Is a materialistic approach to teaching the origin of life inherently atheistic and therefore religious?

_{William Dembski

August 30, 2006

Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Religion, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

[There’s] a new 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation that approaches the issue of teaching origin-of-life theories in public schools from a new angle . . .

Few are aware that the courts have ruled atheism is a religion for the purposes of the First Amendment in 2005 and thought about its implications on the teaching of origin-of-life theories in public schools. In brief, evolution becomes both a religious and scientifc theory (using the court’s definition of scientific theory), and abiogenesis becomes purely a religious theory. That being the case, these atheist origin-of-life theories should be treated the same as any other origin-of-life theory. Anything less is unconstitutional. Visit the website at http://originoflifefairness.org for much more information and the links/facts to back it up.

The mainstream media wants to keep this knowledge quiet. If you agree the public needs to know about this issue, your help would be greatly appreciated telling the public about this website. . . .

Sincerely,
Randel Huey
CEO/Founder “Origin of Life Fairness in Public Schools, Inc.”
Jacksonville, Florida

Comments

improvius "And in how many places is it presented as the only explanation for how life appeared on Earth?" In every high school biology classroom where Miller-Urey is discussed. What other hypothetical origin other than abiogenesis do you imagine is introduced? Speak right up and include a link to support your claim.DaveScot_{August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

Jerry What in dear God's name :razz: have I said that would conflate ID with religion? I refer you sir to the sidebar item "ID Defined" which I placed there many months ago. That is the only definition of ID displayed on this blog. I challenge you to show me how that definition is in any way religious.DaveScot_{August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

"Miller-Urey is standard fare in high school biology texts." And in how many places is it presented as the only explanation for how life appeared on Earth?improvius_{August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

improvius asks "where" presumably meaning where is abiogenesis taught in public schools. Miller-Urey is standard fare in high school biology texts.DaveScot_{August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

BarryA said:"The alien has two and only two choices to account for his observation: 1. He could infer from the specified complexity of the sculpture that it is not the result of the random erosion of the mountain, and based on this inference he could conclude that the sculpture is the result of design by an intelligent agent. 2. He could appeal to chance erosion of the mountain to account for the sculpture. If he chooses theory 1, would it be fair to accuse him of trying to inject the Ã¢â‚¬Å“supernaturalÃ¢â‚¬Â into the debate when the theory says nothing about the nature or purpose of the intelligent agent who designed the sculpture? ... Assume, the aliens look like humans." improvious said: "WouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t the alien just say, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Hey, that looks like a really big sculpture. The only thing we know of that makes sculptures is our own species. Therefor, this sculpture was most likely made by something similar to us.Ã¢â‚¬Â In fact, if the assumption is that the aliens look like humans, then they should conclude that the sculpture was made by one of them, perhaps visiting at another time in history. If that is the case, then yes, it would be unfair to accuse the theorist with injecting the supernatural. Why is it then unfair for evolutionists to make the same accusation of ID? It's quite simple. In order to make a design inference that isn't of the supernatural kind, you need to have an independent line of evidence that suggests that an agent capable of that design was present when the design originated. ID tries to make its design inference without the evidence to back up the existence of such an agent. It tries to use the artifact in question as the evidence for the designer's existence. You are wrong when you say that the mountain-designer theory would say nothing about the nature of the designer. In the case of Rushmore, the resemblence of the designer (or a similar creature to the designer) is etched into the face of the mountain! In that case, the shape of the design can be considered as independent of the evidence of the use of artificial processes. In the case of biological evolution, ID quite clearly presupposes that the designer must have something in common with ourselves. It must design or think like we do. However, we have no independent evidence available which suggests that there was a designer like us present when the flagellum was originated. Unless you think the flagellum bears some resemblance to the Designer? I hope this meets your criteria of not dodging your question.curtrozeboom_{August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

