

---

Although the analogy between this process and the mutation-selection process is not perfect in every respect, it does serve to illustrate an important feature of how evolution by natural selection proceeds. Variation is generated regardless of whether it "matches the target" (i.e. is advantageous to the organism). But retention (selection among the variants that arise) is another matter. Some variants have greater staying power than others.

... Variation is generated at random, but selection among variants is non-random.
is really an analogy of specification.

---

How do variants have ‘greater staying power’? How can selection among variants be non-random? How does a variant know when to stick and when to twist?

Sober is in effect stating that variants show the properties of being specified. His flaw, from a philosophical materialist’s perspective is that there must be intelligence behind the specification.

Neil

PS Cro?sos you asked

quote:

---

Does it really matter what your view is? For example, if the "results of methodological science" indicates that the mass of an electron is 9.1×10¯³¹, does the electron "function" any different because of your "way of viewing"?

---

Do you mean, “does it matter if you believe God exists?”
 

You said

quote:

---

I happen to believe that ID, as I've heard it expressed as an alternative to methodological materialism, puts science into too tight a strait-jacket such that the resulting science isn't as good as methodological materialism.

---

Given what I clarified above about the distinction between to methodological materialism and ID (that ID is not an alternative, as the former is involved in functionality and the latter origin), the following ID statement shows how ID differs from creationism. In what way do you think the ID tenent is ‘too tight’?

quote:

---

Although intelligent design is compatible with many "creationist" perspectives, including scientific creationism, it is a distinct theoretical position. This can be seen by comparing the basic tenets of each view.
Legally, scientific creationism is defined by the following six tenets:

• The universe, energy and life were created from nothing.
  
• Mutations and natural selection cannot bring about the development of all living things from a single organism.
  
• "Created kinds" of plants and organism can vary only within fixed limits
  
• Humans and apes have different ancestries.
  
• Earth’s geology can be explained by catastrophism, primarily a worldwide flood
  
• The earth is young—in the range of 10,000 years or so.
  

Intelligent design, on the other hand, involves two basic assumptions:

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

---

Neil
 

The simple fact is that both the origins you propose are in fact true:

quote:

---

Now, philosophically, there are two views of how bacterial flagellum, the mammalian blood coagulation cascade or the biosynthesis of AMP (the first building block of DNA) came into existence, philosophical materialism and philosophical theism. One says the bacterial flagellum, the mammalian blood coagulation cascade or the biosynthesis of AMP (the first building block of DNA) are products of a random, purposeless, material process, the other says that they are the product of intelligence.

---

No! You persist in reading 'random, purposeless...' as a philosophical statement. It is not. It is a description of the process with respect to a scientific frame of reference. There is no purpose or direction within the sphere of science..

So the first explanation is not philosophical, it is scientific. The two explanations are complementary.

On to Sober's model - you are wrong in an important point. A protein can still be functional with a range of different sequences. A protein with one functionality can have other functions as a by-product, albeit inefficiently. This is enough for NS to work on. This has been demonstrated in the lab, and I will find the ref. for you if you want to see it.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
ID is not an alternative [to methodological materialism], as the former is involved in functionality and the latter origin

---

Alan
 

Sorry, that was unfair. Mediæval philosophers didn't actually debate about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. They worried about more important matters, like whether or not angels defecated.
 

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

PS Cro?sos. Thanks for the clarification, we are all part of the same material universe. I was concerned you though it wasn’t important to consider the creator, which is in effect another aspect of our lives which is common to all.
 

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.

---

No it is not, unless specification is defined so as to include design. Kenneth Miller in his book Finding Darwins God describes experiments by Barry Hall where Hall deleted the gene for a particular enzyme from a bacterium and then put it in conditions that would favour the survival of bacteria that evolved to have the missing enzyme again. Some did just that. It is of course possible to specify the structure and sequence of the gene and enzyme, but that is no indication that they specification was designed intelligently.
Glenn
 

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.'

---

Neil
 

Which brings me to my other point. The best, and indeed only, arguments I've seen presented thus far for ID are somewhat vague analogies. (Watchmaker, house, bridge, etc.) While analogies can be useful in clarifying or illustrating certain concepts, "reasoning by analogy" is almost an open invitation for fallacious conclusions. Is there any actual experimental evidence or direct observation or theorization involved here? If not, it falls outside the realm of science.
 

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.

Alan
 

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]

[ 06 August 2001: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 

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?

Neil
 

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."

---

Neil
 

Which brings us back to your position, which is that "that the existence or absence of intelligence is not demonstrable from elements in biology, and that this was the intentional position of God." If that is the case then your formulation of Intelligent Design is inherently unscientific (meaning "outside the realm of science"), unless you are postulating that ID is demonstrable through some scientific field of inquiry other than biology. Given this, it seems somewhat presumptuous for you to decry a scientific theory on what you seem to be admitting are unscientific grounds. The last time this sort of world-view prevailed was the Inquisition vs. Galileo.
 

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]

[ 07 August 2001: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 

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?

Neil
 

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.

Glenn
PS.My hard drive is hiccuping so if I disappear for a while that's why.
 

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".

As far as science "chastising and persecuting" dissenters, another important characteristic of the scientific process is the debate between various alternative theories. These debates can be quite vigorous, and since science is a materialist pursuit, theories which "can not be deduced by scientific measurement, experiment nor any other empirical means" are soundly and rightly "chastised" as unscientific. Quite frankly, I'm not sure that verbal criticism of one's position can really qualify as "persecution".
 

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'.

Neil
 

Alan
 

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?

Neil
 

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").

Alan
 

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.

Neil
 

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.

Alan
 

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.

Does that mean that electrons are beyond the understanding of science and are instead philosophical constructs? Obviously not. Anything which can be empirically observed can be examined by a scientific, materialist process. It's somewhat frustrating to me that you keep making this apparently fallacious assertion, that I keep pointing it out, and that you don't seem to take any effort to resolve this apparent paradox.
 

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.

---

Alan
 

Is this making sense?

Alan
 

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.

Neil
 

Neil - You seem to be either unfamiliar with the word "empirical" or are simply regretting using it. "Empirical" means relying on experimentation or sensory data rather than theoretical or systematic knowledge. Thus, when you say that something can be "empirically detected", it is natural for me (or anyone else who knows what "empirical" means) to conclude that you mean that there are some sorts of physical measurements or material data which support your formulation of Intelligent Design. Further, I'm not even sure you're that clear on the meaning of the word "detected", which is usually applied to the discernment of physical phenomena. "Detected" is usually also taken to imply that the thing being detected has some sort of existence independent of the detector, something which is not at all apparent about philosophical conclusions. 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. When there is insufficient, unclear, or even contradictory evidence so that multiple contradictory conclusions can be reached, the proper term is "speculate", not "deduce" or "detect".
 

Alan
 

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?

Neil
 

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.

Just my two penneth worth
 

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
 

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?

As for claims "that there is no intelligence behind the orderliness of creation", I have never advanced such a claim. As for how science in general can make such a claim, science is not so definitive about the matter and doesn't state things so strongly. The strongest statement of this nature goes back to the premise of functional non-existence, referred to in my post of 06 August 2001 23:22 back on page 11. If you can't pony up some evidence to back your hypothesis or conceive of a way in which its truth or falsity could affect scientific measurements, then for the purposes of science whatever it is you are postulating might as well be non-existent.
 

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).

Alan
 

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’?

Neil
 

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.
  

Neil
 

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!]

[ 13 August 2001: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 

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.

---

This seems like you're still trying to have it both ways. Either your theory of specification or intelligent design or whatever you're calling it this time is subject to material verification or it isn't. Could you make up your mind and let us know which it is?
 

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.

Neil
 

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.

Your last post reads as a sort of 'lets reject this, not because it isn't true, but because I think this position supports my philosophical position better'. Sorry, reality doesn't play that way.
 

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.

---

Alan
 

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.

Christian and Islamic societies did not develop science because of their monotheism. The monotheistic Zoroastrians were contemporaries of the Classical Hellenes, yet did not develop science. No, Christian and Islamic societies developed scientifically (at least in parts of their history) because they were the inheritors of Hellas.
 

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'.

Neil
 

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?

Neil
 

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.

Neil
 

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.

Neil
 

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'.

---

The you misunderstand me. I do not reject ID as philosophy, merely as a scientific concept, which it is not. I accept random, purposeless (from a scientific frame of reference) evolution because that is what is supported by the evidence.
 

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]

[ 15 August 2001: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 

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.

To apply this to your quoted comment, if you are aware of your own weakness in the subject of history you should not rely on historical references to prove or illustrate your points without some serious fact-checking and research, and it is doubly presumptuous of you to correct or question someone else's historical references, as you did at 14 August 2001 09:44, without the aforementioned research. And most certainly you should not just make up facts simply because they fit whatever philosophical point you are trying to make. (This last is only speculation on my part, but it's the best explanation I can think of for the origin of the "information" you posted.)
 

Alan - The historical question of the origin of science is one of interest to me, but is only tangentially related to the current topic, which is cluttered enough without getting side-tracked. Because of this, I decided it would be best to "spin off" the topic into its own thread, Athens, Jerusalem, and Science.
 

quote:

---

Theistic evolution takes the Darwinian picture of the biological world and baptizes it, identifying this picture with the way God created life. When boiled down to its scientific content, however, theistic evolution is no different from atheistic evolution, treating only undirected natural processes in the origin and development of life.

Theistic evolution places theism and evolution in an odd tension. If God purposely created life through Darwinian means, then God’s purpose was ostensibly to conceal his purpose in creation. Within theistic evolution, God is a master of stealth who constantly eluded our best efforts to detect him empirically. Yes, the theistic evolutionist believes that the universe is designed. Yet insofar as there is design in the universe, it is design we recognize strictly through the eyes of faith. Accordingly the physical world in itself provides no evidence that life is designed.

---

Neil
 

I am sorry. I promise to do better Historical research for future posts, should I refer to dates again.

On your answer to my closed question, good, science is no basis for faith. But you're not giving much away. Why do you believe that God does not exist?

Neil
 

Alan
 

The second is not. God does not have to hide anything because the natural processes concerned with the evolution of life are the outworking of His creative activity. Like Holmes' stars, it is merely a matter of one's frame of reference.
 

So Dembski's position is philosophical rather than scientific?
 

And Dyfrig, yes it is a philosophical position. However, if you read some of his writings on (for example) the Origins website he doesn't appear to realise that.

Alan
 

Can I add to Dyfrig's question...?

How does William Dembski's philosophical position (ID) differ in its nature from say the philosophical nature of materialism ("Darwinian-influenced philosophy") or theistic evolution ("Darwinian & Christian -influenced philosophy")? I'm not asking how each philosphical position differs, but by nature, can any be said to have greater legitimacy than the other? If so, on what basis?

Neil
 

Actually I do prefer Alan's term but the 'Theistic Evolution' label has been around for a while, despite its shortcomings. Probably because it's with origins that people have the biggest problems.

If I were to try to force the scientific evidence to support the theism, then I would be making the same mistake as Behe on the one hand and Dawkins on the other. I do not attempt to do that.
 

Alan
 

The only differnce between you and me is not the ability to change labels but the ability to change our views of the material world...I was once a chief deacon of the cult of Dawkinism (1986-1993), then perhaps a theistic materialist (1993-2001), now, perhaps an IDist (though the jury is still out...)

No one has answered my question on legitimacy of philosophical materialism, theistic materialism or IDism. Are any legitimate philosophies, and if so, on what basis?

Neil
 

If by ID you mean a philosophy in which there are empirically measurable consequences uniquely identifiable as proof of design (which is certainly how Dembski, and from what's been said on this thread Behe, come across as saying) then the position is logically unsupported in my opinion.

If you're saying ID is a philosophy with no such empirical consequences then to be honest the difference between ID and theistic materialism are almost non-existant.

Alan
 

As usual, I disagree with Karl. I believe ID will help undermine the prominence of philosophical materialism and the practical atheism of the west. Turning to Richard Lewontin’s ‘The Doctrine of DNA: Biology as an ideology’, I’ve read past the introduction and have found a quite brilliant attack on the ‘nature not nurture’ ideology of biology (that we are what we are because of our genes). In his essay ‘All in the Genes?’ Lewontin says:

quote:

---

How are we able to resolve the contradiction of immense inequalities in a society that claims to be founded on equality? There are two possibilities. We might say that it was all a fake, a set of slogans meant to replace a regime of aristocrats with a regime of wealth and privilege of a different sort, that inequality in our society is structural and an integral aspect of the whole of our political and social life. To say that, however, would be deeply subversive because it would call for yet another revolution if we wanted to make good on our hopes for liberty and equality for all. It is not a popular idea among teachers, newspaper editors, college professors, successful politicians, indeed anyone who has the power to help form public conscience.

The vulgar error that confuses heritability and fixity has been, over the years, the most powerful single weapon that biological ideologues have had in legitimating a society of inequality.

