Posted on 06/13/2005 7:50:19 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
Alamo-Girl: It cuts both ways. I would have no difficulty whatsoever finding three atheists on the forum who endorse evolution. But that doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is atheistic. Intelligent Design has no articles of faith, no doctrine, no Holy writ. It doesn't stipulate the designer and it does not address "all features" of the universe and living things. Thus, it is not theology.
general_re, i don't think you understand the fallacy from concomitant relations that I've pointed out.
I would also point out that just because two things are always present together does not mean those two things are logical reducible to the same thing (although it might turn out that they are identical, this is not a logical NECESSITY). So you are prone to category confusion.
Also, Alamo-Girl is quite correct that your argument cuts both ways. atheism proper is not absolutely identical to evolution proper.
However, that being said, I DO think that evolution is implicitly atheistic since it assumes that all things evolved by means of strictly natural processes, and implicit in that is the view that te universe is UNdesigned.
I at least understand that Intelligent Design, while not theology proper, implies a designer. But not all agree as to the nature of the designer (even though a consistent, logical coherent philosophy leads to an infinite, personal, all-powerful designer).
You are guilty of the very thing you accuse the theists of.
The knife truly does cut both ways.
You already have, is my point, by identifying the designer as you have, and by the fact that said identification is necessarily theological in nature. Look, if ID theory is on the table, then the nature and identity of the designer must be an open question, amenable to scientific investigation. You have, whether you mean to or not, placed the question off-limits by invoking theology when the identity of the designer is explored. How can you know that the designer is the God of the Bible? Scientifically, rationally, you cannot - you can only have arrived at that conclusion through faith. Commendable, but that's not how science works.
you said, "i agree; more anti-science nonsense."
it is anti-science dressed in the sheepskin of quasi-scientific, quasi-intellectual ramblings. I mean all this crap about dna and the structure of message.... all desperate lunatic fringe rationalizing of the irrational.
Look, if you hate science just admit it to yourselves... it will be easier for you in the long wrong. you can not disprove the scientific evidence by trying to scientifically prove the creation stories of the bible.
faith is when you take a text and believe without scientific, identifiable proof. science starts out with the assumption of DISBELIEF and everything must be tested and retested and then assumptions are made BASED on the ever-changing evidence.
In my opinion, these people that are so afraid of evolution because somehow they feel it invalidates their Bibles must have a pretty simplistic, shallow and shaky Faith... it is like they are constantly on the look out for "signs" and "omens" and "manna" from heaven in order to strengthen their faith. People, God and your Faith live in your hearts! Quit looking under rocks and working so hard to disprove science!
Science deals only with the material and temporal universe. Philosophy (as in metaphysical philosophy) deals with things beyond the material and temporal, beyond science. Science is not the measure of all things, it is inherently limited because we humans are inherently limited. Faith provides answers to the unanswerable and allows us to know God. Science only allows us to know God's creation.
Please define neutrality as you understand it.
When science has prejudice going into an investigation - whether "Nature did it!" or "God did it!" or whatever - the investigation will be truncated, the conclusion rigged, the results incomplete.
The important thing to understand is that "prejudice" is not synonymous with "presupposition". I think this is where the confusion rests.
There is no neutrality in that we all have presuppositions even in advance of the investigation.
For instance, in mathematics and logic we presuppose the law of non-contradiction. This is a first principle which cannot be denied without affirming it.
This is the law of undeniability.
Conversely, there is the law of unaffirmability.
Presuppositions should not be viewed as irrational by nature (although some presuppositions are). In fact, quite the contrary. Ironically, the presuppositions of absolute relativists often expose their own irrationality.
A relativist friend told me "You cannot know anything for sure, there is no right or wrong, and there are no absolutes."
Of course, he presupposed absolute standards of knowledge as well as the law of non-contradiction, and the existence of right and wrong (according to him, he was right and I was wrong) in order to prove otherwise.
A typical pantheistic often engages in such worldview confusion.
This is what I mean in stating that there is no neutral ground. Presuppositions don't just exist, they are crucial and should be examined carefully. These presuppositions don't just extend to the law of non-contradiction and the like. They extend all the way to our basic worldview.
They cannot be divorced from the investigation. Rather, they play a necessary PART in the investigation.
The existence of the universe is not just a brute fact. Rather, the very EXISTENCE of something rather than nothing implies a certain worldview if we are to investigate rationally.
There is no "neutral" ground. By logical extension worldviews collide.
I don't think that anyone has yet committed such a novel thing, but let's run with it for a moment.
I would also point out that just because two things are always present together does not mean those two things are logical reducible to the same thing (although it might turn out that they are identical, this is not a logical NECESSITY).