Ã¢â‚¬Å“science can only work through a materialistic approachÃ¢â‚¬Â canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be proved via materialism. Of course not, it is a pragmatic statement, not a fundamental law of the universe... Why should science a priori preclude something? We should follow the evidence wherever it leads even if shakes up our traditional methodology. [materialism] The power of the scientific method lies specifically in the application of methodological naturalism (materialism) to the problems that face us. Now, it is certainly possible to consider the existence of a "scientist+" (which we will use to denote a scientist who works by not restricting himself to materialistic hypotheses) who develops "hypotheses+" and "theories+" (note that according to most on this blog, ID is not a "hypotheisis+" since ID does not invoke the supernatural). However, for these "hypotheses+" to withstand scientific scrutiny they must be subject to making verifiable, testable predictions, and so far no such "scientist+" has never shown any "hypothesis+" which allows for the above. Of course, this does not mean that you should not come to your own conclusions regarding the evidence you percieve (re: follow the evidence where it leads), however, IMO, calling any such "hypothesis+" "science" is a misnomer.franky172_{August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

Jerry, As Socrates points out in Euthyphro, no one denies that the wrongdoer should be punished; what is contentious is who the wrongdoer is. If a "sophist" is "someone who makes the weaker argument appear stronger" (Apology, I'd like to hear from you about just how I've done that in my (29). Dave Scott, "Chance worshipper"? You mean, like a gambler who asks luck to be on his side? I know, I'm being facetious. But with a phrase like "chance worshipper," it's hard to resist. As for "conflating ID with religion," the anti-IDers don't need to do that. You guys doing fine on your own, from what I've seen in the two weeks I've been hanging on out this blog. I just moved to Virginia and I'll confess that I don't know exactly how things are handled here. (And by "just moved," I mean that I've been here for a week as of today.) But I'd be startled if the school board doesn't take into account the teachers' sense of their professional obligations, as well as that of the community and the "concerned parents."Carlos_{August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

"I think the thing about abiogenesis is that thereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s no evidence to support it yet itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s taught in a vacuum absent any other explanations of how life may have first appeared on this planet." Where?improvius_{August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

I think the thing about abiogenesis is that there's no evidence to support it yet it's taught in a vacuum absent any other explanations of how life may have first appeared on this planet. The ONLY thing we have evidence of is that living things come from other living things. That is biogenesis. Abiogenesis is a living thing coming from a non-living thing. In point of fact over the course of recorded history there have been billions or trillions of observations of living things coming from another living thing and not a single observation of a living thing coming from a non-living thing. In any other science such unexcepted observations become laws of nature. Living things come from living things is indeed a law of nature. This is what should be taught to school children. The law, not the imaginary exception to the law. The exception to the law (abiogenesis) is taught in a vacuum like it was proven to have happened that way and only the details are missing. Someone needs to explain to me why a conjecture with no empirical support whatsoever (abiogenesis) that violates a law of nature (biogenesis) is taught at all much less taught in a vacuum like it's a fact instead of a bassless conjecture. The only conclusion I can come to is that abiogenesis is the product of materialist dogma, predominantly if not exclusively driven by a desire to have biology accomodate an atheist worldview. I suppose it's time to remind everyone again that over 70% of the National Academy of Science is composed of positive atheists and that this organization is the single most influential organization in the country on science education policy. If anyone thinks for a split second that the organization isn't biased by its super-majority of positive atheists then that someone is clearly in a blind state of denial.DaveScot_{August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

Carlos But itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s unreasonable, and antithetical to the spirit of scientific inquiry, to legislate that change through commandeering public school curricula. In Texas the public school curricula has always been a legistlative matter. The commandeering is being done by chance worshippers who first conflate ID with religion then trump the duly enacted legislative curriculum choices through the federal judiciary and the establishment clause. I'm not scientists are anywhere given more than an advisory role in crafting public school curricula. What state do you live in and how are public school curricula determined there if not through legislation by elected school board members?DaveScot_{August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

Carlos, Spoken like a true Sophist.jerry_{August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