---

This is a similar to University of California, Berkley left wing academic, Todd Glitin’s lament in his essay ‘In the twilight of common dreams’. Philip Johnson reviews Glitin’s work and summarises:

quote:

---

What the Left plainly needs is a new theolgy, with our without God. Glitin makes clear what the elements of such a theology must be. It must provide a universal vision that inspires people to regard themselves as fundamentally united, despite their differing social circumstances and cultural experiences. It must provide a basis for an objective rationality of both fact and value, refuting the current Left doctrine that “objectivity is only another word for white make subjectivity.” It must reject the market-orientated notion that individual gratification is the purpose of life, by providing a higher purpose. It must provide a reason for the economic winners to be generous and compassionate and for the losers to strive to become as productive as they are able.

Where is such a theology to be found? I could offer a suggestion, but I don’t think Todd Glitin wants to hear it.

---

If ID undermines philosophical materialism, then that theology, which Glitin would not care to listen to and the revolution Lewontin fears, might begin to make an impact in western culture. Kind of like a continuous Jubilee 2000. Not an armed revolution of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, but a revolution of the heart of mankind.

Neil
 

You also seem to be attempting to apply a similar test to me, by asking me to explain my beliefs on a subject at best tangentially related to this topic. At the same time you have scrupulously avoided answering any substantive questions about the basis for your own positive assertions within the framework of this discussion. (For example, my as yet unanswered question about the Lorentz transformations at 14 August 2001 03:21.) The only reasons I can see for this "fishing expedition" is that either you are trying to decide if I am "philosophically worthy" of a response from you, or that you are trying to shift the focus of discussion from your unsupportable assertions (which form the origin of this thread) to a debate about whether my personal beliefs are valid. In the words of Joseph Welch in similar circumstances, "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you no sense of decency?"
 

Going back to the post you mentioned on the 14th August, you said

quote:

---

So getting down to specifics, which material phenomena do you believe are outside the realm of scientific inquiry?

---

You are missing my point. I am not saying that material phenomena should be excluded from scientific inquiry.

Let's take the mammilian blood coagulation cascade again. Scientific inquiry has now observed the material phenomena of how blood clots when mammals are wounded and how it avoids clotting otherwise. Scientific inquiry is now complete in this regard. With the understanding of how blood clotting works, science may now go on to investigate blood disorders like hemophilia.

That description is the practical limit of scientific enquiry. Would you agree?

Now, looking at the mammilian blood coagulation cascade, we can draw two philosophical conclusions. Either that it was the product of an unguided, unsupervised, impersonal, random, purposeless process or it was specified, designed to work that way.

'Scientific inquiry' which goes beyond the 'how it works' and 'how can we fix it when it's broke' is in the realms of justification of philosophical materialism. Trying to prove that anything is the product of an unguided, unsupervised, impersonal, random, purposeless process can be described as 'science to prove a philosophy'.

I've read this page on The Lorentz Transformations , the maths is a bit beyond me. I understand that The Lorentz Transformations are a speculative mathematical model which can not be empirically tested because we can not be in two places at one time. If we could test them empirically, are you saying we could deduce some philosophy from them?

Neil

[URL fixed]

[ 17 August 2001: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 

Why do you claim that your philosophy is not derived from scientific conclusions and then ask me to justify my understanding of scientific conclusions?

My faith in God is based on the life, teachings, fulfillment of Old Testament Law and prophesy, death, resurrection, ascension and future return of Christ Jesus.

What's yours based on? Put it negatively, who do you think Jesus is?

Neil
 

You said on the same post

quote:

---

As far as my non-belief in God goes, it is simply a result of my never having needed to hypothesize a Deity.

---

In light of my question to you about Jesus, there is no need for you to hypothesize. Faith in Christ is not subjective, Jesus was/is very real.

As far as your need goes, are you any different from the rest of us? Like it or not, if Christianity is true, if what Jesus taught is true, we will all face moral accountability and our need for an advocate on that day will be very great indeed. Have you considered this carefully?

Neil
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
Let's take the mammilian blood coagulation cascade again. Scientific inquiry has now observed the material phenomena of how blood clots when mammals are wounded and how it avoids clotting otherwise. Scientific inquiry is now complete in this regard. With the understanding of how blood clotting works, science may now go on to investigate blood disorders like hemophilia.

That description is the practical limit of scientific enquiry. Would you agree?

---

quote:

---

I understand that The Lorentz Transformations are a speculative mathematical model which can not be empirically tested

---

Alan
 

Your motivation for seeking the previous function, if there was one, for the proteins involved in blood clotting is a valid scientific inquiry. But, as I said to Crœsos, why do we keep referring the detail of scientific theory when we are talking about governing philosophy? Can you explain to me in lay terms, keeping in mind that I am a civil engineer, whether or not philosophical materialism or atheism can be proved by The Lorentz Transformations or any other mathematical, empirical or biological function?

Neil
 

If we take a hard look at secular humanism, the governing Western philosophy, we find that Christianity is permitted a subjective position in society. I commend to everyone on this thread the study of the Council for Secular Humanism - A Secular Humanist Declaration . Reading all items in the declaration we find that 'Religious experience' is permitted as subjective if helpful to the individual.

What are the effects of this on Christian practice? Charismatics can raise their hands and speak in tongues, if that's what they want to do, subjectively. Anglo-Catholics can wear cassocks and surplices and stand north facing at the 'altar', if that's what they want to do, subjectively. Evangelicals can earnestly study the bible and apply it to their lives individually & corporately, if that's what they want to do, subjectively. We can even fight amongst ourselves about which is the right manifestation of corporate gatherings in our faith in Christ and run the 'Mystery Worshipper' to highlight the differences. But, if we claim that Christianity is more than a subjective experience, if we claim that Christianity is true, we're told that we're either mad to believe such nonsense or that we are stepping out of place.

If we are Christians then we identify with the sacrifice offered by Christ, once for all. It is true, not only for Charismatics, Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals (regardless of our preferred style of corporate gathering on Sunday) it is true for all humans. But philosophical materialism, secular humanism, keeps the practical atheist 'safe' from that truth because we are told 'what works for you is fine, but please don't pester me with your subjective experience'.

Now, to the point of this thread. What is the mechanism which has relegated Christianity from its true theological position as objective truth to a false theological position as subjective experience? It is the mechanism of Christianity being subset of philosophical materialism. Of crucial importance to this situation is this question, what is one of the greatest supporting 'objective facts' of secular humanism? It is the unguided, unsupervised, impersonal, random, purposeless development of life on earth. According to secular humanism, humans are what we are, not because we were made this way but a supernatural being, but by a material process over which there was no control. At the deepest level, Darwinian theory excuses us of any moral responsibility. Christians have no choice but to retreat to a subjective belief and practice, because we have been marginalised by secular humanism and the 'triumph' of Darwinism as a means of explaining our origin and development.

But, ID challenges the objectivity of the claims of the Darwinian theory of evolution, not because it wants to undermine secular humanism, but because ID does not accept Dawkin's 'Blind Watchmaker' thesis because it does not fit with the evidence of complexity in life. ID says that there is a watchmaker. Michael Behe's observations may or my not be empirically detected, it may not be possible to detect that blood coagulation cascades are the product of intelligence, but Michael's Behe's deductions are at least as legitimate as Richard Dawkin's. Like my earlier example of the oxygen-carbon dioxide cycle, one will see it as fluke and another critical design to life on earth.

ID undermines the authority of secular humanism, because, without conclusive supporting 'scientific' objectivity, secular humanism suffers the same fate as Christianity suffered post-Enlightenment. Without Darwinism, secular humanism is reduced to subjective faith, not objective reality. Practical atheists might find that there is no philosophical or 'scientific' basis for their faith after all. And our Christian faith, our faith in Christ, may be elevated again to a position of objectivity not subjective experience.

Let the revolution begin.

Neil
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
why do we keep referring the detail of scientific theory when we are talking about governing philosophy?

---

quote:

---

'Scientific inquiry' which goes beyond the 'how it works' and 'how can we fix it when it's broke' is in the realms of justification of philosophical materialism.

---

Alan
 

Christianity is about relationship with God through Jesus Christ. This will differ for everyone who has experience of it.

The particular view of Christianity that you propound appears to be directly arising from Enlightenment presuppositions (particularly in relation to its treatment of "objective truth").

To succeed, a revolution must choose the critical moment. Modernism is well past its sell-by date, and is highly questionable as the basis of any new paradigm.
 

As Alan pointed out, the Lorentz transformations are not speculative and can be demonstrated using any number of means, the most famous of which is the solar muon experiment. Alan did have one thing incorrect though. Einstein used the Lorentz transformations in the formulation of Special, not General, Relativity.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:

Now, to the point of this thread. What is the mechanism which has relegated Christianity from its true theological position as objective truth to a false theological position as subjective experience? It is the mechanism of Christianity being subset of philosophical materialism. Of crucial importance to this situation is this question, what is one of the greatest supporting 'objective facts' of secular humanism? It is the unguided, unsupervised, impersonal, random, purposeless development of life on earth. According to secular humanism, humans are what we are, not because we were made this way but a supernatural being, but by a material process over which there was no control. At the deepest level, Darwinian theory excuses us of any moral responsibility.

---

Its not the scientific fact that you have the problem with then. I'm afraid you can't really say that someone using a scientific theory to justify their philosophical beliefs makes the theory they are referring to any more or any less "correct" ( whatever that means hey guys

I'd suggest that attacking a shaky philosophy is a lot easier than attacking what is, like it or not, an exceedingly well-supported scientific theory.

doug
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Alan did have one thing incorrect though. Einstein used the Lorentz transformations in the formulation of Special, not General, Relativity.

---

I'll be away the next couple of weeks, so although I should be able to pop in I may not be as active in this discussion.

Alan
 

Why is this? Why is Darwin's theory defended more passionately than Christ Jesus?

Ham 'n' eggs, you mentioned presuppositions which reminded me of the arguments over 'the new hermeneutic'. You have made a very valid point, that we see what we do because of our presuppositions. Can it be that our presuppositions influence our interpretation of material phenomena in the same way they influence our interpretation of the Bible?

It is not that the same set of presuppositions is applied to material phenomena and interpretation of scripture, but that both disciplines are affected by our particular set of presuppositions.

IMHO, the concept of 'the new hermeneutic' can be applied to our approach to Darwinian theory. The 'evidence' for the unguided, random, purposeless development of all life on earth is strong but incomplete. It therefore requires human thought to extrapolate ideas which complete the theory, human minds expand the evidence to fit the theory. Darwinism is a theory of grand extrapolation, variation in finch beaks and peppered moths are extrapolated to form a grand scheme of a developmental process for variation and complexity. The extrapolation is achieved by a process which involves our presuppositions.

We are not born with any presuppositions, so where do our presuppositions come from? The classroom, TV, our surrounding culture, including, of course, the books we choose to read (and those we choose not to read), the evidence we choose to see and that which we choose to ignore.

Darwinism, therefore, survives not because it is objectively true or unfalsifiable but because of our presuppositions, our cultural & historical environment. This is as true today as it has been for every other culture and time before us which has observed material phenomena. Observations of material phenomena, whether those observations are true or false, have been adopted to suit our presuppositions. The theory of a flat earth fitted a presupposition. The Ptolemaic theory of the universe fitted a presupposition. Darwinism fits a presupposition. Each theory has been defended passionately and dogmatically when new theories begin to emerge and Darwinism is no different. The dominant western philosophy requires (neo)Darwinism to be true, so (neo)Darwinism is true because of that presupposition, not because it is objectively true.

Neil

PS Crœsos…you haven't explained who you think Jesus is.

PPS Doug have you read the Council for Secular Humanism - A Secular Humanist Declaration ? Particularly items 8 and 9.
 

quote:

---

The physical world was created by God and everything in it continues to be sustained by his will. Thus, any true theory of how that physical world works cannot conflict with a Christian view of God, for the Bible says that the physical world is entirely moved and controlled by God, working in and through what we regard as 'natural processes'.

Important implications flow from this. Firstly, finding a 'natural' cause for an event is no reason to dismiss God as the fundamental cause. In fact, if nothing else, our survey of the biblical teaching should make clear that the word 'natural' is rather inappropriate, especially if it is contrasted to 'supernatural'. In the end, there is no difference between the two, in the Bible's view. All causes within the world are ultimately caused by God. So even the most complete scientific theory, with every causal chain thoroughly described, is no reason to conclude that God is not there. From the Bible's viewpoint, it is merely an elaborate description of the wise order that God has created, and now sustains, in the world. The two are not competing explanations; they are both true explanations.

---

If science and Christianity are 'unnatural enemies', why is there conflict? The conflict arises, not over the material evidence, but over a theistic presupposition and an atheistic or deistic presupposition. One view, as Birkett points out, is based on a biblical view of the world, what are the other ones based on?

Neil
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
Looking back at this thread, I have been surprised by the level of passion and determination displayed by some of the Christians on the board in defense of Darwin's theory of evolution (the unguided, random, purposeless development of all life on earth). If only Christians would defend Jesus with such vigor.

Why is this? Why is Darwin's theory defended more passionately than Christ Jesus?

---

Perhaps because if he's the son of God he should be better placed to defend himself than a mere theory?

Also because this thread is about "The Death of Darwinism" not "The Death of Christianity".

And finally because a lot of Christians misidentify the Theory of Evolution as their enemy.
 

Rest assured that on secular creation/evolution debates I defend the Faith with the same vigour as I defend mainstream science. Indeed, the only reason I arse around with these debates is to present the rational Christian view, lest the creationist lie of "creationism=Christianity, evolution=atheism" be strengthened.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:

Darwinism, therefore, survives not because it is objectively true or unfalsifiable but because of our presuppositions, our cultural & historical environment.

---

I would dispute this assertion. Darwinism survives, in the face of other, better, later, theories for the same reason that Newtonian Mechanics survives in the face of Einsteinian Relativity, because, at a simple level, it works and is understandable.

In order to progress beyond the simple assertions of the Darwinian world view requires a grasp of the underlying subject that is beyond the majority of people in this country (and elsewhere). The more complex theological and even biological consequences of Darwinism are as obscure to the majority of people as are the Lorentz Transformations.
 

quote:

---

And finally because a lot of Christians misidentify the Theory of Evolution as their enemy.

---

Kirsten Birkett shows why science and Christianity are not at odds, because a Biblical understanding of the world expects order because God is an ordered God and 'natural processes' are part of God's order. But, Christianity did not make an enemy of science, science made an enemy of Christianity and continues to do so, and the BBC gave a classic example today. By assuming naturalism for science, scientists have come to believe that naturalism is true.

The 'Discovery' program today was titled 'Pain is a problem'. The program was introduced by the statement

quote:

---

'Pain is a problem, it was once religion which tried to answer the problem of pain, but now science gives us the answer to the problem...science has shifted pain from morals to mechanisms.'

---

After discussing the way pain is detected in the body, by interviewing many scientists who described how our bodies detect pain, the program turned to 'Christianity'. One interview was made with a Christian art critic who described works of Christ in pain on the cross and described an American gay HIV+ artist whose name I forget and whose stage show involved self mutilation, including many Christian overtones such as a crown of steel thorns. These religious overtones were attributed to the fact that this artist was the child of religious fundamentalist parents, and he had been 'groomed for Christian ministry', obviously making him the screwed-up basket case he is(was?) now.

The art critic was scarcely relevant to the question, but at least she provided a good straw man of an artist whose self expression of pain as art was the result of unscientific religious fundamentalists. Why didn't the program try quoting CS Lewis from 'the problem of pain', where the program had perhaps unwittingly derived its title? Perhaps that would have given too serious a consideration to Christian thought.

Having dealt such a blow to the credibility of Christianity, the program turned back to science and molecular mechanisms, neurons, inheritance and experiments on mice, good rational stuff. Then it took a poke at Dr Livingston's report of being attacked by a lion. When Dr L experienced no pain during the mauling he concluded that it was a 'merciful provision by our benevolent creator to reduce the pain of death'. Back to science, and 'opiod peptides', which explain Dr Livingston's lack of pain...'you see' implied the program 'there is no need for God to be involved at all.'

The conclusion was that pain was a problem but science would solve it with drugs and pain killers. Well done science and well done BBC, good reporting, if you count good reporting as a biased, bigoted, intolerant, illiberal treatment of a serious issue.

The real problem of the painful treatment of this subject was that the producer was only being faithful to his presuppositions...that science is rational and Christianity is barking mad. The frightening thing is that this is not some right wing fascist extremism, inciting religious intolerance and hatred, it is main stream global broadcasting in the name of 'science'.

Neil
 

The BBC article demonstrates that this is not about 'evolution' or any other beloved theory, it is about legitimacy amoungst the intellectual elite.

Neil
 

This is not helped by attacks on science, whether they come from Michael Behe or from Duane Gish.
 

Perhaps congratulations on your stamina are in order, for keeping this thread going so long. Can I observe that you seem to be clinging to your initial position with some tenacity (in the face of some very knowledgeable and reasonable comments by Karl and others) ? Seems to me that both sides (those who talk up conflict between science and religion and those who play it down) feel fairly strongly about these issues.

quote:

---

posted by Neil Robbie:
If science and Christianity are 'unnatural enemies', why is there conflict?

---

Perhaps this conflict centres around the T-word. "What is truth?" asked Pilate, and then left the room, thereby missing out on at least 14 pages of intelligent argument...

What is it stake is whether Christian religious beliefs are a "truth" that is "truer" than scientific "truth" (a position we might call "religious supremacy"). Or vice versa ("scientific supremacy"). Or whether these sorts of truth are complementary.

Blaming "science" for the conflict is unfair. It goes back at least to the days of Galileo, and at that time in history the Church claimed an authority over scientific "truth" - the religious supremacists were in power. [the details of the Galileo affair aren't relevant; the point is the attitude to truth].

I'm in the "complementary" camp - both science and religion are valid realms of human understanding, and properly understood there is no conflict between them. I don't feel that this position is undermined by any amount of quoting scientists who hold "scientific supremacy" views. Nor is the validity of "scientific" truths undermined by pointing out that scientists are only human and therefore form their views in the same way that other humans do.

Why does it matter ? Because people are in need of God, and misrepresenting Christianity as anti-science creates a barrier on their path to finding Him...

Russ
 

quote:

---

the unguided, random, purposeless development of all life on earth

---

Urgh. I was trying to stay away from this thread, but I couldn't let this slide. Darwinian evolution does not rest on blind chance. It is rather better explained as chance mutation plus natural selection, natural selection being anything but random. Chance alone would be astronomically unlikely to result in the development of the human eye. Such mutations, followed by such selection, as has been extensively laid out by others here, are overwhelmingly supported in the fossil record.

What I really can't believe is that certain people have so much invested in "disproving" evolution. I'm insulted that anyone would assert that passionate championing of good science represents a failure to champion Jesus, as if he needs it anyway. Jesus was all about Truth, and not (to the best of my reading of Scripture) all about using twisted and underinformed pseudoscience to cling to absurd views.
 

Karl

I wish to offer you an apology for the way I have behaved on this thread and argued so strongly against your position of theistic evolution. I am truly sorry and hope you can forgive me.

You might wonder what has brought about my change of heart. As you know, the matter of science and Christianity is fairly new to me. I have been a Christian for 9 years and have chosen to ignore science rather than face the challenge it makes, in its popular form, to Christianity. Reading Philip Johnson and Michael Behe hit a chord with my personal view of the world, which I described in the way I saw the intelligence of the oxygen-carbon dioxide cycle in animals and plants. Because their views fitted my own presuppositions, I assumed ID was true and picked up their claims as dogmatically as some claim other theories.

As you know I have been juggling many books during the writing of this thread (including Behe, Schroeder, Johnson, Dawkins, Gould, God (the Bible), Whitcomb and latterly, Birkett). Well, I finished Kirsten Birkett’s book (Unnatural Enemies: An introduction to science and Christianity) last night and she changed my mind on ID and theistic evolution, though she mentions neither in her book and I am not saying that either is correct.

Kirsten Birkett is a lecturer at an Anglican seminary in Sydney Australia (if you know which one, please do not write her off as conservative Evangelical, her treatment of the matter is balanced and enlightening) and she teaches on science and Christianity. If you would like to find out why I no longer believe ID to be science and worth defending, you might like to order her book which you can get from The Good Book Company for a fiver.

I remain convinced of intelligent design, but not in the sense the ID movement states, because I do not think, as many people pointed out to me, that the empirical evidence can be shown to ‘prove’ irreducible complexity or specified complexity. These are two more theories waiting for science to show how they came into existence. I believe in the ongoing work of God in creation from an informed Biblical Theology.

This is not to say that I have given up against the claims of science to replace religion. Thomas Huxley may have won the day and his influence on the minds of popular culture today is still immense. John, remember my list of parallel positions within science as the new church, and you asked me what planet I was on? Well, it was not me, but Thomas Huxley that established that way of thinking. He referred to the ‘church scientific’, himself as one of its ‘bishops’ and his talks as ‘lay sermons’.

It is the ‘church scientific’ which is the enemy of God’s church. Christianity did not make science its enemy, science assumed the position of the aggressor 160 years ago and maintains that popular stance with proponents like Dawkins. I no longer think that ID will undermine the authority of secular humanism, philosophical materialism or naturalism, but as someone clever said at the start of this thread scientists are not to be found in church because of the current vacuity of the message. The church needs to get up out of the dust, brush itself off from the beating it has taken since Huxely’s days and put science in its proper place. Then perhaps, the BBC will stop broadcasting anti-religious claptrap and Glitin’s revolution may begin.

Humble apologies again, Karl and everyone else who was on the wrong end of my blind dogmatism.

Can we change the focus of the thread to the question of putting science in its proper place? How can we as a church achieve a proper public understanding of the relationship between science and Christianity? That is that science and Christianity are unnatural enemies and that it is the claims of the 'church scientific' which has assumed the role of aggressor and victor without reasonable grounds.

Neil
 

With the benefit of GMT+7 hours and reading Kirsten Birkett's book (BTW, if you visit the Good Book Company, the 'Unnatural Enemies' can be found under the 'engaging with the world' section), the difference between theology and the 'church scientific' is our understanding of the terms you used to describe evolution

quote:

---

chance mutation plus natural selection

---

This is the crux. How do we understand chance mutation and natural selection? How does 'chance' fit with a Biblical understanding of God? Does 'natural' selection involve God or exclude God? (cf my post of 20 August 2001 05:35)

quote:

---

the Bible says that the physical world is entirely moved and controlled by God, working in and through what we regard as 'natural processes'

---

Neil
 

It is interesting you mention the question of pain and pain relief. It was a popular theological position in the mid-nineteenth century that the use of painkillers or anesthtics during childbirth was immoral and unChristian. The origin of this opinion was an overly-literal interpretation of Genesis 3:16, which stated that it was woman's Divine Punishment that "with pain you will give birth to children". By mitigating this divinely ordained suffering, scientists were perceived as "playing God". The controversy was quietly ended when Queen Victoria (the era's standard for all that was good and upright), who had already borne eight children in such Biblically proper pain, used an anesthetic when birthing her ninth child and pronounced the experience greatly preferable. This is, of course, just an interesting anecdote, but it illustrates something alltogether too common. One of the reasons that science and religion are often at odds is that science is largely about novel and unusual things, whereas relious belief (at least as it is practiced in Western culture) is drawn towards the old and preserving the status quo.
 

Now this dualism, this division of human knowing into two separate spheres- the objective and the subjective- held together for a while; at least, until the Enlightenment got under full steam and issued in the skepticism of the 18th and 19th centuries, when it seemed possible to dispense with anything other than the vague moral sense that religion might provide one with. Of course, eventually people realized that one didn't even need religion for a sense of morality.

In the 20th century this Cartesian dualism has issued in a division of "fact" and "value"; science holding all the facts, religion- and other similarly etheral things like ethics- holding the values. Facts are incontrovertible, provable units of sensory experience. Values, on the other hand, are relative, arguable, and unprovable mutual agreements between people.

In reality, of course, as much late 20th century philosophy of science and religion were to demonstrate, the Cartesian dualism of "objective" and "subjective", of "fact" and "value", was just so much imaginative fancy. The truth is that scientific and religious communities (not mutually exclusive entities) conduct themselves in very similar fashion: each is done in community, so providing a check on the idiosyncratic and heretical; each has its dogmas or postulates, unprovable assertions on which the epistemological system is based; each depends on models and metaphors, sometimes on successive paradigms (thank you, Thomas Kuhn), to provide a common language for members of the community ("believers", if you will).

Even the notion of "objective" is suspect, because we now realize that there are no uninterpreted data, that merely deciding what counts as data ("facts") is a matter of interpretation, that every decision (including the dogmatic postulate) amounts also to a decision to exclude, a prior, what is decided not to be a datum.

The problem arises when a naive scientism, represented both by many practicing scientists and by most layfolk as well (isn't is interesting how we use these "religious" terms to describe such things?), insists that it provides the only reliable guide to reality, that its conclusions are provable and that those of religion are not (well, of course they would be when what is provable is defined a priori in such a way as to exclude the activity of God).

Absolute codswallop. We can no more prove that only that which is empirically verifiable exists (or even that empiricism can define the limits of creation) that we can prove that God exists. Empirical materialism makes an excellent methodology, but when pressed as metaphysics (as thoroughgoing empirical materialists do), it becomes as thoroughly dogmatic as any creed.

(Understand that, as a creedal catholic Christian, I am not attacking creedalism. On the contrary, dogmatic assumptions or postulates or axioms are necessary in any system of human knowing, or you are paralyzed by the inability to decide what constitutes truth in any sense.)

In the end, science and religion are very two very similar ways of appropriating one way of human knowing, but to different ends: on the one hand the way the physical, empirical determinable universe behaves; and on the other hand, discernment of ultimate meaning, of truth, of value (in the sense of worth), and for followers of biblical religion- Christians and Jews- the discernment of the creating, revealing and saving activity of the one true and living God in his creation.