Great. And when you catch me arguing such a thing, I've no doubt you'll be right there to point it out. In the mean time, which two things do you imagine I have said are one and the same, as a matter of logical necessity?
But not all agree as to the nature of the designer...
LOL. All evidence to the contrary. Shall we conduct a survey, and gauge the mood of the room? No, as amusing as it is to watch you contort yourself to deny the obvious, it's rather clear that the nature of the designer is basically a settled question within the ID community.
You are guilty of the very thing you accuse the theists of.
I've accused no one of anything. Thus far, I have merely pointed out that the correlation between ID theory and identification of the designer as the Christian god is very nearly a one-to-one relationship, that the set of ID theorists and the set of ID theorists who identify the designer as the god of the Bible are quite close to being the same set. I'm not at all sure how you make that into an accusation - it seems to me to be a statement of fact, and a fairly obvious fact at that.
You know in your heart of hearts that the only reason why we are talking about the hypothesis of "Intelligent Design" is that it was some Creationist-funded thinktank's brainchild to challenge evolution while skirting the seperation of church and state issue in the courts.
To say that the natural laws of the universe were "designed" assumes that there is a force beyond the natural, thereby super-natural force that "designed" the universe and its dimensions and forces by a process that can not be fully grasped by the scientific process (otherwise, there would be no need for a hypothesis that is an alternative to the letting the scientific process carry on) this by definition is a "supernatural force" so yes... ID is inherently theistic. while evolution is NOT inherently atheistic unles you want to tell me that Newtonian physics is inherently atheistic (or maybe you believe that since according to Genesis the earth was ripe with vegetation a day before God created the sun and the moon).
Please don't tell me what I cannot quote. Yes, I most certainly will quote from books especially in light of the fact that Alamo-Girl specifically asked us to "please add your resources to the collection". (see article)
Tell me what you think. In your own words.
Please don't tell me how to respond. Also, there seems to be an implied false-disjunct fallacy in your above statement. You assume it's EITHER my position OR Moreland/Craigs when it's both/and.
The fact that I quote them hardly undermines the point any more than freeper PatrickHenry's quote of Benjamin Franklin undermines the point Ben made.
I make no more apologies for quoting men who've made the point well, than you'd make for quoting any number of people YOU might have quoted.
But since you want my thoughts, here they are:
Science deals only with the material and temporal universe.
Petitio principii.
Also, you cannot do science without doing philosophy and logic. In fact, your very argument about science--is it philosophical? Science? Both?
Incidentally, the rules of logic are not material or merely temporal, yet they are absolutely essential to scientific investigation.
Philosophy (as in metaphysical philosophy) deals with things beyond the material and temporal, beyond science.
This is not "beyond" science, but in addition to science.
Science is not the measure of all things
I know this. So do the authors I quoted. That's why they evaluated that premise and found it wanting.
Faith provides answers to the unanswerable and allows us to know God.
False disjunct. You assume that all faith is not based on reason (or at least in accordance with it).
btw, scientists practice faith as well. They have faith that the principle of uniformity will remain the same, and many scientists--truth be told--have an implicit faith that something (the universe) can come about without a cause from nothing despite evidence to the contrary. so please add your resources to the collection
"Intelligent Design is defined by the Discovery Institute – Center for Science and Culture as holding that ”certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” '
"certain features of the universe.... are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
.
This definition is INHERENTLY theistic. Something "intelligent" caused "certain features" of the universe. something that has "directed" the process. In order to "direct" the laws of the natural world and to have the power to "cause" them certainly implies that this causation, this direction is supernatural if it has the power to define the process. Also, this "intelligent cause" implies that "intelligence" is pre-existant to the start of these features of the natural universe. So how do we define the intelligence of this cause if not by inferring our own definitions of "intelligent" upon this "cause" which predates the ascent of man.... is this not anthropomorphism of the cause? and thusly inherently theistic?
You said:
"Does anyone really want to value a hypothesis by the ideology/theology of its supporters?
IMHO, the great scientists and mathematicians throughout history - certainly since Galileo - would be offended by any such lithmus test."
Ironic that you bring up Galileo, he was the Darwin of his time....Rome excommunicated Galileo for proposing something that they believed contradicted the first Chapter of Genesis: How could the earth revolve around the sun when the sun was not created until AFTER the earth.
you guys said,
"Don't quote from books.
Please don't tell me what I cannot quote. Yes, I most certainly will quote from books especially in light of the fact that Alamo-Girl specifically asked us to "please add your resources to the collection". (see article)
Tell me what you think. In your own words.
Please don't tell me how to respond...."