Pragmatism. The materialistic approach simply works very well. At least in terms of science, anyway.
Pish. We should follow the evidence wherever it leads even if shakes up our traditional methodology.Scott_{August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

Socrates would point out how people would start to make ad hominen attacks or change the subject as soon as they started losing an argument (actually it was Plato since Socrates never wrote anything.) I started teaching Euthyphro today, so this comes close to home. I have to say, I'm still far from convinced that abiogenesis* implies materialism or that materialism implies atheism. (By "abiogenesis," I refer to the view that causal interactions between organic molecules could, without any intervention by any intelligent agent, have produced the first organisms.) In any event, the job of school teachers is, among other things, to prepare students for college and/or for the working world. That means that difficult selections must be made. I'd be delighted if all my freshman students came in with a solid command of informal logic and critical reasoning, but it's not going to happen any time soon, given what a low priority public education is to our fine elected representatives. (Much like clean air and world peace, it's one of those things that everyone wants but no one wants to pay for.) In light of the difficult choices that must be made about curriculum and pedagogy, it does not seem unreasonable to me that science teachers teach the current consensus among scientists, and for the time being, that excludes ID alternatives to abiogenesis (as defined above). Maybe that consensus will change; in my own way I hope it does. But it's unreasonable, and antithetical to the spirit of scientific inquiry, to legislate that change through commandeering public school curricula. At best, I think that science teachers could say -- and should say -- both that there is no consensus on any one model of abiogenesis, that all currently proposed models have flaws as well as strengths, and that neither "materialism" (whatever that is) nor "atheism" (whatever that is) follows from any of the models currently on the market. (If the RNA world scenario implies that God doesn't exist, I'd really like to see the argument.) GilDodgen (if I'm getting your name right), I recall you'd said -- recently, perhaps in this thread -- that your daughter had asked her teacher if abiogenesis implied that God doesn't exist. Your daughter's teacher had said "yes." There, the teacher overstepped her(?) authority. If I had been in the teacher's position, I would responded that there is no role for God in any of the currently proposed models, but that it is not the role of science to weigh in on matters of faith. I'm not a theistic evolutionist, but I play one on the Internet.Carlos_{August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

"Why should science a priori preclude something?" Pragmatism. The materialistic approach simply works very well. At least in terms of science, anyway.improvius_{August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

Fross, You are wrong on some things and right on others. Yes, the theory of evolution does not have to be the same as atheism but one side has definitely made that so and there seems to be evidence that the rise of atheism owes a lot to Darwinian ideas. Why the visceral fight over just allowing a discussion of it in the schools. Richard Dawkins is the poster boy for it. Yes there are some here who constantly cite the bible or use religious quotes as support for their position and I believe every time they do that they play into the materialist hands and undermine ID. If I were a materialist and wanted to make ID look like a kook theory I would go on the site and start quoting scripture or other religious concepts in support of ID. Nothing would push those in the middle away from ID faster than such an approach. But it also has been my experience that as soon as the materialist start to lose the evolution argument based on science they bring up the supernatural or religion to deflect the discussion or try to denigrate those who they are arguing with or to imply as you just did that ID and creationism are the same. Why? Read my previous paragraph about those in the middle and religion and ID. Read the definition of ID on the site and see what there is about any religion in it. Someone on the internet made up a law of how soon a liberal would call another a fascist when they start to lose an argument on something like economics or politics. Or to change the politics you could say how soon a conservative would call the other a pinko or communist when they did not like the other's views. Socrates would point out how people would start to make ad hominen attacks or change the subject as soon as they started losing an argument (actually it was Plato since Socrates never wrote anything.)jerry_{August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