To return to the issue that has produced several hundred posts on this thread alone (leaving aside hundreds of posts on similar threads on these boards in times past), my position is this: no Christian, no believer in biblical religion (in the sense of Christians and Jews) can uncritically accept the assumptions and conclusions of Darwinian evolution. Don't misunderstand me on this point; I find "young creation science" intellectually shallow and in some measure self-delusional, and I sense in the Intelligent Design movement (while I respect their bravado in challenging a scientific establishment in its comfortable and unquestioning dogmaticism) something akin to an Anselmian rationalist attempt to prove God's existence. But no believer in biblical religion can accept the idea that only the material, the empirically verifiable exists; both Judaism and Christianity teaches that God is the Creator "of all that is, seen and unseen." The foundational axiom for empirical materialist science is that only that which is empirically verifiable may be said conclusively to exist. The foundational axiom for Christian faith is that the Word of God became incarnate, took human flesh, in Jesus Christ.

Nor can that believer accept the idea that the creation of life has proceeded in an entirely directionless manner (this obtains regardless of one's views of chance and natural selection, see Laura's and Neil's posts, above- neoDarwinian evolution insists that there be nothing teleological about evolutionary development, however adaptive it may be) or that life developed in a manner necessitated by the historical exigencies of environment. The first notion is a denial of God's sovereignty and intention in creating humanity, so that rather than our being created for dialogue with God and for God's delight in us (and we in God), we can at best conceive of God's involvment in the rise of human life to be something on the order of realizing one bright and sunny epoch, "Hey! There's a creature down there now that I can talk to!" The second notion, of the necessity of human development, is a denial of the sovereignty and grace of God in creating us; rather than beings whom God created freely for dialogue and delight, we are being who necessarily arose form the historical exigencies of the primordial ooze.

Having said this, that I find neoDarwinian evolution to be incompatible with the biblical revelation of God because of its foundational assumptions and its anti-teleological conclusions; and that I find "young earth creation science" to be intellectually untenable (and it denies the vastness of God, too, to insist that it had to be done over the past 7000 years- that's a mighty damned short eternity past!); and that I find the Intelligent Design movement suspect, not because of any dissembling or obfuscating on the part of the considerable intellects involved, but because I find it too rationalist for my biblical-fideist soul; where am I left?

With something that many long-time posters here have read from my keyboard before: creative evolution or evolutionary creationism. What do I mean by that? Well, not theistic evolution, at least as that is usually defined (that God creates the universe- Big Bang- giving it a sort of push in the direction of eventuating in human life- strikes me as remarkably deist in belief). What I mean is that I believe, as fervently as any young earth creationist or intelligent design proponent, that God created all life- all life- in the universe (hence its being called "creation"), not by filling in gaps where "missing link" couldn't carry on the evolutionary process, but in every moment, every nanosecond of the creative process. Viewed from the perspective of an empirical materialist methodology, this looks very much like evolution (whether gradual or punctuated), because God creates (dare I even say, experiments?) to fit the environment.

The time has come finally to liberate our common way of human knowing from the epistemological shackles of Cartesian dualism (or better, of its latter-day bastardy), to restore science and religion to their proper places in human endeavor.

Man the barricades! To arms!
 

As an example of the ongoing battle, I heard another BBC World Service program today called 'Racial myths' which was a puff for the legitimacy of science over morals to the exclusion of Christianity.

The program followed this argument. It claimed that 'race sciences' were responsible for racial genocide in the 1830s and 1840s, for example when the British wiped out Tasmanian Aborigines. Moral justification for the genocide at that time was based on the scientific fact that primitive people were doomed to extinction. But, claimed the program, 'liberal racial attitudes' were responsible for the abolition of slavery at the same time (1838). Now, this is contrary to my understanding of history in which Wilberforce, The Clapham sect and John Newton were responsible for the abolition of slavery (but the BBC would not want to attribute anything beneficial in society to Christianity).

The program went on to Scottish Historian and philosopher Thomas Carlylse who was described by the program as 'a prophet, a sage' (and the use of religious language for such a racist was, IMHO, no accident). Next, Scotsman Robert Knox, the notorious gravedigger, and advocate of racial genocide who claimed that

quote:

---

races are naturally and essentially different, race is a fact, it is everything.

---

quote:

---

'at some period in the future the civilised races would exterminate the savage races'

---

Then the program brought in the hero on a white charger, 'the Liberal establishment', John Stuart Mill (backed up by Huxley, Darwin & Lyle) whose critique on Thomas Carlylse (which was backed by Dickens and Charles Kingsley) abolished the scientific conclusions Carlysle had read into Darwin's theory. Hooray for the liberal establishment. Hitler was then discussed as the last hangover of the conclusions of Robert Knox and Thomas Carlysle.

And the conclusion of the program?

quote:

---

'Now science is undoing the damage done by the pseudo-science of Darwinism, because genetics are showing that we are one race'.

---

Rather than commending Christians with the abolition of slavery and admitting that the Bible was right about the essential unity of humanity, the BBC once again says a big 'well done' to science for defeating racism and abolishing slavery. Biased, bigoted, anti-Christian, inflammatory reporting by 'the liberal establishment'.

Unbelievable. So, in light of such reporting, how do we

quote:

---

liberate our common way of human knowing from the epistemological shackles of Cartesian dualism (or better, of its latter-day bastardy), to restore science and religion to their proper places in human endeavor.

---

Neil
 

I'm not so good on the technical descriptions - I didn't read philosophy - but the way I've always put it is that evolution, whilst purposeless and undirected from a scientific frame of reference, nevertheless is the outworking of the creative activity of God, which has both purpose and direction. Does this make any sense?
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
Steve_R, before making patronising comments about people being too simple to understand science, please go back and read my post of 17 July 2001 10:15. Richard Lewontin explains why that argument is not only patronising...

---

I have re-read that post and I quote from it:

quote:

---

Joe Public has no way of questioning Lewontin's philosophy because, as Lewontin pointed out, no one understands his science.

---

now who's being patronising?

I stand by my original comments as not being patronising but, unfortunately, true of the scientific knowledge of the majority of people.

Darwinism captured the imagination of the Victorian society on whom The Origin of Species was initially launched and until some counter-theory does the same then the simplistic notions that are generally understood by Joe Public to be Darwin's theory will remain in the consciousness. This will also be aided by the fact that the essential elements of evolutionary theory (disregarding the genetic, theological and other complexities) will be taught early in school biology and even where they have been adjusted for later theories they will still be credited under Darwin's name.
 

I am sorry for my outburst and for accusing you of patronising non-scientists, please forgive me, I will try not do it again. If you take time to read that post again you will see that my statement was a summary of Lewontin's quote. I said, in summary,

quote:

---

I found the above statement refreshingly honest. Lewontin has stated the truth clearly and concisely…God is dead…science rules ethics, morality, culture, purpose and meaning.

Joe Public has no way of questioning Lewontin's philosophy because, as Lewontin pointed out, no one understands his science.

My questions are these?
 What gives science this legitimacy?
 What keeps Darwin's philosophical train in motion?
 How will the church counter this legitimacy?

---

I was summarising that Lewontin tells people like me, Joe Public (an engineer outside the main body of science), that I don’t know what I'm talking about and so I should remain silent. This is not about whether or not Darwin was right in his observations but whether Lewontin as a philosophical naturalist has greater legitimacy than a philosophical theist to shape public morals and ethics. Todd has explained that this assumed legitimacy stems from corrupted Cartesian dualism, that is that

quote:

---

Science, this dualism would have us believe, is the realm of fact, of data, of the provable. Religion is the realm of values, of meaning, of morality, of the ethereal and the ineffable

---

BBC programs which give science moral legitimacy and no legitimacy to Christianity are a product of this corrupted understanding. Therefore, as Todd has answered the first two questions, the last of my three questions from over a month ago remains valid and unanswered. Todd has said that

quote:

---

The time has come finally to liberate our common way of human knowing from the epistemological shackles of Cartesian dualism (or better, of its latter-day bastardy), to restore science and religion to their proper places in human endeavor.

---

How will the church, indeed all of western culture, achieve liberation from such firmly binding shackles?

Neil
 

How does your 'theistic evolution' vary from Kirsten Birkett's summary

quote:

---

The physical world was created by God and everything in it continues to be sustained by his will. Thus, any true theory of how that physical world works cannot conflict with a Christian view of God, for the Bible says that the physical world is entirely moved and controlled by God, working in and through what we regard as 'natural processes'.

---

?

Neil
 

I should add that, in context, Birkett means that if the observed path of the development of life is gradual or rapid, by mutation or otherwise, selection or otherwise, whatever the conclusion of scientific observation it is not in conflict with a Biblical understanding of the way God works in creation, because God is at work through 'natural processes', though we can not always predict how God will work, because God is God and we are not.

Neil
 

I agree with lots of this, but not (as currently phrased) to your dislike of objectivity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Todd:
Science and religion are frequently at odds... ...because we are heirs of the Cartesian dualism of the "objective" and the "subjective"...

---

Is the problem when people equate "objective" with "empirically verifiable" ? That there is a distinction between that which is empirically verifiable and that which is not seems obvious. But things which are "subjective" are normally mental phenomena. Christians want to say that although God is unprovable (not empirically verifiable) he is objective (having an existence independent of all human thought) ?

quote:

---

...the Cartesian dualism of "objective" and "subjective", of "fact" and "value", was just so much imaginative fancy... ...because we now realize that there are no uninterpreted data, that merely deciding what counts as data ("facts") is a matter of interpretation

---

Not convinced. The realm of objective fact may be a little fuzzy around the edges, but that doesn't mean that there is not a useful distinction (between objective and subjective) to be made.

quote:

---

to restore science and religion to their proper places in human endeavor.

---

Amen to that.

Russ
 

quote:

---

...the Cartesian dualism of "objective" and "subjective", of "fact" and "value", was just so much imaginative fancy... ...because we now realize that there are no uninterpreted data, that merely deciding what counts as data ("facts") is a matter of interpretation

---

I'm not convinced either. You seem to be saying that there is no objectivity possible. And I don't really understand the basis for what you call creative evolution or evolutionary creationism, which seems to me to be a form of wishful thinking or attempt to reconcile in some way that feels good to the intelligent Christian what the early Bible says about God's involvement in the development of humans and everything else with what we have learned about this process in the last 150 years. This is fine, it even feels good to me -- but I'd have to admit that this position seems just as fanciful (though much more empirically acceptable) than resolutely denying on scriptural grounds that evolution was and is the ongoing process by which creatures today have been and are being formed.

But I guess I feel less need of any torturous reconciliation of Christianity to science --it concerns me less because of my (well-known to you, Todd) position on the reliability of Scripture.

But that's an entirely different debate, and one we've had frequently.
 

To get more specific, which "natural processes" does God work through, and what are the indications that He does so? If there is no hard, measurable evidence along these lines, what makes this supposition anything more than the idlest of speculations?
 

quote:

---

You seem to be saying that there is no objectivity possible.

---

That is precisely what I am saying, Laura.

At least, not in the sense that "objectivity" is commonly appealed to in arguments like this. How can any system, whether religious or scientific or whatever, be objective in any thoroughgoing sense when the system's bases for inquiry are assumed axiomatically (as the assumption that nature and nature's processes are measurable and empirically verifiable)? Objectivity ends at the drawing of distinctions about what defines "objects" that are free of the mental phenomena that define subjectivity (as Russ has offered).

And would you suggest, Russ, that mental phenomena exist in some ethereal realm that doesn't have physical existence (surely thought arises in part from neurochemical processes in the axons of our brains, even allowing for human consciousness as a property that isn't entirely reducible to those physical processes)?

While I would agree that Jupiter (the planet) possesses a reality that my mental fantasies do not, I would suggest that the distinction of objective and subjective is considerably fuzzier than you are willing to grant.

And Laura, I'm not quite certain what is so tortuous about believing that God's constant creative activity, geological and biological and cosmological, may truthfully be described as creation in a biblical sense, while also admitting that what science- geological and biological and cosmological- observes in unfolding nature is an evolutionary process, unable (though science is) to discern any ultimate purpose or meaning or goal in the process simply because that lies outside the purview of the scientific methodology that has rightly been adopted. Is there really such a suggestion of intellectual dishonesty as seems implied in your post?

As for natural processes, Croesus, to take simply the example of evolution, I am not saying for a moment that God is using some natural process called evolution to create the cosmos. What I am saying is that what science describes as evolution is the creative activity of God.

As to the indications that God works through what we describe as natural processes, I take the witness of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, as well the tradition of the Church that flatly states that God is at work in the cosmos, creating, revealing, and redeeming. As for "hard, measurable evidence" why should every way of human knowing subject itself to the narrow definitions of empirical materialism, definitions that make for solid methodology but make for metaphysics that is as dogmatic and unprovable as any foundational religious dogma?
 

quote:

---

While I would agree that Jupiter (the planet) possesses a reality that my mental fantasies do not, I would suggest that the distinction of objective and subjective is considerably fuzzier than you are willing to grant.

---

So much for infelicitous phrasing and fuzzy thinking.

The division of objective and subjective is of course a real one, but not in the sense of there being objective and subjective ways of knowing. Objects are certainly real; the tree on my lawn that I can observe is certainly a real object. And just as certainly, the subjective is real; I, the observing subject, am also real. There is a reality outside myself (the subject), therefore the objective does exist.

