Posted on 01/10/2005 2:47:28 PM PST by Mr. Silverback
Antony Flew, the 81-year-old British philosophy professor who taught at Oxford and other leading universities, became an atheist at age 15. Throughout his long career he argued—including in debates with an atheist-turned-Christian named C. S. Lewis—that there was a “presumption of atheism,” that is, the existence of a creator could not be proved.
But he’s now been forced to face the evidence. It comes from the Intelligent Design movement, led by Dr. Phillip Johnson and particularly the work of Michael Behe, the Lehigh biochemist who has proven the “irreducible complexity” of the human cell structure. Though eighty-one years old, Flew has not let his thinking fossilize, but has faithfully followed his own dictum to “go where the evidence leads.”
Christian philosophy professor Gary Habermas of Liberty University conducted an interview with Flew that will be published in the winter issue of Philosophia Christi, the journal of the Evangelical Philosophical Society and Biola University. Flew told Habermas that a pivotal point in his thinking was when he realized two major flaws in the various theories of how nature might have created itself. First, he recognized that evolutionary theory has no reasonable explanation for “the first emergence of living from non-living matter”—that is, the origin of life. Second, even if a living cell or primitive animal had somehow assembled itself from non-living chemicals, he reasoned it would have no ability to reproduce.
Flew told Habermas, “This is the creature, the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”
Flew has, thus, become a Deist—that is, he acknowledges God as creator but not as a personal deity. In his opinion, “There is no room either for any supernatural revelation of that God or any transactions between that God and individual human beings.” In fact, he told a group last May that he considers both the Christian God and the Islamic God to be “omnipotent Oriental despots—cosmic Saddam Husseins.”
But a crack is beginning to develop in his opinion that God hasn’t spoken through Scripture. When he reads the first chapter of Genesis, Flew says he’s impressed that a book written thousands of years ago harmonizes with twenty-first-century science. “That this biblical account might be scientifically accurate,” says Flew, “raises the possibility that it is revelation.” A book containing factual statements that no human knew about at the time of writing seems to argue that the authors must have had coaching from the Creator.
The evidence is there for all who will look, as his one-time adversary C. S. Lewis discovered, and as more and more thinking intellectuals are discovering today. So it is that Antony Flew, perhaps the most famous philosopher of atheism, is just a step or two away from the kingdom.
Well, now. This has been a fun read, R9. The above quote is rather telling, actually. Always the demand for something more from the one who bests you.
Bwaahaaahaaaa, just tired of answering questions they already know they will ignore.
Gosh -- I haven't ignored anything, but have attempted to engage you in civil debate. Alas, you appear to be once again retreating into your mode of personal insult as a means of cutting off debate. That's fine, but it reflects ill on you, and makes me question whether you really understand the position you're taking.
But hey: just for the sake of civility, let's assume that I'm as ignorant as you seem to think I am. What's wrong with the statement I made?
Science is not totally dependent on repeatable experiments. That is only one method science uses to test data.
The fossil record is supported by experiments in dating etc., but there are few experiments you can do directly. The main factor in eliciting evidence for evolution from the fossil is forensics. Forensics are backed up by experiments. These support the analysis of the fossil data.
When different disciplines all correlate a conclusion, no experiment is necessary.
"Alas, you appear to be once again retreating into your mode of personal insult as a means of cutting off debate."
You really have nothing to debate. You offer no evidence to support design, because there is none.
And how is it that you are able, from this information, to rule out the presence of an intelligent agent?
Consider again the examples of distinctive dog breeds, or gentically modified corn, which we know to have come about due to the actions of intelligent agents. Suppose (again) that the a priori knowledge of intelligent agents is somehow masked from the body of evidence available to a scientist. Would "forensics backed up by experiments" be able to identify the presence of intelligent agents in these processes? Would a scientist even bother to look for such a thing?
I believe the answer to the latter question is "no," as the going-in assumption is that changes within and between species arise from natural selection.