"science can only work through a materialistic approach" can't be proved via materialism. Materialism, by definition, excludes everything else. Why should science a priori preclude something?geoffrobinson_{August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

science can only work through a materialistic approach. It doesn't mean that materialism is all there is. My car mechanic also uses a materialistic approach when he fixes my car. We all use materialistic approaches in our daily jobs. The theory of evolution is not the same as atheism. It makes no comment on God, angels or devils. You guys are only proving Judge Jones correct the more you talk about evolution as if it's a religious debate. We all know the religious desires of the I.D. movement, but it's definitely become way more clear over the past few months. In fact, it's now on the same level as the creation science movement from the 80's. What I mean by this is the discussion is not about science anymore, but about the theological implications of evolution. Now let's pray ;)Fross_{August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

Wouldn't the alien just say, "Hey, that looks like a really big sculpture. The only thing we know of that makes sculptures is our own species. Therefor, this sculpture was most likely made by something similar to us."improvius_{August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

Every thinking person on this planet is a creationist of some sort. It is just that some refuse to admit it. They were "prescribed" to deny that which normal minds have no difficulty recognizing by congenital instinct. "Of the few innocent pleasures left to men past middle life - the jamming common-sense down the throats of fools is perhaps the keenest." Thomas Henry Huxley This is a test. A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison_{August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

OK, I'll take a stab at answering BarryA's challenge. Whether he thinks its being dodged, I can't tell. Let's assume for the sake of argument that DaveScot is correct about the probability and that the aliens would at least find the Rushmore sculpture curiously unlikely to have been formed by natural processes. So, if natural processes have been eliminated, they need to look for other possible causes. If we assume, as BarryA suggested, that they look human, then they may come to the conclusion that one of their own race is responsible. This may lead to their own questions of when they could have last visited the planet, etc... In order to determine that the sculpture is of aboriginal beings, they would need to learn about us from whatever is leftover after being wiped out. Nevertheless, their conclusion would be based on their experience with what they know about the intelligent creatures they are familiar with. If they are so different from us that similar facial recognition algorithms do not exist in their minds such that they are unable to recognize the faces for what they are, then they would have to turn to the likely artificial processes that they are familiar with which could have been used to create the sculpture. Perhaps they would conclude that only a P-38-SubMoleculizer (Marvin the Martian: Mmm, isn't lovely?) could create such a complex sculpture, or they are unable to imagine beings who would use anything less efficient. This again might lead them to conclude that they are responsible for it, unless they learn about ancient human rock carving techniques and our penchant for doing the seemingly impossible. They still might not understand the sculpture or know what it represents. They may not even be aware of the concept of abstract art, which may lead them to conclude that some dumb primate got ahold of a P-38-SubMoleculizer and was lucky to have only ruined a single mountain. (Marvin: Get the P-38-SubMoleculizer away from that Earth creature!) My point, which I've tried to lighten up with some Loony-humor, is that it's not enough to eliminate natural processes. You need to have EVIDENCE supporting any theory that places the cause behind an intelligent mind or a creature capable of manipulating an artificial process. The artifact is not itself evidence for intelligence, you need at least two lines of evidence that corroborate each other. Maybe all those ancient beads we've found are actually facial carvings of an ancient people who have holes in their heads? Our conclusion of their use as jewelry is based on our ability to replicate the carving process (which isn't used today) and our familiarity with the idea of jewelry as a human interest. Without some experience with the ancient Holyons, we will remain blissfully unaware of their contribution to our society. If you have eliminated natural processes, by whatever means, and you have no experience with or evidence for any possible intelligent causes, you are simply left with an unsolved mystery for which your search for evidence must continue. In the case of evolution of ancient biological structures, we have no evidence of intelligent agents being present. The structures themselves can not count as that evidence, you need to produce an independent line of evidence that corroborates with the ability to manipulate these structures. That is what scientists have done to support evolution (e.g. genetic algorithms to examine its capabilities). If you are unwilling or unable to accept evolution as a possible design process, then you are simply left with an unsolved mystery for which more evidence needs to be unearthed. I hope you don't see this as dodging your question. I showed quite plainly how I (or how I think your hypothetical aliens) would conclude an intelligent cause. I also explained why someone might not be able to draw upon intelligence as an agent, such as in the case of biology.curtrozeboom_{August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