Quoting from Lesslie Newbigin,

quote:

---

It is surely obvious that knowing has both a subjective and an objective pole. It is subjective in that it is I who know, or seek to know, and that the enterprise of knowing is one which requires my personal commitment...And it is subjective in that, in the end, I have to take personal responsibility for my beliefs...I am responsible for seeking as far as possible to insure that my beliefs are true, that I am- however funblingly- grasping reality and therefore grasping that which is real and true for all human beings, and which will reveal its truth through further discoveries as I continue to seek.

---

What does not exist is a sort of "objective knowledge" that is supposedly free of value judgments, of a priori decisions about what constitutes reality, of personal commitment. All those things that have been denigrated as mere "subjectivity" are really the only way that human beings have of understanding "objective" reality.
 

I am going to post this, because I spent two taxi journeys and my half my lunch hour composing it, even though you have preempted what I have to say about 'natural' verses 'supernatural'.

It will be clear to all from this thread that I am not an intellectual. I am not the clearest of thinkers and struggle to put my more intuitive ideas clearly. I pray now that this is clear, because what follows is an understanding of the root of the conflict between Science and Christianity.

Having worked though the issues as they have been raised on the thread and read much populist material on the matter, as a theist, I now no longer have any issue with science or 'evolution'. In addition, I believe that ID falls short of both good science and a good theistic understanding of the nature of God. I need to clarify both these statements to show why there is no conflict between science and Christianity, and at the same time demonstrate why the conflict arises.

Karl, you have often offered to list the evidence for 'evolution'. I would like to offer a summary which may fall short of the exact dates and events, and which you are free to correct. My understanding of the word 'evolution', in one sense is that the world is 4.6 billion years old. The earth cooled down and soon after that, about 3.8 billion years ago as shown by the fossil record, single cell life forms have been found to occur. 1.8 billion years ago more complex forms of life appeared. At some point around the Cambrian period a vast array of complex plants and animals appear in the fossil record and we know much of what happened, paleontologically speaking, since then. That is the broad understanding of 'evolution' and as I said, you may be able to correct me on the details.

Taking that evidence we can all see 'evolution', the development, over a very long period of time, of complex life on earth. Is that a fair summary? Please tell me if I have erred in any way.

Laura, you asked Todd if it all boiled down to the authority of Scripture. That's a half truth because our attitude to scripture and our attitude to creation boil down to a full understanding of the nature of God. Looking at the evidence for evolution set out above, we can see 'natural' processes at work, DNA replication and mutation, reproduction without exact copy, variation, speciation, potential for adaptation, Karl and others may well be able to add more to this brief list of natural processes.

How do we understand God in relation to these 'natural' processes? Philosophical naturalists believe that God has no part to play in the working of 'natural' processes. They are 'natural' in the sense that they work without invoking the need for supernatural intervention. They are predictable because they behave according to the laws of nature. They are 'natural', not 'supernatural'.

This mindset or view has 'evolved' over the last 300 years due to the initial assumption that the physical universe can be understood and, to a very large degree, predicted because it follows 'natural' laws. These 'natural' laws have become, in time, the focus for philosophical naturalists who believe that because the universe and life follows 'natural' laws, that there is no need for a 'supernatural' being to maintain or, perhaps, even create the universe.

But to say that 'natural' processes exclude God is a corruption of a full understanding of God. If the product of chemical reaction or the course of a projectile can be predicted, does that mean that by following 'natural' laws, nature demonstrates the inactivity of God? By no means! A full understanding of God helps us to see that there is no difference between 'natural' processes and 'supernatural' except that the latter may be defined as a process which could not have been predicted by science. If I throw a ball in the air and it doesn't come back down to earth, but hovers for a second, does a couple of loop-the-loops and shoots off over a house, it would be described as a 'supernatural' event because it did not obey the predicted course of 'natural' events. But if I throw the same ball up in the air and it follows a parabolic curve (allowing for air resistance) which can be predicted by a mathematical model, it is said to be a 'natural' event, it does not mean that that God was not involved in that event.

Philosophical naturalists would say that because it was predictable it was 'natural' and not 'supernatural'. Theists should say that there is no distinction between 'natural' and 'supernatural' because God is constantly operating in nature through his predicable, reliable nature. We can not theistically separate 'natural' and 'supernatural' events, though we can separate them as 'predicable' and 'unpredictable'.

Therefore, 'evolution' as we have observed it, which is mostly predicable or 'natural' in that it has taken many billions of years for complex life to 'evolve' is not in conflict with the nature of God. What is in conflict is the thought that 'evolution' is a chance process, random mutation is not part of God's natural process or nature, but pure luck or survival of the fittest. But the 'natural' events of evolution part of God's action in creation, that is, they occur according to his nature.

Theists are not at liberty to believe that 'evolution' is a chance, random, lucky, uncontrolled, purposeless, non-goal orientated process of 'natural' effects, because the 'natural' events can not be distinguished, in the eyes of a theist, between the predictable nature of God's work in creation and the times when God chooses to do something 'supernatural' that we could not have predicted by laws of nature. God is constantly at work, and 'natural' processes are the work of God, even though we can not detect his presence in this process empirically.

My original question at the start of this thread concerning the effects of ID on our theology was coming at the argument from the wrong direction. It is not that ID will effect our theology but that we need to fully understand the nature of God to make sense of the work of science. It is our theology which must change first. Once we have a full understanding of the nature of God, science will be put in its proper place.

To conclude, Crœsos, as you asked ' what makes this supposition anything more than the idlest of speculations', I'm afraid that you will not like my answer. The answer comes in the form of a question, 'Who was/is Jesus'? I have already posted a Christological basis for the fact that the material world is mute on the matter of faith in God. I encourage you to think about why that is while I spend another couple of taxi journeys and a lunch hour composing another answer.

All the best

Neil
 

quote:

---

What is in conflict is the thought that 'evolution' is a chance process, random mutation is not part of God's natural process or nature, but pure luck or survival of the fittest. But the 'natural' events of evolution part of God's action in creation, that is, they occur according to his nature.

---

Should have read something like:

What is in conflict is the thought that 'evolution' is a chance process, that random mutation is not part of God's natural process or nature, that it is all down to pure luck or survival of the fittest, latent deism. But the 'natural' events of evolution are to be seen by the theist as part of God's action in creation, that is, they occur according to his nature.

Neil
 

The 'Wisdom Literature' of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the book of Job collectively shed interesting light on the matter of empiricism. Glenn may be wondering if picking an choosing scripture is legitimate, but my defense is that the verses are a summary of the overall framework, the big picture, the main thrust of scripture. The approach to empiricism starts with the premise that the universe is created by intelligence, that there is wisdom behind the material world, in Proverbs 8:27-31 Solomon puts it like this:

quote:

---

I (wisdom) was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep, when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep, when he gave the sea its boundary so that the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth. Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind.

---

Solomon's description of wisdom stems from general revelation. Creation, conscience, love and beauty all form part of general revelation, that is that we can sense God by such things but that we can not prove that God exists by them. We no that God can not be proved by them, empirically detected, from Ecclesiastes 8:16-17:

quote:

---

When I applied my mind to know wisdom and to observe man's labour on earth - his eyes not seeing sleep day or night - then I saw all that God has done. No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all his efforts to search it out, man cannot discover its meaning. Even if a wise man claims he knows, he cannot really comprehend it.

---

If we are tempted to try to understand the meaning of what goes on under the sun, apart from God, we face the rebuttal Job faced when he dared to take on God.

quote:

---

Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said:
"Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?
Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.
"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.
Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?
(Job 38:1-5)

---

Searching for empirical evidence of God in the natural world is a fruitless task, God has put it beyond our comprehension, 'despite all our efforts to search out its meaning'. This does not mean that we should not seek to understand the natural world around us. Indeed scripture encourages us to understand cause and effect so that we can learn to live better lives. Science is a natural activity for good Christian living.

If the natural world can not reveal the purpose or meaning, where do we turn? If we see the big picture, the divine unity, the ongoing thread of God's work in humanity from our being brought into existence by God (100,000 years ago, correct me if that date is empirically wrong); our rebellion; the freeing of the people of Israel from slavery; God's care for his people in spite of their disobedience and deistic adultery; God constantly working to reconcile the his people to himself which culminates in his incarnation, human life, teaching, fulfillment of Hebrew prophesy and law; his unfair trial, unlawful conviction, unjust death, miraculous resurrection, ascension to heaven, divine rule and his future judgement, give purpose and meaning to everything under the sun.

Neil
 

The BBC World Service has once again provided a timely example of the vacuity of science without God. On it's program 'Science View', the BBC covered a story on the history of the relationship between humans and Mars. It was highly informative and an interesting summary the development of our understanding of the 'Red star' and the latter day search for life on Mars.

It concluded with the following prophesy from Robert Zubrin, author of 'The Case for Mars'

quote:

---

The youth of today have a yearning for purpose. The message from Mars is, 'learn your science and you could become part of pioneering a new world'. As mankind emerged from the dark ages, Cathedrals were built as a symbol of purpose. How much more exciting will it be to be part of the establishment of a new cathedral to human purpose, the building of a settlement on Mars?'

---

And then what?

Neil
 

As for Neil's posts, it seems a case of assertions without anything to back them up. I could just as easily claim that my cat is responsible in some vague, unspecified, and mysterious way for all observable phenomena in the Universe, and I would have just as much evidence behind my claim. There are only two points in Neil's slew of postings that really bear commenting upon.

The first is his continued antipathy towards probabilistic behaviour in any portion of the Universe. According to Neil's postings, anyting "chance", "random", or "lucky" is inherently unGodly. Given that such a deterministic viewpoint would invalidate not only most of genetics but also quantum mechanics and statistical thermodynamics, I think it only reasonable for me to expect a more in-depth explanation from him than simply his say-so. Or are you asserting that while certain events have probabilistic characteristics, biological evolution is somehow a "special case"?

The other point I found interesting was Neil's assertion that "Science is a natural activity for good Christian living." This assertion is contradicted not only by most of the history of Christianity, but also by Neil's quotations from Ecclesiastes and Job which indicate an inherently incomprehensible Universe.
 

The biblical understanding that ‘natural’ events (events which follow ‘the laws of nature’) follow the law under the omnipotent will of God is at least as valid, from the material observations, as the conclusion that no omnipotent being is acting, either that the laws, having been established, govern themselves (deism) or the conclusion that the laws ‘are’ and ‘do’ themselves (naturalism).

All three conclusions stand on level ground on the basis of material observation alone. Indeed the idea that your cat controls everything is as valid on this basis as the three more common postulations.

So why do naturalism and deism sit more comfortably with us today than theism? Could it be to do with our corporate philosophical understanding of nature? As I said, over the last 300 years, the methodological naturalism assumed for scientific investigation has become the justification for philosophical naturalism and deism. To our ‘scientifically’ trained minds, the idea of theism is quite repugnant. The problem faced by theism not the presence of supporting material evidence, but the conditioning of our minds by our education and culture to accept materialism.

The difference between naturalism and theism comes when we confuse the way science can predict ‘natural’ events but can not predict ‘supernatural’. If science can not explain some phenomena, it is said to be ‘supernatural’. This is a naturalist’s label. As ‘supernatural’ events have exceptionally low rate of occurrence, and can often be explained by ‘natural’ methods, God becomes insignificant in our minds, an absentee landlord who cares so little for his creation he doesn’t even bother to intervene ‘supernaturally’ when things go wrong.

But that is not the Biblical understanding of God. ‘Natural’ events are indistinguishable, theologically, from ‘supernatural’. That is, that every material event obeys God.

The cells in our body work, not under our control, or under their own endeavours, but under the ongoing work of God, according to God’s nature. It is only the conscious mind which is at liberty to work against God’s will (and even that is a subject for debate – it needs another thread to discuss the Sovereignty of God and Human free will). ‘Evolution’ then, is seen by the theist to be the ongoing work of Christ in his creation. (Neo)Darwinism faces problems when gradual change is not evident in the fossil record, as admitted by Gould. Random mutation and natural selection are not sufficient to explain either the origin of life or, in light of the fossil record, the development of complex organisms in a short period of time. Intelligent Design is deism in another guise, because it tries to prove intelligence in design but is silent on matters of the sustaining work of God.

But theism pulls all the evidence together and says, ‘as we find out new facts about how life develops on earth, we are witnessing the ongoing work of the God who made and sustains it all’. Forget about the muddied thinking of the church in the past, including YECism, we’ve covered the fact that all cultures have held fast to material philosophies as an understanding of how we came into existence. If we take a proper theistic mindset and look to the future, we can see that all future scientific discoveries will sit within a theistic framework and we will say ‘well done God, what a beautiful creation’. Sorry, I’ve used too many platitudes.

I’ll end this rather long post with the following quotes from scripture which give the theological basis for understanding Christ as both the creator and sustainer of everything.

quote:

---

Hebrews 1:1-3 and 2:7-8
In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honour and put everything under his feet." In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him.