The scientist would most likely form a hypothesis about which natural selection pressures might have led to the particular traits, and that would be that. A plausible hypothesis, supported by evidence, and yet incorrect because the real cause was something other than "natural selection." This is why I'm suggesting that the theory of evolution, as usually stated, is incomplete.
Which brings us back to the first question. We know that, in some cases (such as the two above), intelligent agents have been active in the development of species. What sort of test could show their presence? That's a tough one, and yet we know that the demonstrable incompleteness of the theory of evolution would seem to demand tests of that nature.
It appears to me that the argument about ID basically revolves about this point. Current tests may not reveal the action of a hypothesized intelligent agent. The ID side may claim a hypothesis of intelligent agents, but the evolution side invariably dismisses it because there is no evidence. And the reason there's no evidence, is because there's no test that the evolution side recognizes as valid.
A truly scientific resolution of the issue would require the development of some agreed-upon criteria for recognizing the signature of an intelligent designer in the loop, or at least for looking more closely into the idea.
One of the characteristics of this argument is something to which you have alluded on this thread, and which some others have stated more or less explicitly: they claim that "evolution is a fact," and therefore see no need to formulate tests for alternate hypotheses. This is a great way to close off debate, but as we have already seen, it leaves one with an incomplete theory.
What would you consider as acceptable "evidence"? That's the root of this issue, is it not?
Neither genetically modified corn nor dog breeds are different species from corn or dogs. Please go learn some biology before trying to debate someone that knows it.
"And how is it that you are able, from this information, to rule out the presence of an intelligent agent? "
I don't rule it out. You have to present some scientific evidence to support it. To my knowledge nothing but wishful thinking and sophistry has ever been presented to support an "intelligent agent".
Give us some evidence or drop it. I tire of this continual appeal to reject the primary basis of biology because you don't want it to be true.
Now you're being disingenuous. Are you really going to claim, as the logic of this statement suggests, that genetic changes within a species are qualitatively different from those which produce a new species? Of course not. In the theory of evolution, speciation is presumed to result from the accumulation of genetic changes within a population of some base species.
What's at issue here is not the genetics, so much as it is the mechanism by which the genetics are driven. In the two examples we're discussing here, the mechanism is driven by intelligent agents. In the first case, the intelligent agents are using a natural process to achieve a set of defined characteristics. In the latter case, we have humans making direct changes to the genetic structure of the corn, thereby replacing "natural selection" with a manufacturing process. My claim is that the theory of evolution is not set up to recognize the presence of intelligent agents in either process, which (again) suggests that theory is incomplete.
I don't rule it out. You have to present some scientific evidence to support it. To my knowledge nothing but wishful thinking and sophistry has ever been presented to support an "intelligent agent".
No. As this statement makes abundantly clear, you have ruled it out -- and this despite the fact that we know intelligent agents can, do, and historically have influenced the development of many plants and animals. Unless you meant to say something other than what you've written.
Give us some evidence or drop it. I tire of this continual appeal to reject the primary basis of biology because you don't want it to be true.
Were you being honest, you'd admit that I'm not arguing for ID, or against evolution, so much as I am addressing the assumptions at work in the debate.
Were you being honest, you would admit that I have stated explicitly that I do NOT reject the "primary basis of biology."
Were you being honest, you would refer back to my comment at #313: "It would be folly to argue against the presence of natural processes in the development of life -- that would indeed be to blind myself to the evidence."
But you're evidently not interested in being honest.
And because of your statements and misstatements, it becomes clear to me that you're unwilling to look at the philosophical roots of your position; and that you're also unwilling to contemplate the possibility that you are arguing in favor of a theory that we can demonstrate to be incomplete.
That's your choice. But don't expect to score many points by continuing your displays of petulance.
Any scientific paper published in a peer reviewed journal
refuting biological evolution.
A breeder takes the place of natural selection. That was Darwin's example in Origin of Species. You can't refute evolution by using it.
If you understand that microevolution is the same as macroevolution, what are you arguing about?
Not what I asked. I asked you what sort of "evidence" you would accept, not the format in which the evidence was presented.
More importantly, if all you'll accept is a "refutation of biological evolution," it appears that you've created an ill-posed problem. It is not necessary to "refute biolical evolution" in order to demonstrate (if it were possible) the presence of an intelligent agent in some particular instance.
And (sigh) once again, you already know and have admitted that humans act as intelligent agents. A good starting point for the proposed test, would be to define something that would account for that activity. What would you suggest?
Note, BTW, that what I've just asked does not require one to first refute biological evolution. It merely asks you to derive a standard of evidence that can account for phenomena we know to be true.
If you can't define for us what evidence you will accept, then it seems you've given yourself the luxury of being able to move the goalposts -- sorta like JF'nK and the MSM are trying to move the goalposts with regard to the Iraqi elections.
The only scientifically acceptable evidence is a peer reviewed paper. Philosphy or speculation doesn't cut it.
Do you know of any scientific paper that shows ID occurring in nature? I have not been able to find one.
LOL! Shall we begin to tally up the personal insults, shubi?
The reason I called your honesty into question is because I find it extremely difficult to believe that you "accidentally" missed the fact that your dismissive comments toward me, are entirely inconsistent with the contents of my posts. An honest man would at least attempt to discuss the points, rather than demand that I yield to your expertise, which has yet to be demonstrated.
Moreover, based on a rough count of your posts to me, I find that your idea of "debate" consists of at least 8 parts bluster and insult, and maybe 2 parts actual discussion of the subject.
I'm happy to continue in this vein for as long as you'd like, but don't expect me to be impressed by your foot-stomping.
Just because the science does not agree with your idea is no reason to call me dishonest.
In fact, I am one of the most honest people you will ever talk to. It comes across as blunt at times, especially to the ideologically rigid.
A paper is not "evidence," except in a secondary sense. In essence, a paper is primarily documentation of "evidence" (data gathered through testing of some sort), and the conclusions drawn from it.
The peer review part helps to ensure that a) the evidence/data are real and properly gathered, and b) that the inferences drawn from the evidence/data are valid.
What I've asked for, and you have not provided, is some idea of what "evidence" (data) you would accept. Not a paper, but the evidence from which the paper's author might draw his conclusions.
Do you know of any scientific paper that shows ID occurring in nature? I have not been able to find one.
First off, we can note that there are scads of peer-reviewed journals that deal with various aspects of intelligent design in biology. It would be silly to claim that, on the strength of these peer-reviewed journals, that Intelligent Design is inherently without merit. Clearly it's not, because it's currently being done, and in a peer-reviewed manner at that.
The quibble you've added in, though, is "in nature." That is, indeed, a good question, though it does force one to ask you to define the term pretty carefully.
The term does bring up another interesting question, though: if the results of one of the biotech applications documented in those journals was presented to you, could you propose a test that, without prior knowledge of human involvement, would allow one correctly identify the human involvement in the process?
Along those lines, would you be able to propose a test that would allow one to correctly identify the human involvement in the development of characteristics that distinguish dog breeds?
If the answer to either or both of these is "no," then your theory is incomplete.
The reason I called you dishonest is because you made claims about me and my comments, that are not even remotely similar to the comments I have made. You cannot have done that by accident -- the examples of your doing that are too frequent and consistent.
In fact, I am one of the most honest people you will ever talk to. It comes across as blunt at times, especially to the ideologically rigid.
You're probably not the best person to be deriding others as "ideologically rigid."
"First off, we can note that there are scads of peer-reviewed journals that deal with various aspects of intelligent design in biology. It would be silly to claim that, on the strength of these peer-reviewed journals, that Intelligent Design is inherently without merit. Clearly it's not, because it's currently being done, and in a peer-reviewed manner at that. "
Post one or the link to one. (not one published by Discovery Inst. that doesn't count)
I really can't think of any convincing evidence for an IDer.
The Theory of Evolution sufficiently explains speciation.
With all these posts back and forth, I would expect you to tell me what would be good scientific evidence for ID. I don't think you can use Darwin effectively to make your case.
Science is based on facts. ID is based on ideology.
Nice insult, though.
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.