Tom English is the ultimate sophist. He is obviously well read and knows things about information theory that we do not. However, his objective is not to make clear but to obscure. He knows as well as the rest of us that when we witness some event that we infer certain things about it. If we witness a coherent written sentence we know that it has only appeared through an intelligence and no other process has ever produced a coherent sentence. Thus, when we witness a whole book, we know it took a fairly high intelligent effort to construct it, especially if we understand the implication and coherence of the book. Similarly if we witness a small machine like a mousetrap, we know that an intelligence made it happen and if we witness a complicated construction of materials that accomplished something useful and which had parts that depended upon each other we attribute a fairly high intelligent effort to construct it. What Tom English is saying is that we have not developed any coherent theory to verify that the book or the complicated piece of machinery has been constructed by an intelligence. I do not know enough about CSI to say one way or the other. If there is a flaw in the theory and Tom English has found this flaw, he could do a couple things. He could point out that the theory as presently constructed has some weaknesses and suggest ways to overcome this weakness or he might denigrate the theory implying there is no value in the theory and consequently the conclusions that some things are only the consequence of intelligent processes. Now, I ask Tom English which he has done. I expect a long winded reply that will probably say neither and be patronizing but in the end we will know more about Tom English then about the probability of complicated coherent constructions appearing by naturalistic means. We already know he is methodological naturalist and another question is do all his answers flow from that orientation. After all he is determined.jerry_{August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

Tom English: Ã¢â‚¬Å“Barry, you threw down the gauntlet one hour and fifty-three minutes after LeoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s last post. DonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t you think itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s just a bit egocentric to think that because you challenged him, he was still around?Ã¢â‚¬Â I have two answers to that question. As I pointed out above, it was Leo, not I, who implied he would be coming back to see if anyone had responded to him. Secondly, now itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the next day. No one (including you) has answered my questions. Your point has no force. Turning to your non-response to my questions: Ã¢â‚¬Å“No one has demonstrated the utility of CSI in design detection.Ã¢â‚¬Â This statement is absurd. Detecting CSI is central to a number of human endeavors, code breaking and forensics leap to mind. Ã¢â‚¬Å“I doubt you can tell me the CSI of Mount Rushmore.Ã¢â‚¬Â DaveScott took care of this one with his usual aplomb above. The fact that I may not be able to hang a precise number on the CSI does not mean that the CSI is not obvious. Ã¢â‚¬Å“He would have to recognize a pattern, wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t he? But why would we expect an alien to be sufficiently similar to humans to recognize the faces of Mount Rushmore as a pattern?Ã¢â‚¬Â Here is where my predicted dodge comes in. You attempt to answer the question by turning it into a different question, i.e. whether aliens would know what humans look like. OK, letÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s change it back. Assume, the aliens look like humans. Ã¢â‚¬Å“Reread the quote of Bill DembskiÃ¢â‚¬Â I did not ask about Bill Dembski. I asked about a hypothetical alien (one who now, hypothetically, looks like a human in order to counter your dodge). The fact that you are unable are unwilling to deal with the questions I asked on their own terms speaks for itself.BarryA_{August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

@Drek > It really doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t matter, Drek, who founded the atheism. The idea is that atheism is a philosophy and not a scientific theory. The problem with TOE is that itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s trying to Ã¢â‚¬Å“convinceÃ¢â‚¬Â us that we Ã¢â‚¬â€œ as living organisms Ã¢â‚¬â€œ have the origins in some Ã¢â‚¬Å“organic soupÃ¢â‚¬Â that organized itself in a first living cell, cell that contained not only the amazing machinery for feeding and multiplying itself, but also a lot of INFORMATION Ã¢â‚¬Å“storedÃ¢â‚¬Â in DNAÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ So, taking that in consideration, and also, taking into consideration the fact that we are not able to prove scientifically any theory Ã¢â‚¬â€œ materialist or not Ã¢â‚¬â€œ that is trying to answer the big question WHO ARE WE & WHERE DO WE CAME FROM, we can (and must) treat atheism as a philosophy, as a religion, as a hypothesis and we must not be so close minded in our attempt to reject the possibility of the DesignerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s existence. I believe that this is a Ã¢â‚¬Å“fair playÃ¢â‚¬Â kind of approach that must be kept in mind by the courts of law. Otherwise, we are talking about FUNDAMENTALISM. > One of the atheistic approaches to the origin of life problem is TOE. And our children are indoctrinated by this theory day by day in schools world-wideÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ Nobody is teaching Buddhism nor Raelian religion in our schools as a scientific theoryÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ THATÃ¢â‚¬â„¢S the difference and thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s why this legal effort has perfect sense.Sladjo_{August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

(P1*P2)^N No doubt that the obtained number would be anyway less than UPBkairos_{August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT}

Scott I think that some rough computation could be actually done by considering: 1. the rough percentage of mountain contours that even only vaguely do resemble human faces => P1; 2. the a priori probability that a face contour could, only by chance, have a sufficient level of detail to ve confused with the work of an artist (this figure could be obtained through computer simulation) => P2; 3. with N faces an upper bound probability could be estimated by (P1*P2)^N No doubt that the obtained number would be anyway kairos_{August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

The topic at hand is a "materialistic approach". Materialism is a form of atheism. I'm not sure if some of the commenters understood that.geoffrobinson_{August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

Tom English "Even we earthlings, familiar as we are with natural processes on earth, do not know how to come up with a reasonable estimate of the probability." Yes, we earthlings have. In the case of Mt. Rushmore forming by natural processes we do indeed know how to come up with a reasonable estimate of the probability. The reasonable estimate is zero and it's arrived at by way of elimination. If you think of a reasonable reason it should be non-zero to a significant degree please give those reasons otherwise through the process of elimination you must agree that a reasonable estimate is zero. What we earthlings don't know how to do is arrive at a precise probability. There is some exceedingly small chance Mt. Rushmore could be a natural phenomenon but it's so small there's no way to give a precise number. Duh.DaveScot_{August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
01:00 AM
1
01
00
AM
PDT}