Colossians 1:15-22
He is the image of the invisible (ie undetectable in creation) God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and IN HIM ALL THINGS HOLD TOGETHER. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behaviour. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation.

---

Neil
 

quote:

---

Q: What causes typhoid?
A: God.

Q: What causes the photoelectric effect?
A: God.

Q: What makes fire burn?
A: God.

---

Which leads to the second reason such an attitude is dangerous. These so called "answers" attributing these and all other phenomena to a mysterious being or beings don't actually answer anything at all. Saying that something called "God" is responsible for fire, or the photoelectric effect, or typhoid tells us nothing about these phenomena.

Unfortunately I can't "forget about the muddied thinking of the church in the past" because the same thinking and attitudes are still common in the Church today. These include the notion that material, scientific evidence should be subordinate to theological philosophy and, in cases of disagreement, scientific evidence should be ignored in favor of theological expediency. This attitude is shown time and again in religious opposition to evolution, or heliocentrism, or medical anesthesia. What seems to be going on here is a sort of "effectiveness envy", with religious thought being jealous of the fact that science is so good at producing unambiguous, material results. Indeed, this sort of feeling can quite clearly lead to a sour-grapes sort of attitude and eagerness for giving science some sort of comeupance, such as Neil's statement that "science will be put in its proper place" someday.
 

Your imaginary questions stop well short of the activity of science under theism. I have stated that science is not at conflict with Christianity, if science is viewed as the activity of understanding how things work. The conflict arises when science tries to explain more than how things work (like typhoid and fire) as Dawkins puts it

quote:

---

Science shares with religion the claim that it can answer deep questions about origins, the nature of life, and the cosmos, but there the resemblance ends. Scientific beliefs are supported by evidence, and they get results. Myths and faiths are not and do not.

---

Your imaginary questions stop short of science under theism, because theists are not prohibited by a Biblical understanding from investigating the world, theists are encouraged to do so. Kisten Birkett puts it like this

quote:

---

It should be clear by now that the Bible is in favour of investigating the world. It is God’s world, after all, and it is only appropriate that as caretakers of his world we should be interested in how it works. Anyone who takes the Bible seriously has excellent motivation to take up science, if he or she so wishes.

What is more, we have motivation to take up science through the empirical method. While there is not space here to go into the complexities – or the historical background – the biblical understanding would lead us to think that empiricism is an appropriate method for investigating the world. That is, the Bible shows us that God acts in the world the way he wants to. He has not given first principles from which we can deduce logically how the world must be. The only way we can discover how the world is, is to look at it. The only way to find out how it works, is to investigate it. If we are interested in how the world is put together in a functional sense, we do not simply ponder in our heads, or wait for revelation from God – we go and use our senses and our brains to find out.

---

That is science in its proper place.

Neil

[edited at Neil's request]

[ 29 August 2001: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 

What a blunder...there is of course no prohibition of empiricism under theism.

Would an administrator mind, please, adding 'not' prior to the word 'prohibited' in my previous post?

Oops

Neil
 

I have come to what I regard as a sufficient understanding of this issue having wrestled it through on this thread, and learnt much in the process. I've been spurred to read supporting books from every angle (Dawkins, Gould, Lewontin included). Family life demands more of my attention, so I will no longer contribute to the thread.

I have enjoyed having to think about many issues, and hope you have too. I do not have time to answer your point about the passages I quoted being anti-scientific, which they are not. They were concerned with wisdom, the fear (respect) of God being the beginning of such. If you are truly interested in knowing what the passages are about, you can readMatthew Henry's Commentaryas a starter for 10. If you were only interested in picking a fight for the sake of it, then all the best, I wish you well with future debates on science and Christianity, unnatural enemies.

All the best

Neil
 

We have covered on this thread the fact that philosophical naturalism is the view of the natural world which supports and is supported by secular humanism. This is indeed the case according to the Council for Secular Humanism's own webpage

quote:

---

We believe the scientific method, though imperfect, is still the most reliable way of understanding the world.

---

If the western paradigm is currently post modern, why does our law only consider the secular humanist position? Is it because secular humanism allows individual religious freedom, but restricts that freedom in the shaping of ethics and law? Secular humanists say it is so:

quote:

---

As secular humanists, we are generally skeptical about supernatural claims. We recognize the importance of religious experience: that experience that redirects and gives meaning to the lives of human beings. We deny, however, that such experiences have anything to do with the supernatural…We consider the universe to be a dynamic scene of natural forces that are most effectively understood by scientific inquiry.

---

So God is kept firmly in place by science. Morals, ethics and law are shaped by relativism. Again, the Council for Secular Humanism says,

quote:

---

There is an influential philosophical tradition that maintains that ethics is an autonomous field of inquiry, that ethical judgments can be formulated independently of revealed religion…We are opposed to absolutist morality, yet we maintain that objective standards emerge, and ethical values and principles may be discovered, in the course of ethical deliberation.

---

All was well for secular humanism, until now. The opening line of their statement says:

quote:

---

Secular humanism is a vital force in the contemporary world. It is now under unwarranted and intemperate attack from various quarters.

---

So, secular humanists are aware being 'attacked', where is the attack coming from and what is being attacked? The attack being referred to is the work of scientists who no longer believe philosophical naturalism is a viable position.

The 'attack' has commenced with the undermining the very belief structure of philosophical materialism. Some scientists now claim that nature demonstrates general revelation. It is not that God can be proved by empirical means, but that the material world appears to be the product of wisdom, that it is designed, and that it is not just a product of undirected natural forces.

The 'heat' between philosophical theists and philosophical materialists is not regarding unscientific practice or method. The 'heat' is generated because philosophical naturalists, secular humanists, do not wish to consider the possibility of the divine, or more probably, moral absolutes.

Philip Johnson covers this matter in his is two books, "Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law, and Education." and "Objections Sustained: Subversive essay's on Evolution, Law and Culture". 'Reason in the Balance' is introduced thus:

quote:

---

According to Naturalism, God has no place in law, science, or the schools. Naturalistic thinking rules the intellectual world, including the public schools, the universities, and the elite of the legal profession.

But is naturalism itself beyond question? Few among the cultural elite have dared doubt it. Now comes Phillip Johnson, Berkeley law professor and former clerk to the U.S. Supreme Court, set to take on the "intellectual superstitions" of the day.

After this book, the culture wars may never be the same again.

---

If secular humanism, then, is seen to be a faith based position, and not based on the 'fact' of naturalism, then secular humanism has no more legitimacy than other faith based positions to govern, dictate law and shape education.

This is what I hoped we could speculate on at the start of this thread, because it is not just the legitimacy of secular humanism but much if not all of last century's liberal theology which has its neck on the block. No wonder no one wanted to debate or consider the possibility that God had anything to do with nature.

Neil
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Todd:
Objects are certainly real; the tree on my lawn that I can observe is certainly a real object. And just as certainly, the subjective is real; I, the observing subject, am also real. There is a reality outside myself (the subject), therefore the objective does exist.

What does not exist is a sort of "objective knowledge" that is supposedly free of value judgments, of a priori decisions about what constitutes reality, of personal commitment.

All those things that have been denigrated as mere "subjectivity" are really the only way that human beings have of understanding "objective" reality.

---

Todd,

I rather suspect that the tree you can observe on your lawn has objective existence. Can it not be observed by anyone, regardless of their value judgements, personal commitments ? Could a rational person conceivably take a prior decision that trees don't exist and thus be completely unable to perceive it ? Seems to me that we are sense-equipped to perceive trees and therefore perceive them whether their existence be consistent with our philosophy or not.

However, there may also be on/within your lawn much tinier plants that one would only perceive if one set out to look for them. It seems to me that they have exactly the same kind of objective existence as the tree, but because of their scale, they have a different relationship with human beings. Our relationship with them is such that our philosophy and interests may be relevant to whether we perceive them or not, or act on the perception if we do. ("That doesn't count as a weed, it's too small").

Some perceptions are preceded by a decision of the observing subject as to what to pay attention to. Some perceptions arrive unsought.

Seems to me that you're miffed that the methodological naturalism (wonderful phrase - thanks Karl!) of science appears to grant to God merely a second-class existence as a subjective phenomenon alongside visions, illusions, philosophies and ideas. And are therefore moved to attack, inaccurately, the foundations of science.

How dare science belittle religion !

Croesus,

You seem to be taking the opposite tack. Having agreed that the scientific method will never detect the existence of God, you seem to see no reason to postulate a God at all.

Why doesn't religion just lie down and die now that science is here to explain things?

Can I suggest that the importance to us humans of values and purposes are not diminished by the fact that they are unscientific ? And that you might be better of approaching religion as being about values and purposes, and not about explaining things in term of the existence of supernatural entities ?

Russ
 

But I find that Neil has changed his mind about intelligent design and has signed off the thread (after a colossal amount of writing on his part - thanks for the thread Neil). Never mind it was fascinating reading for its own sake, not just for debate!

Ah well, I'll post my review over the weekend and I will also take up Neil's comments that:

quote:

---

If secular humanism, then, is seen to be a faith based position, and not based on the 'fact' of naturalism, then secular humanism has no more legitimacy than other faith based positions to govern, dictate law and shape education.

---

... since I think that secular government and the separation of church and state is vitally important for the health of society and we Christians should support it.

Glenn
 

As for who is attacking secular humanism, I have long been under the impression that folks who want to post the Ten Commandments in classrooms and courtrooms are the kind of people mounting serious attacks on secular humanism, not scientists who say rational materialism is not the be-all and end-all of human inquiry and knowledge.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Todd,

I rather suspect that the tree you can observe on your lawn has objective existence. Can it not be observed by anyone, regardless of their value judgements, personal commitments ? Could a rational person conceivably take a prior decision that trees don't exist and thus be completely unable to perceive it ? Seems to me that we are sense-equipped to perceive trees and therefore perceive them whether their existence be consistent with our philosophy or not.

---

Unless I've misunderstood him, Todd's not denying that at all. He's not denying that the tree has an existence outside his mind, he's simply noting the fact - surely uncontroversial - that anything we know or understand about that tree is, precisely, stuff that we know. The knowledge therefore, whilst being knowledge of an object that is really, objectively there is, inevitably, subjective knowledge. There is no other kind to be had.

This doesn't lead to non-realism, it doesn't lead to solipsism - it's been a bedrock assumption of most philosophy since Kant.

Knowledge is not a perfect reflection of external objects on the flat, blank screen of our minds. It is, always, already interpreted: raw data arranged and categorised and interpreted by our brains in all sorts of complex and subtle ways. In that sense, our minds have always already influenced and shaped what we think we see.
 

Tell me more.

You agree that the tree is objectively there. Are its leaves objectively green ? Is it objectively taller than the garden fence ? In what if any sense are its properties determined by the characteristics of the subject who perceives it ?

If it is objectively both green and taller than the garden fence, is the statement that the tree is both green and taller than the garden fence not an objectively true statement ?

Whereas the statement that the tree is very pretty can only be subjective, because it refers to the subject's perception of the tree and not the tree's objective characteristics.

I really don't see the problem.

If I convey to you a photo of the tree, or a description of the tree, such an image will inevitably be incomplete, yes. And in choosing to describe it in a certain way or photograph it from a particular angle I will have made an editorial judgement. Depending on my background I will find some aspects of the tree more worthy of comment than others.

But that doesn't seem to me a reason to deny the distinction between objective and subjective.

Am I missing something obvious here ?

Russ

PS: should this go on a new thread? we seem to have drifted away from Darwinism...
 

Welcome back, I hope you had a great holiday. I've decided to quit the thread because this matter was occupying a disproportionate amount of my time. I look forward to your post about Behe/Miller and I will redouble my efforts now to find Miller’s book in Singapore.

I’m also interested to hear your views about the separation of church and state. You might like to read The Council for Secular Humanism's (TCfSH ) Declaration one more time before posting, because this issue is tied up with the legitimacy of any one position for dictating the rules, and TCfSH say that their legitimacy is based on science.

TCfSH item two calls for the separation of church and state:

quote:

---

Because of their commitment to freedom, secular humanists believe in the principle of the separation of church and state. The lessons of history are clear: wherever one religion or ideology is established and given a dominant position in the state, minority opinions are in jeopardy.

---

What is Secular Humanism if it is not an ideology? Why does it deserve a dominant position in the state?

RuthW, if science can neither prove nor disprove God, then what is Secular Humanism’s religious scepticism based on? Faith.

Neil
 

Behe’s argument.
The living world is full of complicated things. Evolutionary theory tends to explain the existence of these complex things by saying that they ‘have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications’ (Darwin). People like Richard Dawkins have shown how such gradual changes can in principle explain the evolution of complex organs like the eye. Behe wants to move the argument down to the molecular level.

To Darwin’s generation trying to see what went on at the level of the cell was like looking at an opaque, black box. Molecular biology has opened that box up in the last fifty years and revealed incredibly complex systems and structures inside the cell. Behe says that many of these cannot be explained by gradual evolution. (He makes great play of how no one has come up with complete step-by-step accounts of how these systems evolved - and nothing less will satisfy him.) He concludes that such systems must have been designed by an intelligent agent; since it is so massively improbable that any could have sprung into being fully formed, in one event.