I sing: "Don't tell me what to do and don't tell me what to wear and PLEASE when I go out with you... don't put me on display... because I'm young and I love to be young and I'm free and I love to be free. You don't own me, I am not one of your special toys."
Rom 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
Phl 3:10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
Luk 11:29-33
29 And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.
30 For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.
31 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon [is] here.
32 The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas [is] here.
33 No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth [it] in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light.
Jhn 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
Jhn 11:9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.
Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Pro 9:10 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy [is] understanding.
Luk 11:11-13
11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if [he ask] a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall [your] heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
1Jo 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Intelligent Design proper, and Theology proper.
LOL. All evidence to the contrary. Shall we conduct a survey, and gauge the mood of the room?
Not so fast with the LOL. Truth is not determined by majority vote. It makes no difference whether 90% of ID'sts agree with me or NO ID'sts agree with me in order for ID to be a separate category.
The category distinction exists regardless of how many agree or do NOT agree with me as to the nature of the designer.
BUT...since you asked, not all intelligent Design folks agree with my concept of an infinite, all-powerful, all knowing, personal God. Some believe tha designer is not all powerful (Harold Kushner), others believe the designer is not all knowing (open theists), some believe the designer is not eternal--and confuse exactly what is eternal and what is designed--(Mormons), some believe that the designer (or "unmoved mover") is not someone to be worshipped (Aristotle).
No, as amusing as it is to watch you contort yourself to deny the obvious, it's rather clear that the nature of the designer is basically a settled question within the ID community.
Again, that's a red herring. The argument is whether the concept of intelligent design is necessarily logically reducible to Theolology, and whether any relationship between the two disqualifies one from being a legitimate field of scientific investigation.
Many people worship what they believe to be the Intelligent Designer.
But this makes ID no less scientific.
Many people worship rocks, but that hardly disqualifies geology as a science.
I have merely pointed out that the correlation between ID theory and identification of the designer as the Christian god is very nearly a one-to-one relationship
How does that square with...
...which two things do you imagine I have said are one and the same, as a matter of logical necessity?
Either you are implying the two categories are, strictly speaking, logically reducible to the same thing or you are not. which is it?
that the set of ID theorists and the set of ID theorists who identify the designer as the god of the Bible are quite close to being the same set. I'm not at all sure how you make that into an accusation - it seems to me to be a statement of fact, and a fairly obvious fact at that.
Not an obvious fact at all. Muslims believe in ID, but don't believe in the God of the Bible.
But even if it were true that all people who believed in ID also believed in the God of the Bible, what's the significance?
If all people who believed in geology also happened to be the same people who worship rocks (and there really ARE people who worship rocks) would that by definition discount geology as a legit science?
Hmmm. This seems to be a case of the Genetic fallacy.
It also would seem to reduce geology to religion (there's that collapsing category again).
Watch out for that fallacy from concomitant relations (look it up).
BTW, you never did answer the knife cutting both ways.
Most (if not all) of the materialistic-atheists-who-believe-the-universe-came-into-being-from-nothing that I know are evolutionists.
Does this convert to "all evolutionists are materialistic-atheists-who-believe-the-universe-came-into-being-from-nothing "?
No. But even if it were true, how does the unobservable, untestable, unverifiable "universe coming into existence from nothing" belief (a belief requiring faith, no less) qualify as science anymore than theology?
The atheists who believe in evolution have a worldview that requires more faith than my faith in God, yet this does not undermine evolution as science in your opinion.
OTOH, you believe that ID is undermined by the fact that most of them may have faith in their designer. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Genetic fallacy.
To say that the natural laws of the universe were "designed" assumes that there is a force beyond the natural
In assuming the "natural laws of the universe are not designed by a supernatural power because there is no force beyond the natural" you're committing the fallacy of petitio principii.
...thereby super-natural force that "designed" the universe and its dimensions and forces by a process that can not be fully grasped by the scientific process...
There are many "processes" within an evolutionistic worldview that cannot be fully grasped by "the scientific process" (e.g., the big bang singularity, quantum physics, etc.)
this by definition is a "supernatural force" so yes... ID is inherently theistic.
By theistic you see to assume 1) that it is not scientific, which is clearly question begging and 2) that an ID proponent's belief in a supernatural force is grounds to dismiss ID as purely religious and unscientific by nature, which is clearly the genetic fallacy.
If it is true that the person who "discovered" the Benzine molecule based his theory on a metaphysical dream he had of a snake biting it's tale, that would still not grounds for dismissing the scientific truth of his discovery.
BTW, even if we conclude that ID has a religious source in the book of Genesis, this would not make the theory wrong. The idea that murder is wrong also comes from a religious source, but that does not make it wrong.