Ã¢â‚¬Å“I would like to hear from those who are religious and believe in TOE on this subject, if there are any out there who read this blog.Ã¢â‚¬Â Comment by Leo1787 Ã¢â‚¬â€ August 30, 2006 @ 2:26 pm My prediction: Leo will ignore these two questions altogether or he will try to dodge them. Comment by BarryA Ã¢â‚¬â€ August 30, 2006 @ 4:19 pm "Are there any materialists out there braver than Leo who want to take a shot at a response?" Comment by BarryA Ã¢â‚¬â€ August 30, 2006 @ 7:35 pm Barry, you threw down the gauntlet one hour and fifty-three minutes after Leo's last post. Don't you think it's just a bit egocentric to think that because you challenged him, he was still around? I have seen your challenge before, and I didn't bother with it because it is not much of a challenge. "1. He could infer from the specified complexity of the sculpture that it is not the result of the random erosion of the mountain, and based on this inference he could conclude that the sculpture is the result of design by an intelligent agent." No one has demonstrated the utility of CSI in design detection. You premise your point on an unverified claim of the efficacy of specified complexity. Perhaps the alien scientists have learned through experience not to rely on CSI. But let's consider the feasibility of estimating complexity. How does the alien compute the probability that natural processes on an unfamiliar planet would give rise to the formation? Even we earthlings, familiar as we are with natural processes on earth, do not know how to come up with a reasonable estimate of the probability. In other words, you are vesting in the alien a power you do not have yourself. I doubt you can tell me the CSI of Mount Rushmore. Last, and most important, how would the alien determine that Mount Rushmore is specified? He would have to recognize a pattern, wouldn't he? But why would we expect an alien to be sufficiently similar to humans to recognize the faces of Mount Rushmore as a pattern? He could be The Blob, for all you know. To recap, you beg the question of the utility of CSI. You make a bad assumption as to the feasibility of the complexity computation. And you make a bad assumption as to the ability of the alien to recognize a pattern that humans recognize. "If he chooses theory 1, would it be fair to accuse him of trying to inject the 'supernatural' into the debate when the theory says nothing about the nature or purpose of the intelligent agent who designed the sculpture?" And it's deja vu all over again. Reread the quote of Bill Dembski in my last post (#13). Bill used to acknowledge that design inference was a matter of rejecting natural causes in favor of a non-natural cause. I have always assumed that he avoided "supernatural" because of what judges said about the term in decisions against creationism. Other philosophers of science do not hesitate to say "supernatural." From dictionary.com: suÃ¢â‚¬Â§perÃ¢â‚¬Â§natÃ¢â‚¬Â§uÃ¢â‚¬Â§ral Ã¢â‚¬â€œadjective 1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal. 2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity. 3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed. 4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult. The appropriate sense in a design inference is the first. IDists want to avoid the second and fourth senses, but that does not mean that there is anything wrong with methodological naturalists like me using the word in its first sense. An intelligence that creates information stands "beyond what is natural." If you do not agree with the scientific stance that the process giving rise to the sculpture was purely matter, energy, and their interactions, then from the prevailing perspective (not just scientific) you are saying that Mount Rushmore is not natural. And it is supernatural (sense 1). This is fair. "ID proponents when they are attempting to account for specified complexity several orders of magnitude greater than that seen at Mount Rushmore" That looks like two CSI bluffs. How can you talk about the CSI of some unnamed entities being so much higher when you haven't estimated the CSI of Mount Rushmore?Tom English_{August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
12:48 AM
12
12
48
AM
PDT}

This is the problem with Fundamentalism. If a view, any view, conflicts with one of the foundational principles AKA "fundamental" that viewpoint is deemed atheistic or even worse it is deemed "evil". Coming from the viewpoint of the fundamentalist, I can completely understand the link. To disagree with a "fundamental" is tantamount to disagreeing with the existence of that deity completely. I always think of the Elvis analogy. I think he's dead. Is this atheistic? Is it even a religious viewpoint to think he's dead? What if their is some crazy Elvis cult who thinks that he's alive and is a God? Suddenly my viewpoint that Elvis is dead has become a religious viewpoint and to this cult, I'm atheistic. I just don't agree with that letter above, and I think millions of Christians who accept evolution would be offended to be considered an atheist because they disagree with a fundamental. Let's keep the fundies in the Middle East shall we? ;)Fross_{August 30, 2006
August
08
Aug
30
30
2006
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT}

The logic of Huey's note is execrable. Methodological naturalism is not atheism. The conflation of the two on this page is ironic, given Scott's warning: "One more reference to ID invoking the supernatural (or some related canard) and you will be permanently unselected from this blog." But Bill Dembski has written (http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm), "My broad conclusion is that information is not reducible to natural causes, and that the origin of information is best sought in intelligent causes. Intelligent design thereby becomes a theory for detecting and measuring information, explaining its origin, and tracing its flow." So intelligent causes are outside of nature. Now let me see... What's the word for "outside of nature"? Yes, I know that the ID movement has since decided that it is unfair to call information creation -- oops, the origin of information -- supernatural, and thus has decreed intelligence natural-but-not-material. It seems to me that IDists insist on others understanding their newspeak, but readily turn methodological naturalism into materialism and materialism into atheism to demonize their adversaries. I try to play it straight with you folks. I genuinely wish you would try to stick to the high road, and elevate the level of discourse a notch or two. I am a methodological naturalist, but you would have a hard time finding someone less materialistic in his personal beliefs and lifestyle than I am. The smear job is flat-out wrong.Tom English_{August 30, 2006
August
08
Aug
30
30
2006
11:19 PM
11
11
19
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply