Re: [asa] Natural Agents - Cause and Effect, Non-Natural Agents

From: Gregory Arago <>
Date: Thu May 28 2009 - 17:37:00 EDT

Hi Terry, Randy and others,
Yes, I fully agree with your call, Terry, for a richer ontology. I also agree with you that the sovereign academic language of diverse spheres (if this is what you meant) is where/how the academic world breaks down and is fragmented. Unity of knowledge is possible only when the various dimensions or <aspects> are considered in their own terms (i.e. not forced by <outsiders>) and in their enkaptic (or intertwined) wholeness.
As you know, Terry, I have studied Dooyeweerd and respect his views. Though I would call myself only a neo-Dooyeweerdian, due to the fact that he didn,t complete his <anthropological> treatise. His 32 theses on anthropology failed to confront the notion of <evolution>, funny enough. His mentor Kuyper came down strongly against evolutionism as a dogma, choking the 19th century. Dooyeweerd seems to have come down on the side of process ideas and flux, bowing to the <universal science of evolution>, thus imo imbalancing his unity-in-diversity-centred philosophy (he turned too far away as a Dutchman from the German philosophical tradition, perhaps).

In any case, I think the term <creational> instead of <natural> is a helpful addition to the discussion, though I wonder who will pick it up and apply it. Maybe you could give some examples of where it might come in handy. Much of the play with prefixes to the term <natural> is clouding the discussion. I hope we can move beyond it.
Randy wrote:
<My use of the terms "natural" or "physical" is what I think is common among my colleagues: it includes all human actions, choices, emotions, etc.>
Following this logic, it is <natural> for men and women to fall in love and to have children, but it is also <natural> for them to marry and have no children, not marry and have children, or have children but not be in love. It is <natural> for men and women to be thankful for help from their neighbours during times of need, but it is also <natural> for people to kill their neighbours for a scrap of bread when there is not enough food to go around. It is <natural> to hate and to care for others, to try and to be lazy, to bite the giving hand and to give generously, to envy and to be satisfied, to scold and to encourage, to lie and to tell the truth, to trust and to suspect, to hoard and to share, etc. All of these things count as <natural>. It is <natural> that wars occur, that insurrections take place, that friends betray friends and loved ones and that revolutions happen. Genocide is a <natural> thing and so is rape and murder. Discipline and order
 is <natural>, but so is disloyalty and anarchy. It is <natural> for children and elders fill in the blank with wild or tame stories. In other words, if *everything* human beings do is called <natural>, then great evils, along with great goods, can be committed in the name of <natural> behaviour and action.
<Don,t worry,> says the fatalist, <it is just the nature of things.>
Your theory or approach to the term <natural>, Randy, runs off the rails when it comes to ethics and morality. And it entirely fails to take into consideration what makes us special as human beings created in the image of God; we are <more than *just* natural.>
If it is <common among your colleagues> to overlook this, then I suggest you find some new colleagues to include in your mixture of fellow discussants and confidants.  

You say, Randy, that you <have always considered all social sciences to be <natural> as opposed to <non-natural> or <supernatural> or whatever term is in favor.> - Randy
I,m pretty clear on my distinctions, Randy. If you say <whatever term is in favor> it might appear that you are not the one setting the terms, building your own encyclopedia, making your own speech acts, but rather reacting to the dictates of others (e.g. evolutionary biologists). I don,t consider <all social sciences to be natural>, for reasons evident in arguing against your use of <natural> above. This is why I take offence to the silly ideology that MN = science, and that science *only* studies nature. It doesn,t. There are other categories than <natural> that afford a better, more holistic view, a richer ontology, than what is currently presented by most natural scientists at ASA or even by the <natural science and religion> dia-logue.
Perhaps it is time that ASA got itself sorted out on this. Or would that not be <natural>? 
--- On Thu, 5/28/09, Terry M. Gray <> wrote:

From: Terry M. Gray <>
Subject: Re: [asa] Natural Agents - Cause and Effect, Non-Natural Agents
To: "ASA" <>
Received: Thursday, May 28, 2009, 7:11 PM

Greg, Randy, and others,

Perhaps we should substitute the word "creational" for "natural" when this is what we mean. Besides, the word "nature", when analyzed carefully, implies autonomy and self-existence, rather than radical dependence on the Creator.

The only pitfall I see is that angelic, demonic, and Satanic activity would be "creational" in addition to human and social behavior.

While I expect this to go nowhere, I will put in a plea for a richer ontology, say, along the lines of Hermann Dooyeweerd, where we don't just have natural vs. supernatural or physical vs. human, but we have a range of options each with their own unique philosophical dimensions and methodologies: thus, mathematical, physical, biological, psychological, social, economic, political, pistic, etc. In fact, this is how the academic world really does break down and why it's often difficult for social scientists to talk to physicists.


On May 28, 2009, at 5:32 AM, Randy Isaac wrote:

> Greg,
>   You and I may have different definitions of "natural" or perhaps even "physical" and so you attribute positions to me that I don't hold. I tried to explicitly define terms but perhaps it wasn't clear. My use of the terms "natural" or "physical" is what I think is common among my colleagues: it includes all human actions, choices, emotions, etc. Perhaps the only human function not included are communion with God, indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I would consider that as supernatural though natural processes are inevitably involved.
>   Yes, I know that in universities sometimes the "natural sciences" are distinguished from the "social sciences" but we're not using the term "natural" in that sense. I've never had a problem with and have always considered all social sciences to be "natural" as opposed to "non-natural" or "supernatural" or whatever term is in favor.
>   Randy
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gregory Arago
> To: ; Randy Isaac
> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 9:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Natural Agents - Cause and Effect, Non-Natural Agents
> Hi Randy,
> We,ve had versions of this discussion before on the ASA listserve and I appreciate that you recognize the difficulties in distinguishing human-made things from non-human-made things. You have, however, if memory serves me correctly, indicated that it is possible to recognize <artificial> things as distinct from <natural> things, while also admitting a grey zone.
> Your new acronyms are in some ways helpful and in other ways they further confuse the conversation (just like MN vs. MN). But first things first, I think you,ve mislabelled what you consider to be <the question.> Or at least, I don't see demarcating <science> from <non-science> as the main topic. It puts all of the focus on <science> (as a single, monolithic term) and nothing on the differences between the sciences, which include the use of various methods, strategies, approaches, theories, paradigms, etc.
> Randy wrote: <The question is <Can science detect design?> My response was that you [Cameron] must first specify what design we are discussing.>
> Another way to phrase your question is <What kind of design can science detect?> Phrasing <the question> this way would offer room for Mike Gene,s positive approach to design and would perhaps satisfy Cameron,s notion that <Darwinism,> which (as an ideology) is inconsistent with Christianity, banished the concept of <design> forever from the academy. I don,t think you,re suggesting that <design> simply *cannot* be a <scientific> concept by definition. Or are you Randy? Those who argue this are predominantly atheists or agnostic anti-theists.
> It might do some good for TEs/ECs in terms of kingdom communication to at least accept that *some* kinds of <design> are scientifically detectable. But *which* kinds? Let me be clear though Randy, that I,m not necessarily speaking about <origins of life> or <origins of consciousness> as topics for which <design> should be allowed in <scientific> hypotheses. Surely you personally have <designed> many things in your life, which are amenable to scientific study?
> That said, let me address your PT and MT acronyms, what they reveal and what they obscure. First, I think you,ll find IDists welcoming to the idea you suggest of  at least considering <teleology> in scientific realms. Your position, it seems, however, is that <metaphysical is philosophical,> while <physical is scientific>. But I don,t see any reason that responsible overlap between them cannot take place so that philosophy can help science (natural-physical and/or human-social) with the unity of knowledge. Without philosophy, science is just fragmented specialisation by elites (a kind of new priesthood) in our (mass) <scientific age>.
> You write:
> <PT is design as carried out by a phyiscal entity having some degree of intelligence taking some action mediated by the four fundamental forces (E&M, gravity, strong, and weak).>
> Here,s where the problems and obscurantism come in. A <physical entity with intelligence> is not *merely* a physical entity. And saying that such an entity is <natural> is also problematic. This is because, as a character that most under-40 <young peopole> can understand, when he was faced by a deterministic (cf. evolutionary) view of history and the future, once said: <The problem is choice.> You,ve placed human-made and (other) animal-made things in the same category of PT. Certainly people have goals and purposes and plans, and therefore <teleology> is an appropriate concept to apply to the building of temples or pyramids, etc. But you need to recognise non-natural sciences, Randy.
> It seems to me that Cameron,s argument, and perhaps Mike Gene,s too, is that <intelligent causes> needn,t be excluded a priori from <science>. Of course, then my questions (which are part of the recent field called PSS - philosophy and sociology of science) then are: <which science?> and <whose science?> And that is a big deal on topics such as whether or not science can *only* study <natural> things. If you,ve read my long critique of Keith Miller,s position, Randy, there I argue that <science> can study non-natural things too. Do you agree with this or not?