Response
In response: the detective work involved in reconstructing the origins of biochemical systems that came into existence over perhaps a billion years is considerable! Seeing that we have only recently begun to understand how these kinds of systems work it is unreasonable to expect people to be able to reconstruct their origin and evolution so soon! Nevertheless some progress is being made and, for example Kenneth Miller shows how Doolittle's account of the evolution of blood clotting is far more persuasive than you would imagine from reading Behe’s book.

Miller also describes other ways of coming at the problem. He tells of experiments with bacteria that show that they have a remarkable ability to evolve complex systems. In addition Pennock discusses computer programs that have been set up to have random variation, plus reproduction, plus selection and have resulted in the evolution of complex virtual ‘creatures’ that had not been dreamed of by the writers of the programs. These are thus not designed features but emergent features of the running program. Both these approaches reveal that random variation plus natural selection is in principle capable of a great deal more complexity than one might think.

Behe and ‘Irreducible Complexity’
Behe tries to argue that a particular type of complexity is particularly hard for gradualistic evolution to account for. He calls it ‘irreducible complexity’. A structure or system is irreducibly complex if it consists of parts that work together to achieve a function but where if any one of the parts is missing it that function is lost.

Behe wants to say that such systems are unevolvable because you cannot select for them bit by bit: you need all of the components for it to function. But he admits that they could evolve in an indirect way. This is exactly the criticism that Orr levels at Behe. Behe just does not explore the idea that ‘Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required.’ Nor does he consider Dawkins comments that some systems have lost previously essential elements as others have been able to work without them (we might deny that an arch could be built stone by stone if we ignored the possibility that there was support or scaffolding – now gone- used in its construction).

Instead Behe contents himself with arguing that ‘as the complexity of an interacting system increases though, the likelihood of such an indirect route drops precipitously (p40)’. This is just not true, all it means is that the route would take a longer time, and with many of the basic molecular systems having taken a billion or so years to evolve a long time was available.

Glenn
 

Double standards about analogies
One aspect of Behe’s book that I found particularly irritating was that Behe appears to have a double standard when it comes to the use of analogy in arguments. He uses one rule for evaluating his own (just mention the similarities) and another for his opponents (focus on the differences).

For example on p218 Behe says:

quote:

---

Analogies always are set up so that they … propose that A is like B in a restricted subset of properties. Rust is like tooth decay in that they both start from small spots and work outwards, even though tooth decay takes place in living materials, is caused by bacteria … A Rube Goldberg machine is like a blood-clotting system in that they are both irreducibly complex, even though they have many differences. In order to reach a conclusion based on an analogy, it is only necessary that the deduction flow out of the shared properties. [My italics].

---

Yes, but one has to ask: ‘how does one prove that the deduction does really ‘flow out of the shared properties’?’ You cannot prove it by the analogy itself because you are then arguing in a circle. For example, to argue that ‘This helium filled balloon floats in air, therefore this helium filled gas cylinder will float in air too’ proves that floating flows from the shared property of being filled with helium is obviously wrong. Differences in properties may frustrate the shared ones.

So when Behe says, following on immediately from the last quote:

quote:

---

The irreducibly complex Rube Goldberg machine required an intelligent designer to produce it; therefore the irreducibly complex blood-clotting system required a designer also.

---

As an argument from analogy it fails unless independent grounds can be given for the assertion that irreducible complexity is impossible without design. Given that Behe has admitted that ‘one can not definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route’ for evolving such systems (p 40); and that ‘there is no magic point of irreducible complexity at which Darwinism is logically impossible’ (p203) he must judge the argument to fail.

Just a page later (pp219 to 221) Behe chucks his own insights into analogy overboard by criticising Sober and Dawkins’ use of the set of lettered discs which eventually produce the words ‘ME THINKS IT IS A WEASEL.’ Does he see that the analogy of this system with evolution rests on the shared properties of random variation plus non-random selection? No! Instead he launches into a list of how the system described differs from evolution in that the system has no function, has an intelligent agent doing the selecting etc. In doing so he reveals how completely he misses the point.

But there is worse: both Sober’s and Dawkins’ accounts of this analogy explicitly point out that it is not a complete analogy for evolution. Does Behe mention this? Not at all! I found this the most offensively crass and polemical section of the book!

When Behe’s opponents make analogies between one thing A and another B, he is very quick to highlight the differences between A and B. But when it comes to his own he is less than scrupulous. For example he constantly refers to the cell as a machine, which lulls the unsuspecting reader into being more receptive to comparisons of the molecular systems with mousetraps and Rube Goldberg machines and so on. Why does Behe not point out that the cell is vastly unlike a machine? Machines do not reproduce copies of themselves; do not compete for resources; do not have parents; are not subject to natural selection. Machines are also designed – a nicely covert way of assuming the point in dispute.

Sure, use the example of the (intuitively unevolvable) mousetrap to explain irreducible complexity, but why not then discuss the eminently evolvable Venus Fly trap – nature’s version! Sure, talk about Rube Goldberg machines, but ignore the fact that they are nearly always linear, consist of elements that are vastly different from each other, and generally involve great complexity to perform a simple function. And when you compare it to blood clotting do give due weight to the fact that the system is not linear; the elements are very similar proteins, the function is complex all of which have bearing on its evolvability.

Glenn
Glenn
 

Behe misrepresents Dawkins
I can’t say everything that I would like to about Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box but I can’t overlook his misrepresentation of Dawkins. Behe says (p249) that:

quote:

---

In the Blind Watchmaker Richard Dawkins tells his readers that even if a statue of the Virgin Mary waved to them, they should not conclude they had witnessed a miracle.

---

Dawkins comes across from this as an irrationally fanatical atheist. In fact Dawkins says no such thing. He explains that the probability of this happening by chance is unimaginably huge, but calculable. He also says that if he was struck by lightning after saying ‘may I be struck by lightning this minute’ he would regard that as a miracle. Since he states that the lightning stiking him after uttering that sentence is, at 250 trillion to one, vastly more probable (and hence less miraculous) than the statue waving I find it incredible that Behe can misrepresent him in this way.

Some annoying rhetoric form Behe
Behe indulges in lots of rhetoric (FAR too much to record here) but some bits that especially annoyed me were:

P97 ‘Doolittle … deserves a lot of credit for being one of the very few - possibly the only person – who is actually trying to explain how this complex biochemical system arose’ (Message: see how science ignores these problems!) Unfortunately Behe forgets that he has already written on p89 that: ‘Several scientists have devoted much effort to wondering how blood coagulation might have evolved.’

P172 ‘In private many scientists admit that science has no explanation for the beginning of life.’ (Message: see how science hushes up these problems!) But take a look at Behe’s footnote and it turns out that (p283) by ‘in private’ he means published ‘in the scientific journals’!!!

P232-3 ‘The results of these … efforts to investigate the cell … is a … cry of “design!” The result … must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. The discovery rivals those of Newton and Einstein …’
The reader’s first thoughts might be ‘then is Behe to be ranked with Newton and Einstein?’ But wait a second, they both produced highly original and detailed theories that explained reality in radically perceptive ways. Behe in contrast is just holding his hands up and saying ‘I can’t explain this complexity and I bet no-one can!’ That is hardly in the same league of genius!

Glenn
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
PS: should this go on a new thread? we seem to have drifted away from Darwinism...

---

Good idea. I'll start up a new thread on objective/subjective. See you there.
 

I enjoyed your posts. Behe does have many flaws in his form of argument. Although, may I say, that your critique was written in the usual rhetorical form that most authors, on all philosophical sides of this matter, adopt. It is not that your arguments were fallacious, but that you concentrated, as a lawyer might, on flaws in Behe’s argument. Turning to what first interested me about Behe's book, what do you think about the bio-chemical challenges on the formation of ATP which I asked Crœsos about earlier, and to which he has posted no response?

Neil
 

Yes you are quite right, I guess I did rather adopt the lawyer’s style of questioning the opposition case but not offering an alternative (Pennock criticises Johnson for doing that in his books). One has to start somewhere though! I am hoping to say a bit more of constructive nature in a later (and shorter!) posting about Miller's book.

In the meantime however, you have raised the question of Adenosine Mono Phosphate (AMP) which Behe covers in chapter 7 of his book. As you know he discusses problems with the idea of metabolic pathways evolving with a particular look at AMP. He points out that AMP is needed to make DNA and RNA. He might have spelled out that this leads to a circle: the AMP needs the enzymes to form; the creation of enzymes depends on their being encoded for in the DNA or RNA; and the DNA needs the AMP to form itself. That’s fine and dandy if the system is set up but how do you get it started? He does raises various similar questions about how the interactive and complex pathway for AMP could possibly evolve gradually.

Behe sets out the view of Creighton writing in 1993 that a pathway converting A to B then B to C then C to D may well have evolved from D being present naturally to begin with, then, when it became scarce cells able to make it from C would have an advantage, and cells that make that from B would do even better and so on (p151).

• I insert a note on rhetoric here (thus being rhetorical myself!) Behe points out that this idea was first proposed by Horowitz in 1945 (p154). Behe takes this as justification to say that this idea has ‘been passed down unreflectively’ (p154). (What a reader of other peoples thoughts he is!) He adds that the view that many ideas ‘get picked up unreflectively’ rather than with our ‘conscious review and assent’ is discussed in Allan Bloom’s book The Closing of the American Mind (p153). (What a provocatively worded title to throw in here!) (Behe’s implied message: what an unthinking, closed-minded bunch these evolutionary scientists are!) But ideas (even old ideas) can get passed on because on reflection they seem to be on the right lines! (I could also mention creeds and Euclid and so on and so forth!) But to make matters worse Behe then cites de Duve who has enlarged and adapted Horowitz’s idea (an excellent example of someone who has NOT picked up the idea in an unreflective way surely!)
  

But to cut to the chase: I think Horowitz’s idea is on the right lines for at least some metabolic pathways. I think de Duve’s ideas, about protometabolic pathways and of catalysts that catalyse a number of reactions, are also along the right lines. What I would emphasise is that Behe has looked at the pathway for AMP synthesis that exists now. Yes, that pathway may be a couple of billion years old, but it probably evolved and changed extensively over a period of half a billion years or more before that. The original pathways are probably very different from what they are today. Intermediates and catalysts that used to be involved probably no longer exist.

As you may know Cairns Smith in Seven Clues to the Origin of Life has proposed that the first replicating and selectable things on earth were very likely not RNA or DNA based systems. What originally functioned in a ‘genetic’ way was not RNA or DNA (no need for AMP at that stage). (Dawkins discusses Cairns Smiths ideas in The Blind Watchmaker ) He proposes other possibilities and suggests the idea that a great deal of evolution of such systems took place before RNA or DNA began to be used for coding purposes but that, once it did, it took over the function because it was so much better at it. On this model it is thus highly likely that the original metabolic systems were also very different from what they are now. And on this model some path for AMP production probably came into existence from these earlier metabolic systems before RNA and DNA got going.

As for his discussion of regulation of the rate of reactions Behe does not once mention the fact that reactions – even catalysed ones - have their own equilibrium states (the proportion of A to B in the conversion of A to B for example). Nor does he mention that the extent of the reaction (its equilibrium state) would be amenable to natural selection too, often on a gradual rather than all-or-nothing basis.

Working all this out is going to take science some time, and it may even be that the truth is lost in the mists of the remote past some 3.5 to 4 billion years ago.

Which leads me to remark that Behe did irritate me in the way he harps on again and again along the lines of ‘no one has a clue’ about how this or that system evolved. But what is he doing when he discusses the ideas of people like de Duve and Doolittle if not reporting the clues that they think they have and are following up? He irritated me again when he seems to think that he can dismiss de Duve’s work by saying that he fails to put names to the chemicals in his protometabolic pathways. But how do theories begin if not with speculation? It seems that not only has Behe no time for step by step evolution of life he doesn’t have any time for the step by step formation of a theory – he wants the full, complete and detailed thing to spring forth fully formed! Instead of being sent forth to encounter and benefit from criticism and ideas from others first.

Could life have come into being through gradual evolution? Well the evidence for evolution is very strong, the fossil record, homologous structures in different species, DNA finger printing correlating so well with classification of animals and plants arrived at by other means, etc. Given all that, evolution seems to me the best explanation we have at the moment. Sure we don’t know how to explain all the details but Behe’s alternative of some primeval cell with a colossal genome with all the information in it later organisms would need won’t work. The genes that were not expresses would not be kept in working order by natural selection. As a result a couple of billion years of copying error and accidental deletions would have wasted them away and turned what remained of them into nonsense. Thus the genes for the clotting mechanism would have wasted away long before the animals they serve so well came on the scene.

By the way, Pennock has criticised Behe’s ch7 Groundhog metaphor. His book ( Tower of Babel- a critique of the new creationism ) is one you may want to look at because of his long critique of Johnson.

Thanks again for a thread that has proved so stimulating. I see that it has offspring in the ‘Objective and Subjective’ thread, I wonder if that too will evolve!

