Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Mailbox: A reader writes from an island in Mediterraean to ask,

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Don’t you think Evolution excludes God from being the Creator? How can you support it them being a Catholic?

After I got over raging at that guy for living in a place that is actually warm and sunny (how dare he?), I replied:

Friend, thank you for writing, and apologies for any delay in getting back to you.

Essentially, I think God can create however he wants.

He can use direct creation and various types of evolution, including Darwin’s natural selection. Or other methods beyond my ability to imagine.

He’s God. and I’m not. So I don’t worry about whether God can do something, but rather whether evidence suggests that he has.

Indeed, for certain purposes – weeding out losers, for example – natural selection is doubtless an important mechanism.

I use it myself sometimes when I garden. I often just scatter flower seed broadcast – knowing that the losers will die, and the survivors will not need interventions that I can’t afford and don’t have time for.

Where I differ with the exponents of “Evolution” is:

1. I am not an atheist or a “liberal” Christian.

2. Therefore I do not need to prove that there is no design in the universe or life forms.

3. Therefore, I can acknowledge that design is evident in the universe and in life forms.

4. Therefore, I do not need to pretend that my method for weeding out loser plants in my garden actually creates any new information. All it does is distinguish between good and bad examples of the information that already existed.

5. I think that once we get things like that straight, we will be on the verge of another science revolution. But as along as we are stuck with no-design nonsense, we will be stuck with stupid projects about stuff we know that ain’t so.

I do hope this is a help.