> You,ve give an example, Randy, where <intelligent causes> are not necessarily the same as <supernatural causes>. So, it doesn,t seem, as you say, that it is <logical to conclude that the intelligent agent in question is divine.> But if the <agent> in question is not <divine> or <supernatural>, I don,t think the IDM,s impact would be as important, nor do I think they would have much ground on which to stand in suggesting that they are offering a <bridge between science and theology>.
> I see nothing wrong with elevating the concept of <intelligence> among scientists, or of highlighting the idea of <pattern recognition> or <specification>. Nevertheless, it is in partnering natural-physical scientists (i.e. where <intelligence> is already studied wrt non-human life forms, e.g. animals) with human-social scientists (i.e. where <intelligence> is already studied wrt humanity) that the most significant advancescan be made in the 21st century. Unfortunately, the IDM has not yet taken such steps to create such a union; nor has the leadership of ASA.
> Gregory
> --- On Sun, 5/24/09, Randy Isaac <> wrote:
> From: Randy Isaac <>
> Subject: Re: [asa] Natural Agents - Cause and Effect, Non-Natural Agents
> To:
> Received: Sunday, May 24, 2009, 3:11 AM
> Cameron wrote:
> 7.  The rest of Keith Miller's argument is more or less the same as Randy Isaac's.  He argues that one cannot infer design without some prior knowledge of the designer or the means.  I would like to make two points about this  (A) Even if he is right, he still has not established that ID tries to "investigate divine action".  Design-inference in ID is not God-inference (all IDers concede that God can be identified with the designer only by non-scientific arguments), and in any case, God's *effects* are not the same as God's invisible *actions*.  ID as a theory, therefore, does not "investigate divine action", in any reasonable sense of that phrase.  But it makes great theological rhetoric, which is why TE people keep using it.  This greatly disappoints me.  (B) The argument that prior knowledge of either the designer or the means is required for design detection strikes me as unsound, but to establish that will require a separate post.  So I
 will leave it here for the moment.
> Let me try a differnt path to help explain. The question is "Can science detect design?" My response was that you must first specify what design we are discussing. At the expense of inventing two new acronyms, let's separate design into two aspects:  Physical Teleology (PT) and Metaphysical Teleology (MT). PT is design as carried out by a phyiscal entity having some degree of intelligence taking some action mediated by the four fundamental forces (E&M, gravity, strong, and weak). Examples abound and include a bee hive built by bees, a Mayan temple, an Egyptian pyramid, an ant hill, Olduwan tools, etc. Maybe plant intelligence would also be included though I'm still learning about that. MT is any design in the physical world perpetrated by a metaphyiscal entity with means other than the four fundamental forces. Examples would be angels, demons, spirits, or God carrying out events like speaking or appearing in a dream, sending pigs over a cliff, water
 becoming wine, etc.
> Using this terminology, let's rephrase your question and break it into several parts:
> Can science detect PT? Yes.
> Has science detected PT in the origin and/or development of living cells? No.
> Can science detect MT? No.
> Has science detected MT in living cells? No.
> Note that determining jugs to contain water at one point in time and wine at a subsequent point with no known exchange of liquids doesn't constitute detection of MT. And this example illustrates why science cannot detect MT no matter how much we may wish it could. The effects are not repeatable or obtainable under controlled situations. One can only document the state of the system at various points in time but not trace the Hamiltonian that effects the transition.
> As for your being "greatly disappoint[ed]" that some people keep using the "great theological rhetoric" of ID investigating divine action, it really isn't clear what ID is investigating. It has often been noted on this list that it is bewildering that ID advocates usually get very upset when ID is defined as stating "there are patterns in nature that are best explained by the actions of a supernatural (aka divine) agent," insisting that it must be "...intelligent agent" and not supernatural. The only logical reason for such insistence (other than the strategic desire to keep ID non-religious to allow it in the classroom) is that natural (or physical since some people were upset on this list about the definition of natural) agents are a reasonable option. That notion runs into difficulty rather quickly upon reflection. And so, unless one believes in other influential spiritual (i.e. nonphysical) beings with creative powers, it seems logical to conclude
 that the intelligent agent in question is divine. Bewildering indeed.
> Randy
> Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer® 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free!

Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
(o) 970-491-7003  (f) 970-491-1801

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu May 28 17:37:45 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 28 2009 - 17:37:45 EDT