Best wishes,
Glenn
 

Many thanks again. You have evidently thought through Behe's work at length. You said

quote:

---

Could life have come into being through gradual evolution? Well the evidence for evolution is very strong, the fossil record, homologous structures in different species, DNA finger printing correlating so well with classification of animals and plants arrived at by other means, etc. Given all that, evolution seems to me the best explanation we have at the moment.

---

I agree that the development of life was gradual, and that 'evolution' is the term applied to gradual development. But, with this view in mind, I have two questions to ask. Firstly, what did you think about the ‘natural’/supernatural’ as opposed to ‘predictable/unpredictable’ concept?

That was to say that theists see no difference between ‘natural’ events and ‘supernatural’ (a philosophical materialists’ term) because there is no difference…God is always active, sustaining his creation. The only difference from our subjective perspective is whether we could have predicted the way God acted in an event. If we could not have predicted it, we call itsupernatural. But to exclude God from the ‘natural’ event is not theism, it is deism.

Under theism, it doesn’t matter if ‘evolution’ was gradual or rapid, whether it could have been predicted by Darwin’s scientific theory (ie that ‘evolution’ was the predictable action of God in nature) or not. What matters is that God is in control of every action, the terms ‘natural’ and supernatural do not apply, because there is no distinction. Everything we see around us in science is supernatural, because God is involved, we just forget it because almost everything is unpredictable’, such is God’s nature.

Secondly, would you agree with the view that Behe et al are not doing science (as defined as understanding the ‘predictable action of God in nature, but that they are indulging in a commentary of general revelation? That is that God is evident through his creation. Behe can see the wonder of creation at a microbiological level, and has turned it from a commentary of the wonder of it all, into pseudo-science.

Any comments?

Neil
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
That was to say that theists see no difference between ‘natural’ events and ‘supernatural’ ... because there is no difference…God is always active, sustaining his creation.

---

quote:

---

The only difference from our subjective perspective is whether we could have predicted the way God acted in an event. If we could not have predicted it, we call itsupernatural.

---

I would accept that God does, occasionally, work in ways outside his normal practice; these are miracles. I think much that is called "supernatural" could have natural explanations (some hauntings may be purely psychological for example) although the use of the term for things which are genuinly beyond any reasonable chance of natural explanation is fair enough. I think I'd like to invent another word to describe things of God; that is "meta-natural", completely beyond natural (transcendant would do, but has deist connotations).

Just a few more thoughts,

Alan
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Breaking with the notion that everything happens at the whim of some supernatural entity or entities was the first step on the road to science.

---

quote:

---

Such supernatural explanations have a stifling effect on scientific inquiry for two reasons. First, if everything has the same answer intellectual laziness is fostered ... These so called "answers" attributing these and all other phenomena to a mysterious being or beings don't actually answer anything at all.

---

quote:

---

the same thinking and attitudes are still common in the Church today. These include the notion that material, scientific evidence should be subordinate to theological philosophy and, in cases of disagreement, scientific evidence should be ignored in favor of theological expediency.

---

Alan
 

quote:

---

Firstly, what did you think about the ‘natural/supernatural’ as opposed to ‘predictable/unpredictable’ concept?

---

Yes, I agree with you, excluding God from being connected with natural events and relegating him to only supernatural events is not a theological stance I would approve of. The way the universe is is to some extent an expression of God. Of course applying the term ‘expression’ to God is inevitably metaphorical. I dislike too much emphasis on the natural/supernatural distinction for other reasons too. It can lead to an undervaluing of what we call the natural; and it lends itself to readily to seeing God in too anthropomorphic a way.

Miller has some speculations about God’s relation to the world involving the inherent indeterminism of quantum events which I hope to comment on and which seem promising.

quote:

---

Secondly, would you agree with the view that Behe et al are not doing science (as defined as understanding the ‘predictable action of God in nature, but that they are indulging in a commentary of general revelation?

---

Yes. I think that to the extent that Behe and his colleagues stop looking for how physical laws (or ‘law like regularities’ if one prefers that expression) might be able to explain the development and origin of complex biochemistry, then to that extent they have stopped doing science on those problems.

I understand that part of their research and work is devoted to developing a good theory about how to distinguish intelligent design from design arising from physical laws. I have no objection to this research being seen as science. I do not know much about their ideas on this, however.

Finally, while we have fairly clear ideas about what is involved in a human designing something, God designing the universe is unique and must be a very different affair, as well as having enough similarities for the word design to be appropriate.

Oh no it is after midnight again!
Cheers,
Glenn
 

22:26 Singapore time...this needs to be quick.

I like the idea of using 'meta-natural' as a term to describe the 'unpredictable'. There is a job to somehow convince Joe Public that God is active, even though naturalism has come to define a world without God.

Is there any truth in conclusion that assuming naturalism for science has led to a closed loop where philosophical naturalism is true because the naturalism (predictability) of nature proves that philosophically naturalism is true? If so, how do theists begin to demonstrate the flaw in the argument?

I said it would be quick

Neil
 

Having seen the error in Behe's argument, from a theological perspective rather than empirical angle, I may have left you and Alan with the impression that I accept 'evolution' as fact. I would like to point out that I do not accept 'evolution' as fact, from both a theological perspective and empirical angle. Why? Empirically, it is a theory with more gaps than my granmother's teeth. Theologically, random, purposeless and material results in deism not theism.

To illustate this, I have come to the end of Romans 11 in my study and meditation this morning, and add the doxology from verses 33 to 36 as a fitting summary of theism and why Christianity and science are therefore unnatural enemies.

quote:

---

33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! 34 "Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?" 35 "Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?" 36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.

---

According to this doxology, ‘evolution’ can not be random, purposeless and material because God is at work in his creation (from him) at all times sustaining it (through him) and one day it will all come to an end and we will meet with him (to him) either, in the context of the preceding chapters, as God’s elected people or as objects of God’s wrath.

Whether ‘evolution’ was continuous or whether God designed it intelligently or acted in ways which science could not predict (given that science is the gathering of empirical evidence for the predictable nature of God) at points such as the development of self-replicators or the sudden development of complex life form in the pre-Cambrian explosion, or whether it was all made 10,000 years ago is merely squabbling over pennies. The big picture is that God made it all, sustains it all and will judge it all.

Neil
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
I would like to point out that I do not accept 'evolution' as fact, from both a theological perspective and empirical angle. Why? Empirically, it is a theory with more gaps than my granmother's teeth. Theologically, random, purposeless and material results in deism not theism.

---

However, the view expressed by myself and several others, which I have called theistic materialism, is very different from these views. This is theism, with God intimately involved in his creation, upholding and sustaining it. From a materialistic (ie: scientific) perspective the universe appears to run by laws, and evolution has no apparent purpose; science still works to give us increasingly improved understanding of the material world as it actually is. However, at the same time we can say philosophically that there is purpose and meaning, and also that there is more than just the material. Thus, God can truly be the one from whom, through whom and to whom are all things.

quote:

---

Whether ‘evolution’ was continuous or whether God designed it intelligently or acted in ways which science could not predict (given that science is the gathering of empirical evidence for the predictable nature of God) at points such as the development of self-replicators or the sudden development of complex life form in the pre-Cambrian explosion, or whether it was all made 10,000 years ago is merely squabbling over pennies. The big picture is that God made it all, sustains it all and will judge it all.

---

Alan
 

quote:

---

Why? Empirically, it is a theory with more gaps than my granmother's teeth.

---

Not so fast, Monsieur Robbie, not so fast...

I think we're entitled to know what the gaps are, aren't we?
 

Over the intervening 26 years we have been able to find out how similar the genes are in organisms, that genetic fingerprinting shows organisms to be 'related' in just the patterned way you would expect from evolution. We have found out about hox genes and their efffect on development and that they are in us as well as fruit flies.

Evolutionary theory has enlarged too and new ideas about sexual selection and other aspects have been put forward and tested out.

So the gaps were there, some are there still but many have been filled. Rome wasn't built in a day. Exploring all the ramifications of a theory takes a long time.

Glenn
 

quote:

---

The seed for this book was sown in my childhood…gazing at the heavens and pondering the eternal riddles of life. How far is infinity? How long is eternity?…Over and over we would pose and ponder the questions, then discard them in frustration until the very next night.

Childhood summers soon faded into adolescent memories…My gaze turned inward and my view of God grew dim as faith born of natural observation was exchanged for scientific dogma learned by rote. Seeking to please my teachers and avoid the ridicule of peers, I dutifully parroted Darwin’s mantra and denied God the glory of His creation. New discoveries would often rip embarrassing holes in the fabric of macroevolutionary theory, but my pride kept me from seeing the philosophical nakedness they revealed. I simply trusted that science would patch the holes and validate my belief. The holes kept getting bigger, requiring narrower blinders and greater faith to avoid seeing the obvious.

…I began reading the Bible. Gently but steadily the blinders were pulled back, until I could no longer deny the truth before me: the perfection of everything in the heavens and on earth could only have come from the mind of an all-knowing, all –powerful, all-loving Designer, and never from an eternity of time plus chance.

---

Neil
 

In short, this book shows (contra Ric Ergenbright view in Neil's most recent post) how evolution does not rob God of his credit for the glories of creation.

Karl recommended this book, and what a good book it is. I would put it at the top of my list of books to recommend to any Christian wanting to consider the issue of evolution and its religious implications. (Closely followed by Pennock’s book The Tower of Babel )

Miller’s book is in three main parts. The first is two chapters that introduce the topic and which give a brief history of the theory of evolution and the evidence for it.

The second part consists of three chapters that critique various creationist viewpoints. ‘God the Charlatan’, looks at Morris and Whitcomb’s ideas of a young earth and contains the best short examination of radioactive dating that I have come across. The Rubidium/Strontium test is compelling and compellingly described. ‘God the magician’ looks at the evidence against the idea that each species was separately created. ‘God the mechanic’ is a very good critique of Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box.

There is then an interlude chapter that looks at ways that some atheists have tried to use evolution as evidence against religion. He points out that these writers have and assumption in common with the creationists, namely

quote:

---

that … if the origins of living organisms can be explained in purely material terms, then the existence of God – at least any God worthy of the name - is disproved. (p190)

---

‘What I propose to do next’ says Miller ‘is to ask if that assumption is true.’ This he does in the final three chapters of the book. This is the final and constructive part of the book in which Miller expounds the ways that evolution is compatible with Christianity and religious understandings of the world.

Christian critics of evolution tend to loathe the idea of randomness involved in evolution. Their alternative is to see the world as one which is essentially deterministic (to avoid randomness) but in which God interferes (to avoid deism). Miller points out that modern physics no longer sees the world as essentially deterministic, and, in Ch 7, he points out that the mutations that underlie evolution occur at the atomic level and therefore involve quantum effects. Quantum theory appears to show that randomness and uncertainty are built into the fabric of the universe; they are part of God’s creation. The universe is one in which natural laws and chance are inextricably mixed together. Miller explores the idea that this kind of world is one for which a more satisfying model for God’s action and for our own is possible than for other kinds.

He quotes Polkinghorne:

quote:

---

The actual balance between chance and necessity, contingency and potentiality which we perceive seems to me to be consistent with the will of a patient and understanding Creator, content to achieve his purpose through the unfolding of process and accepting thereby a measure of the vulnerability and precariousness which always characterizes the gift of freedom by love. (p242)

---

… and Barbour:

quote:

---

Natural laws and chance may be equally instruments of God’s intentions. There can be purpose without an exact predetermined plan. (p238) [My italics, G.O.]

---

From the perspective of the debate in this thread Miller rejects the idea of seeing God’s design in terms of inexplicable features of the universe in the way Behe does, he sees Gods design in a larger sense of being responsible for the basic structure of the universe and the quantum uncertainty in its nature. He covers other issues than those I have mentioned including some comments on evolutionary psychology/socio-biology.

The title of the book comes from Millers appreciation of the spirit of what Darwin said at the end of On the Origin of Species:

quote:

---

There is a grandeur in this view of life; with its several powers having been originally breathed by the creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone on cycling on according to the fixed laws of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most wonderful and most beautiful have been, and are being evolved.

---

All in all this is an excellent and stimulating book. Thanks again Karl!

Glenn
I hope to check out Keith Ward’s Religion and Creation sometime too, since he usually has an astute appreciation of science and his book may bear on this topic.
 

http://www.webcom.com/~ctt/comic.html#lites

quote:

---

How many Intelligent Designers does it take to change a light bulb?
Looks like I'll never know--I asked some to do this simple task, and they started talking about how this 'simple task' was actually composed of many, many sub-tasks, each of which ITSELF was composed of many, many sub-sub-tasks, each of THESE of which was ITSELF composed of many, many sub-sub-sub-tasks, each of THESE...I think they are up to 10^5 "subs" now...a living fractal, how kewl...(wish I could see them better in this darkness, though).

---

quote:

---

How many Richard Dawkins' does it take to change a light bulb?
According to his computer simulation, it only takes twelve of his cells--but he said I would have to be really, really patient.

---

Glenn
 

I hope you enjoy this

Funktown Mall

Neil
 

Just for Karl...