Re: [asa] Expelled and ID

From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
Date: Wed Apr 23 2008 - 19:52:47 EDT

I really enjoy Stephen Barr's work and he's a very interesting guy. Query
though: is cosmological design really not a form of "ID"? It seems to me
that many people who find cosmological design arguments potentially helpful
are put off of biological design arguments because of the overstatement,
politicization, etc. of the "ID movement" -- myself included. So making a
distinction between cosmological and biological ID is almost more of a
necessary difference in politics, style, and emphasis.

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Dennis Venema <Dennis.Venema@twu.ca> wrote:

> *>Well I can tell you that later in the book he says that cosmological
> design is now stronger than ever before. (of course this is different than
> biological design).
> *
> We had Stephen Barr on the TWU campus a few weeks ago – he has no use for
> ID at all; indeed, he was at pains in his talks to distinguish cosmological
> design from ID lest anyone be confused.
>
> dennis
>
>
>
> On 4/23/08 2:35 PM, "David Clounch" <david.clounch@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Don,
> Can I say something else? I've been searching for this and couldnt find
> it because its actually on page 1.
>
> Stephen M Barr says, "The fact of the matter is there <i>is</i> a bitter
> intellectual debate going on, and it is about real issues. However, the
> conflict is not between religion and science. It is between religion and
> materialism."
>
> He says of materialism..."it is not science".
> ...
> "The basic tenet of so-called 'scientific materialism' is that nothing
> exists except matter, and that everything in the world must therefore be the
> result of the strict mathematical laws of physics and blind chance."
>
> He says on page 2, "Paradoxically, these discoveries, coming from the
> study of the material world itself, have given fresh reasons to disbelieve
> that matter is the only ultimate reality."
>
> He goes on to make some statements about various aspects of scientific
> materialism.
> ...
> "Scientific materialism also comes in more refined philosophical forms.
> Here its critique of religion is essentially epistemological. It is
> acknowledge that there are religious ideas which have a certain intellectual
> appeal and internal consistency, but they are rejected as being unsupported
> by evidence. The assertions made by religion, it is said, cannot be tested,
> and therefore cannot be accepted by a person who wants to be guide dby
> reason rather than by wishful thinking."
>
> "Finally there is the 'scientific' part of scientific materialism, which
> argues that religion, however believable it may once have been, has now been
> discredited by science."
>
> [AN ASIDE: This is the conclusion I was referring to. I have heard it on
> campus many times. It is clear is is a claim beinmg made in the name of
> science on campuses].
>
> "According to this view, the world revealed by scientific discovery over
> the last few centuries simply does not look anything like what we were
> taught to believe by religion. It is this claim I shall subject to critical
> scrutiny in this book. the question before us then, is whether the actual
> dicoveries of science have undercut the the central claims of religion,
> specifically the great monotheistic religions of the Bible, Judaism and
> Christianity, or whether those discoveries have have actually, in certain
> important respects, damaged the credibility of materialism."
>
> Well I can tell you that later in the book he says that cosmological
> design is now stronger than ever before. (of course this is different than
> biological design).
>
>
> He says on page 16:
>
> "As we examine some of the arguments for materialism later, we shall see
> that ultimately all of them are completely circular. they all seem to boil
> down in the end to "materialism is true because materialism <i>must</i> be
> true. The fact seems to be that materialism is completely fideistic in
> nature."
>
> On page 106 he says,
> "If the <i>ultimate</i> laws of nature are, as scientists can now begin to
> discern, of great subtlety beauty, one must ask where this design comes
> from. Can science explain it?
> .....science really has no alternative to offer to the Argument From
> Design.
> (please read his reasoning first hand, I didnt include it)
>
> He says the only tenable possibility is chance.
>
> If that is the case (again, please see his argument for this) then I have
> my own reasons for disbelieving that chance explains everything.
>
> Just thought you would find Barr to be interesting reading, Don.
>
> Dave (ASA member)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 2:21 PM, David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Don,
>
>
> They are looking for ways to identify design.
>
> I think I disagree. I think they have been looking for ways to identify
> what is natural versus what is not natural. let me be more specific.
> Natural re-arrangements of pre-existing material, versus non-natural
> re-arrangements. And their detractors are looking for the exactly that
> same criteria too. Except for one group: those who are driven by an
> ideology that says by definition there cannot be anything but natural
> phenomena because nothing else exists. The latter is a form of materialism.
>
>
>
>
> From what has been said, you imply that design is a testable hypothesis.
> Yes, it is. But mainstream scientists attack ID as being non-scientific.
>
>
> But they dont do this based on science. If something by definition cannot
> be tested (cannot be evaluated by science) then how can someone use
> science to draw a conclusion? It is impossible, and thus it is illogical to
> claim that science was used to reach a viewpoint.
>
>
>
> They can't have it both ways.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by your last phrase ".. science hasn't
> concluded". Both the NAS and AAAS apparently have concluded.
>
>
> What do they claim? But it is really important that they back it up
> with science in the exact same sense and the exact same way that they claim
> science is used to reach all other scientific conclusions. That is the
> potential disconnect. You cannot say it is impossible to test something,
> and then to simultaneously claim to have tested something. To do so makes
> one look like an idiot.
>
>
> They rule out any possible explanation that is not "natural".
>
>
> And this, which is itself a both conclusion and a belief, was tested
> how? In the absence of testing it sounds like fideism or dogma. Neither of
> which is supposed to be a characteristic of science. Is it an "ultimate"
> sort of belief, affecting "ultimate questions"?
>
> On the other hand, since science is allegedly "tentative", if (the ruling
> out ) is a "tentative belief" (and thus subject to change as new
> information becomes available) then that might be different. In a legal
> sense.
>
>
> Sounds like they have already made up their minds.
>
> Maybe.
>
> Cheers,
> Dave (ASA member)
>
>
>
>
> Don (ASA member)
> ________________________________________
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of
> David Clounch [david.clounch@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:15 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] Expelled and ID
>
> skrogh,
>
> >"Since there is no lab test that can be used to tell what is designed or
> what isn't"
>
> I think I actually agree with you somewhat here. I've been saying for
> years that first we must be able to measure design. Then and only then
> should we worry about what the implications might be if we obtained a result
> from the measurement.
>
> But if someone is going to claim that something is all natural (ie, due to
> all natural processes) shouldn't one first be able to measure the
> difference between a natural phenomenon and a non-natural phenomenon? If
> science cannot measure this then how can science reach a conclusion that
> everything is natural?
>
> The answer is, science hasn't concluded.
>
> But there are design detectors. These exist between the ears of humans.
> Now, if one is going to tell people that "science says they are wrong",
> shouldn't one be able to at least have science objectively measure what is
> designed and what isn't? If your premise is correct, then those making
> this claim that "science says they are wrong", (or perhaps even that
> believers in design are being irrational) have a serious credibility
> problem with the public.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 8:44 PM, skrogh. <panterragroup@mindspring.com
> <mailto:panterragroup@mindspring.com> <panterragroup@mindspring.com>>
> wrote:
> Thanks for the input, but that is not what we are really talking about
> with my modicum of sarcasm. I am talking about Design in the ID movement in
> trying to compete with legit sciences, not as in that 70's song "Master
> Designer." Since there is no lab test that can be used to tell what is
> designed or what isn't or nothing that can falsify it. Similar to trying to
> falsify Omphalism. Hope that clears it up.
>
> =========================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Opderbeck [
> mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com<mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>]<dopderbeck@gmail.com%3Cmailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com%3E%5D>
> Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 8:34 PM
> To: panterragroup@mindspring.com<mailto:panterragroup@mindspring.com><panterragroup@mindspring.com>
> Cc: D. F. Siemens, Jr.; asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu><asa@calvin.edu>
> Subject: Re: [asa] Expelled and ID
>
> Whatever you think if ID, "bad design" is a poor response if you believe
> in a creator God at all. However God created, this is we He did, "bad"
> designs and all. Unless you profess a God who isn't in control over
> whatever procesess He used to create.
>
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 3:21 PM, skrogh. <panterragroup@mindspring.com
> <mailto:panterragroup@mindspring.com> <panterragroup@mindspring.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Bad designs haven't seemed to gotten through the ID design detector.
> =========================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu><asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>[
> mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>]On<asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu%3Cmailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu%3E%5DOn>Behalf Of D. F. Siemens, Jr.
> Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 10:35 PM
> To: panterragroup@mindspring.com<mailto:panterragroup@mindspring.com><panterragroup@mindspring.com>
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu> <asa@calvin.edu>
> Subject: Re: [asa] Expelled and ID
>
> I think there is one which does so in principle. It's opposite would
> justify ID. If we have sequenced the genomes of all the species, or at least
> all the species in one kingdom, and figured out exactly how all the various
> parts work, if we discover some genes/control sequences/whatever else comes
> up that cannot be derived from others earlier in the evolutionary
> development, we presumably have evidence that they were introduced by the
> deity or some superior power. This is sure evidence for ID. However, the
> current indication is that we have sequences in genomes that simply preserve
> stuff from the past, which is clear evidence against ID. Things are too
> sloppy to be designed, unless the designer intends to mislead us.
>
> Generally, given the state of human knowledge, proof and falsification are
> claims too strong to be supported.
> Dave (ASA)
>
> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:46:02 -0500 "skrogh." <panterragroup@mindspring.com
> <mailto:panterragroup@mindspring.com> <panterragroup@mindspring.com>>
> writes:
> Also, can one conceive of a potential observation that would falsify ID?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu><asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>[
> mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>]On<asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu%3Cmailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu%3E%5DOn>Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
> Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 5:39 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu> <asa@calvin.edu>
> Subject: RE: [asa] Expelled and ID
>
>
> ID is saying it is "science" so it can be more serious. To make it
> science, you have to bear on scientific things, such as math (statistics)
> and biology. So they are appealing to the hard sciences to bring it into
> the scientific realm.
>
>
>
> However, they have no scientific hypothesis. "God made it" is not a
> hypothesis, since it can't be tested. By definition, the scientific method
> requires a hypothesis that can be tested. You also can't test evolution per
> "origin of life," but there are other parts of evolution which are testable…
> ID has nothing testable. They think by disproving known naturalistic
> methods, God is then the default answer—but it isn't.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu><asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>[
> mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>]<asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu%3Cmailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu%3E%5D>On Behalf Of Mountainwoman
> Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 2:10 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu> <asa@calvin.edu>
> Subject: [asa] Expelled and ID
>
>
>
> Having just seen Ben Stein's "Expelled," one thought that occurred to me
> is the following:
>
>
>
> Is Intelligent Design a modern incarnation of the classic teleological
> argument for the existence of God and therefore belongs in the philosophy
> and/or theology departments of universities rather than in the science
> departments?
>
>
>
> Paul Bruggink (ASA Member)
>
> Clarington, PA
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Apr 23 19:53:53 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 23 2008 - 19:53:53 EDT