Comments
Because the miracle of their godhood is an acceptable view.Lock
April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT
You know it occurred to me that Dawkin's "voila, here we are" argument in The Blind Watchmaker was a reaction to Paley's own watchmaker argument. I never saw this before, but Dawkins is so full of contradictions in his assessment of the design argument. If we shouldn't be surprised that we ended up how we are, then why does Dawkins go to such pains to explain away the appearance of design? If the appearance of design is such a shocking phenomenon given natural selection, then evolution really is a miraculous process, and not a mundane "here we are, what did you expect?" kind of process. And in the end, if Darwinists, underneath it all, really do need miracles, then why do they go on rejecting design?CannuckianYankee
April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT
Faded Glory: "The universe exists and we exist in it. It follows logically that therefore the universe allows for our existence, and it could not be otherwise. No need to be amazed at logical consequences. How probable/improbable it is for a universe to exist that allows us to exist is actually a different question. Winning a lottery if your ticket has number 1 on it is hardly remarkable if the total number of tickets issued is just 1. How many tickets were issued in the galactic lottery?" Well the only scenario where the galactic lottery ticket universe could exist is a multiverse (infinite number of universes, each unique) scenario. But we know the absurdities that creates. The argument that we shouldn't be surprised that we ended up "us" because, "voila, here we are" - is simply nonsense. Darwinists WERE surprised, and spent the last 150 years trying to come up with an alternative to the implications.CannuckianYankee
April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT
Faded-glory writes: "How probable/improbable it is for a universe to exist that allows us to exist is actually a different question." It is unclear to me how this is a different question. I think that is the question in the "fine-tuning argument. I think what some of us find astonishing is very nearly what you noted. How improbable it is for a universe to exist that allows us to exist. I believe I understand your position. You are stating since we couldn't have existed otherwise we shouldn't be surprised that we do exist. But again I refer to the parable at #90. Just because the man tied to the chair couldn't have seen any other number except the randomnly generated 9999999999, doesn't mean he shouldn't be surprised that that particular sequence was the one generated. Even though this was a necessary condition to him observing anything at all. It would be helpful for me if you could explain why this is a faulty analogy.joshuabgood
April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
joshuabgood: 'Of all the ways the particles could have bounced after the so-called “big-bang” how astonishing that they were enabled to bounce this way' I don't know - in how many ways could the particles have bounced? Also, are you sure there are no underlying principles that made them end up where they have ended up? The universe exists and we exist in it. It follows logically that therefore the universe allows for our existence, and it could not be otherwise. No need to be amazed at logical consequences. How probable/improbable it is for a universe to exist that allows us to exist is actually a different question. Winning a lottery if your ticket has number 1 on it is hardly remarkable if the total number of tickets issued is just 1. How many tickets were issued in the galactic lottery?faded_Glory
April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT
that’s why we should embrace NOMA. If it’s followed, we win. And if our adversaries don't follow NOMA, and we point that out, we win.tribune7
April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
To Faded @77 - regarding the argument that we should expect a universe with its given finetunings since this is the only way we could exist. And that such a universe is unremarkable. Consider the following parable introduced I think by Swinburne. If kidnapers tied you to a chair and forced you to watch a computer program spew a random 10 digit. And additionally the kidnappers had rigged explosives to detonate instantaneously if the computer chose any number except 9999999999. They then started the computer program. You prepare for your certain death. You express astonishment as the computer spews 9999999999. One particularly clever kidnapper then states. "oh you shouldn't be so astonished. If the computer had spewed any other number you would be dead. Therefore you should have expected to see 9999999999 since this is the only number you could see." The story illustrates nicely the principle.(Of all the ways the particles could have bounced after the so-called "big-bang" how astonishing that they were enabled to bounce this way)joshuabgood
April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
The amusing thing about NOMA is SJ didn’t pay any attention to it himself. He was constantly trampling down the garden of theology with ham-fisted speculation about the nature of being. Sort of like the Darwinists in this thread. If Darwinists really observed NOMA, then such concepts as macroevolution and abiogenesis would not dominate their discourse. It seems they just can’t stop talking about things they’ve never seen—but that’s not pure science. It’s metaphysics. allanius, those are very good points, and that's why we should embrace NOMA. If it's followed, we win.tribune7
April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
FG I think you are conflating ID methodology with metaphysical design. ID is simple: It claims designed objects have specific traits not shared by anything else. It's tested against objects of known design and it reads design. It's tested against objects known not to be designed, and it does not indicate them to be designed. So it's calibrated. Then it's tested with something known not to be designed by man-- the workings of the cell, which it indicates to be designed. Now why would one object to that conclusion? Because it is impossible for something known not to be designed by man to have been designed? That's not science, that arbitrary semantics.tribune7
April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
FG-- What would it take to completely overthrow ID? Just demonstrate that it doesn't do what it claims.tribune7
April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
The amusing thing about NOMA is SJ didn’t pay any attention to it himself. He was constantly trampling down the garden of theology with ham-fisted speculation about the nature of being. Sort of like the Darwinists in this thread. If Darwinists really observed NOMA, then such concepts as macroevolution and abiogenesis would not dominate their discourse. It seems they just can’t stop talking about things they’ve never seen—but that’s not pure science. It’s metaphysics. So what was SJ really up to, with those twinkling eyes of his? He wanted people of faith to stop commenting on his beloved Darwinism and casting nasty doubts on its postulates. NOMA was the ruse of a man a little frightened by his own discoveries.allanius
April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
tribune7: 'One thing you have to keep in mind is that nobody is saying ID is a dogma. We are saying it is science. It is an objective methodology that can be criticized, improved upon or completely overthrown.' Well, that is more or less where my problem lies. I'm not saying that ID is a dogma; I am doubtful if it is a science, and I am strongly inclined to consider it a metaphysical viewpoint, with all the good and bad connotations of that term. The issues about the testability and falsifiabilty (is that a word?) cut to the heart of that. What would it take to completely overthrow ID? Can we ever conclusively say that there is no man behind the curtain? I am skeptical. tribune7: 'One can be looked upon with interest yet refrain from endorsement, and even express respectful skepticism. It cannot, however, be dismissed without showing irrationality.' Well, I guess views on what is irrational and what is not vary from person to person. I am for all practical purposes an empiricist. ID struggles to make itself convincing for a person like me. I probably wouldn't get involved in it much if it regarded itself as a metaphysical concept. There are many of those and most are equally deserving of our tolerance. However, I hear claims that ID is a scientific enterprise and I struggle with that. When I watch people do science I see different things than when I watch people do ID. Why is that? tribune7: 'Now, you say you are not convinced it can be independently tested or falsified. Why would that be? Well, it is because ID is either: 1. Unassailably true. or 2. Nobody has figured out a method yet. So go for it' Hmm. I did say that ID, to be more precise ID's toolkit, has not been independently tested and I think that is correct. I see a lot of pointing at analogs, and they certainly help to illuminate the thinking behind ID. However, invoking analogs is not the same as rigorous testing of newly proposed scientific tools. Would you agree with that? I am not complaining that ID has not been falsified - I am wondering if it can be falsified, even in principle. We seem to agree that we can never know if there isn't a 'man behind the curtain', even when looking at something as simple as a rock. If we can't rule out a designer behind a rock, how can we ever hope to demonstrate there is no designer of life? Indeed, nobody has figured out a way to falsify ID yet. I think that is a problem in the context of scientific theories, and something that the ID community should be more worried about than they sometimes appear to be. For all I know, ID is unassailably true. The issue is not that it couldn't be, the issue is how can we be convince ourselves that it is true, using the accepted conventions of empirical science. fGfaded_Glory
April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
That would be sound practice - but is there another methodology? If there's not, I guess that makes ID the boss :-) One thing you have to keep in mind is that nobody is saying ID is a dogma. We are saying it is science. It is an objective methodology that can be criticized, improved upon or completely overthrown. One can be looked upon with interest yet refrain from endorsement, and even express respectful skepticism. It cannot, however, be dismissed without showing irrationality. Now, you say you are not convinced it can be independently tested or falsified. Why would that be? Well, it is because ID is either: 1. Unassailably true. or 2. Nobody has figured out a method yet. So go for it.tribune7
April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
tribune7: 'You would use another method to show, conclusively, that an object that ID indicates to be designed, is not.' That would be good, basically what you suggest is to test the ID approach against some other methodology that we know gives reliable results. That would be sound practice - but is there another methodology? tribune7: 'I presume you do not accept ID as the authority in determining design, correct?' I hesitate to assign authority to ID before its tools and methods have been thoroughly tested. I am not convinced by testing against objects of known human design, and then applying it to entities with a fundamentally different causal history. To be honest I am not convinced it can be independently tested or falsified at all.faded_Glory
April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
Your first statement is impossible in practice, because according to you the way to decide if an object is undesigned is by using ID on it in the first place. You would use another method to show, conclusively, that an object that ID indicates to be designed, is not. I presume you do not accept ID as the authority in determining design, correct?tribune7
April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
tribune7: 'If you find an undesigned object that falsifies ID, you, well, falsify ID. If you can’t find an undesigned object that falsifies ID, it means ID is a viable theory.' Your first statement is impossible in practice, because according to you the way to decide if an object is undesigned is by using ID on it in the first place. It would come up as a negative, correct? I take it that ID will give the same answer every time we use it on the same object. How then could using ID on that very same object for a second time ever come up with a false positive? Because of this logical impossibility of ever achieving the falsification, your second statement is a non-sequitur. Can you think of any other way to falsify ID?faded_Glory
April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
Don’t you see the problem with this? You have missed the point. If you find an undesigned object that falsifies ID, you, well, falsify ID. If you can't find an undesigned object that falsifies ID, it means ID is a viable theory.tribune7
April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
Ok then, so how do we find an undesigned object that would falsify ID? You say we first use ID to tell us an object is not designed, and then you propose to use that same object as a potential falsfication of ID by coming up with a false positive. Don't you see the problem with this?faded_Glory
April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT
how do you know (not: why do you assume) there is no designer involved in such events? ID would indicate there is not. Granted, ID is expected to provide false negatives. In fact, the standard for ID is so high that if applied to criminal investigation, it is likely no one would ever be arrested. So do I "know" those things were not designed? That the hurricane was sent specifically to teach some poor city a lesson? No. But the ID methodology would indicate that it was not designed.tribune7
April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
Joseph: 'Humans existed on the Moon for a time. Is the Moon’s environment compatible for complex life?' Come on now, clearly the immediate environment in which the humans survived was compatible for complex life (the inside of their space suits). How does this refute the argument? An environment that sustains complex life is necessarily compatible with it. It could never be otherwise and therefore there is nothing remarkable about it.faded_Glory
April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
Joseph said: 'For starters: 1- Understanding the design so that we may be able to 2- dupicate it or 3- be better able to maintain it' This sounds like we would study the object's function and inner workings without particular regard for its mode of origin. In what way then would an ID perspective make a difference to our ability to answer such questions?faded_Glory
April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
tribune7, how do you know (not: why do you assume) there is no designer involved in such events? If a disembodied designer with remarkable powers exist, could he not have a hand in every hurricane, falling tree, snowflake....in everything that happens? If that is indeed the case, we will never have a known undesigned object to test ID against.faded_Glory
April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT
Can you give me an example of something known to be undesigned? A hurricane. A tree felled by a windstorm (where the tree fell would not be designed.) A snowflake. A rock. A rock slide The thoughtless throwing of a jacket when one comes home.tribune7
April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
tribune7 said: 'But ID is solely a scientific endeavor, and it is new and is inspired by 20th Century advances in biological understanding and information theory. There is nothing metaphysical about it. It is falsifiable. Apply it to something known to be undesigned and get a false positive. Evolve a flagellum from a partial set of proteins.' Can you give me an example of something known to be undesigned?faded_Glory
April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT
faded:
Any environment in which complex life exists must be compatible with the existence of complex life.
Humans existed on the Moon for a time. Is the Moon's environment compatible for complex life?Joseph
April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT
For starters: 1- Understanding the design so that we may be able to 2- dupicate it or 3- be better able to maintain itJoseph
April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT
Joseph said: (ID is limited to) 'Detection AND study of the design.' Out of curiosity, what kind of questions would study of the design aim to address?faded_Glory
April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT
It seems to me that the fine tuning argument is dead on arrival. Any environment in which complex life exists must be compatible with the existence of complex life. Therefore the observation of fine tuning provides zero information over and above the initial observation that complex life exists.faded_Glory
April 7, 2009
April
04
Apr
7
07
2009
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT
Anyway, the only way NOMA can work is with the recognition that the "one truth" is axiomatic, and the puzzles we face are predicated with "how" this relates to it rather than "if".tribune7
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
There is only one truth and there are different ways of arriving at it Prayer and fasting is not the best way of determining how much steel you need to span a river.tribune7
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply