Re: [asa] RE: (irreducible complexity and evolution) design and the nature of science (was: Re: [asa] Re: Gingerich on TE and ID)

From: Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
Date: Fri Jun 19 2009 - 05:32:51 EDT

Iain wrote:
<I'll bet for most people, the real force of the argument is looking at one of those stunning images and thinking they look man-made.>

While I wouldn,t make a bet on it, let this be told as exactly an example of ,anthropomorphism, that ,intelligent design, falls prey to. This is because they don,t employ human-social scholars, but mainly natural and applied (engineering, programming) scientists and public relations people. Such is the situation in Anglo-American ,science and religion, discourse. I am one person who would rather break the boundaries to new ground.
 
Siding with Perakh (as Iain feins to suggest) doesn,t seem to be a satisfactoy answer, however, given that he is anthropomorphic too!
 

--- On Fri, 6/19/09, Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [asa] RE: (irreducible complexity and evolution) design and the nature of science (was: Re: [asa] Re: Gingerich on TE and ID)
To: asa@calvin.edu
Received: Friday, June 19, 2009, 2:48 AM

Heya Iain,

I'm not an educated scientist by any stretch of the words. I'm not even a philosopher. At most I'm just very interested in this subject.

That aside, I'd have to strongly disagree again. I think appearances are impressive, and I chalk that up mostly to typically neat computer animation. But I think the force of the presentation comes from the principles being demonstrated, rather than some passing resemblance to a larger object. Doubly so when human creations are no longer restricted to those typically "large" objects.

Keep in mind the other side of this particular coin. First, just how many times (and in how uncontested and authoritative a venue) have we been told that nature's operations and creations are mindless, purposeless, blind, unguided, unforeseen, etc? Second, just how far has our own technology advanced - primitive as it would be in comparison to such a "Designer"? So I'd ask the opposite question: How honest is it to present nature and biological artifacts in such a way, in light of our being able to recognize engineering and programming principles at work in nature (even if 'disputed', the dispute is enough to shatter those given descriptions), and in light of our own technological advances (which makes "design" on such levels not only possible in principle, but in increasing degrees demonstrated in practice)?

I have some criticisms of how the ID camp conducts themselves. But aggressively pushing the view of nature and natural objects as designed or part of a design - evolution included - is philosophical area I could not agree with them more strongly about. __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jun 19 05:33:19 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 19 2009 - 05:33:19 EDT