...while evolution is NOT inherently atheistic unles you want to tell me that Newtonian physics is inherently atheistic
Evolution is not identical to Newtonian physics. Evolution, btw, is implicitly atheistic (regardless of the fact that some theists believe in theistic evolution) because the basic assumption is that there is a naturalistic explanation for all that exists (as opposed to a supernatural explanation).
In other words, evolutionists on this thread shreak at the suggestion that a supernatural power had anything to do with designing the universe--the world--but what is the basic alernative? That NO supernatural power designed anything. But if that is true, then it is at the very least "practical atheism".
1) I do not think that evolutionism and atheism are synonyms, but that the basic implicit assumption of evolution as naturalistic is antithetical to theism. One can believe in God and believe in "theistic evolution", but such a belief is severely mistaken, imho.
The very definition of evolution pushed to it's logical conclusion seems to lead practically to atheism (the practical absence of God or his "design" in any of the universe).
Also, I believe that ID has obvious implications regarding a designer when pushed to the logical conclusion.
Respectfully, I would not go so far as Alamo-Girl in divorcing ID from any theological implications (nor do I believe we have to or should!), but this does not make ID unscientific for reasons already established, so we must avoid the fallacy from concomitant relations, the genetic fallacy and the like.
I understand that some theists accept methodological naturalism. But I get the distinct impression that when push comes to shove many of the methodological naturalists on this thread are not merely methodological naturalists, but philosophical naturalists as well.
Where on earth did I claim that they are the same as a matter of logical necessity?
Don't waste too much time hunting - I haven't done any such thing.
Truth is not determined by majority vote.
Who said it was?
It makes no difference whether 90% of ID'sts agree with me or NO ID'sts agree with me in order for ID to be a separate category.
So what? Once again, I merely point out that the correlation between belief in ID and belief in the Christian god as the designer is very nearly a perfect correlation. If I tell you that all blondes are humans, that is hardly the same as saying that blondes and humans are the same thing, even though it is perfectly true and undeniable that all blonde people are human, and thus blondeness and personhood are perfectly correlated.
The argument is whether the concept of intelligent design is necessarily logically reducible to Theolology...
That appears to be an argument you are having with yourself, since I have yet to claim any such thing.
...and whether any relationship between the two disqualifies one from being a legitimate field of scientific investigation.
I have not argued that ID is not a legitimate scientific field because of any such presumed relationship. Yet.
Either you are implying the two categories are, strictly speaking, logically reducible to the same thing or you are not. which is it?
You're wasting my time. If I tell you that the earth has a moon, it does not mean that I am claiming that the earth must have a moon as a matter of logical necessity. If I tell you that virtually all ID theorists believe that the Christian god is the designer, it does not mean that I am claiming that ID theorists must believe that the Christian god is the designer as a matter of logical necessity. If I tell you that all Scotsmen wear kilts, it does not mean that I am claiming that all Scotsmen must wear kilts as a matter of logical necessity. Nor does it mean that I am claiming that all kilt-wearers are Scottish as a matter of logical necessity.
Really, now - you seem fixated on refuting things I'm not saying or claiming. This will go far more smoothly if you take the time to read what I actually post, instead of reading into it things that aren't there. While it appears that to do so might be inconvenient for you and your attempts to impute fallacies to me, it's not very honest of you to put words in my mouth, and then attack me for something I never said.
If all people who believed in geology also happened to be the same people who worship rocks (and there really ARE people who worship rocks) would that by definition discount geology as a legit science?
Oh, dear. See, I don't think this is going to work, because I don't think you're reading my posts at all. I have merely stated thus far that some of the claims of ID have theological import. Who can deny it? As to whether it's a legitimate science or not, I have never claimed anywhere at all that because virtually all ID theorists worship their version of the designer, it is not a science because of that fact alone. I don't know where you derive that argument, but it certainly wasn't from me, because I haven't made it.
BTW, you never did answer the knife cutting both ways.
I see no need to "answer" conversations that you're having with yourself. I never claimed that the two must be, as a matter of logical necessity, one and the same. I guess when you're done wrestling with that, you'll report back on your findings, but thus far that investigation doesn't appear to involve me.
OTOH, you believe that ID is undermined by the fact that most of them may have faith in their designer.
I have yet to claim any such thing. Do you plan to read anything I post at all?
But what's the point of such a relation? (Unless you're implying that humans can't possibly be scientific since so many of them are blond.)
tame: The argument is whether the concept of intelligent design is necessarily logically reducible to Theolology...
general_re: That appears to be an argument you are having with yourself, since I have yet to claim any such thing.
Then why do you bring it up? Either you are implying the two categories are, strictly speaking, logically reducible to the same thing or you are not. which is it?
You're wasting my time. If I tell you that the earth has a moon, it does not mean that I am claiming that the earth must have a moon as a matter of logical necessity. If I tell you that virtually all ID theorists believe that the Christian god is the designer, it does not mean that I am claiming that ID theorists must believe that the Christian god is the designer as a matter of logical necessity. If I tell you that all Scotsmen wear kilts, it does not mean that I am claiming that all Scotsmen must wear kilts as a matter of logical necessity. Nor does it mean that I am claiming that all kilt-wearers are Scottish as a matter of logical necessity.
Again, why do you bring it up?
Really, now - you seem fixated on refuting things I'm not saying or claiming. This will go far more smoothly if you take the time to read what I actually post, instead of reading into it things that aren't there.
You might want to go back and read some of your posts.
While it appears that to do so might be inconvenient for you and your attempts to impute fallacies to me, it's not very honest of you to put words in my mouth, and then attack me for something I never said.
Stick to the facts. no words were put in your mouth. I believe you're upset that I've noticed your fallacies.
I have merely stated thus far that some of the claims of ID have theological import. Who can deny it?
So? What's the point then?
As to whether it's a legitimate science or not, I have never claimed anywhere at all that because virtually all ID theorists worship their version of the designer, it is not a science because of that fact alone. I don't know where you derive that argument, but it certainly wasn't from me, because I haven't made it.
What other reason do you have for bringing it up? Yes, it seems you were arguing that ID is not scientific based on the fact that we worship our designer.
I see no need to "answer" conversations that you're having with yourself. I never claimed that the two must be, as a matter of logical necessity, one and the same. I guess when you're done wrestling with that, you'll report back on your findings, but thus far that investigation doesn't appear to involve me.
A fair reading of your posts indicates that you started down that road in order to undermine ID as a science, but you seem to be backtracking a little. If not, then I ask you again: What is your reason for bringing it up?
Hi stremba! The way I think about this problem: the natural laws are things man "discovers" and are implicitly "prior to" any scientific test: The scientific method would be impossible without them. And because they have a logical form, it is highly doubtful to me that they could be products of chance. The interesting question (to me anyway) is: Do we know that we have yet discovered all the natural laws that are extant in the Universe?
What do you think?
Thanks for writing, stremba!
It certainly seems to have brought about a response, so in the sense that it seems to be serving as a sort of Rorschach test for you, it's been interesting. That wasn't the original point, of course, but it's interesting nonetheless.
Then why do you bring it up? Either you are implying the two categories are, strictly speaking, logically reducible to the same thing or you are not.
I simply made an observation. In any case, I can hardly be responsible for what you imagine I'm saying - any "implication" is wholly your own invention at this point, as I've made no statement to whether they are "logically reducible" or not. In fact, I really don't care whether they are or not, so I don't plan to make any such implication in the future either.
Stick to the facts. no words were put in your mouth.
Of course you have. You've said that I'm making claims or implications about some presumed "logical reducibility" - I've said no such thing. You've said that I'm claiming that ID and theology are one and the same as a matter of logical necessity - I've said no such thing. You've said that I believe that ID is "undermined" by the fact that most ID'ists have faith in some supernatural creator - I've said no such thing. And so forth and so on. Really, now - it's rather brazen to deny that you've done what you did, when anyone can simply scroll up the thread and see that what you claim I said and what I actually said are two different things.
I believe you're upset that I've noticed your fallacies.
You have yet to "notice" any - thus far, you appear content to simply invent them.
Yes, it seems you were arguing that ID is not scientific based on the fact that we worship our designer.
Well, along with not being responsible for what you imagine I am saying, I suppose I should stop and disclaim any responsibility for how things seem to you. It is your responsibility to insure that your perceptions correspond, however roughly, to reality, not mine.
A fair reading of your posts indicates that you started down that road in order to undermine ID as a science...
I'd hate to see an "unfair" reading of my posts, in that case.
If not, then I ask you again: What is your reason for bringing it up?
Why not? It's true, after all.
Hello stremba!!! Thanks for the fine presentation on protein folding. I have seen this hypothesis before, and it seems reasonable to me. But I've also encountered researchers who find it inadequate, generally speaking on adequacy of information grounds. (Such folks evidently think that biological processes are intensively "informed" processes.) So I gather this vital issue is still "a work in progress."
WRT your comment above: I just don't see there is anything necessarily "unnatural" about the presence of design in nature -- especially if the natural laws themselves are the source of the design.
Thank you so much for writing!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.