Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Design Revolution by William Dembski
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1 of 68 (126800)
07-22-2004 11:10 PM


I checked this book out of the library recently and just started reading it. I thought I'd post a note whenever I came across something I wanted to comment on.
From the forward, by Charles Colson, Watergate felon and, as is true of so many former convicts, born-again Christian:
Over the years the fact-faith distinction became more firmly rooted so that, in the end, Western intellectuals insisted on basing both our science and our morality on naturalism.
Concerning the last part, at first I scoffed. Evolutionists don't derive their morality from naturalism! But then, I'm not an atheist, so I thought I'd better check. Any evolutionists out there deriving their morality from naturalism? Let us know!
This is a position we hear often here: atheists don't believe in God, so therefore they think anything they want to do is okay. But speaking just for myself, morality comes from inside, not from a book. I have never asked myself "What does the Bible say?" on any issue of morality. It always comes down to asking myself, "Is this right or wrong?"
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Chiroptera, posted 07-23-2004 12:33 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 07-23-2004 5:47 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 4 by mark24, posted 07-23-2004 8:21 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 8 by DBlevins, posted 07-23-2004 12:56 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 12 by jar, posted 07-23-2004 1:35 PM Percy has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 68 (126826)
07-23-2004 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
07-22-2004 11:10 PM


We just had this conversation on John Stear's Bible Board. Check out the thread "A few questions" started by Yobananaboy on July 10, 2004, 3:20 pm and the thread "Theist morality is vastly superior to Atheist morality!" started by Da Gangsta on July 14, 2004, 2:50 am.
The message board only holds so many posts, so the threads will disappear soon.
I post there as warren, by the way.
This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 07-22-2004 11:33 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 07-22-2004 11:10 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Brad McFall, posted 07-24-2004 3:00 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 3 of 68 (126906)
07-23-2004 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
07-22-2004 11:10 PM


How could you validly derive morality from naturalism ?
I think that morality can be explained in naturalistic terms but I don't think that that is the same thing at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 07-22-2004 11:10 PM Percy has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 4 of 68 (126924)
07-23-2004 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
07-22-2004 11:10 PM


Hi Percy,
I'm an atheist & as PaulK points out, I'm not sure how I could derive morality from naturalism anyway. I suppose my morality is based upon logic & consistency. If I wouldn't like something done to me, then I wouldn't do it to someone else. Were I going to formulate a law, would I hold myself to it as well as everyone else? The answer must be "yes". A whole load of obvious corollaries spring from this. Murder, theft, violence of any sort, become wrong. Pretty much any situation can be solved by the application of "would I consider that fair if it was imposed upon me".
I think "atheistic morality" can only be derived logically, not naturalistically.
Mark
This message has been edited by mark24, 07-23-2004 07:40 AM

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 07-22-2004 11:10 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by DBlevins, posted 07-23-2004 1:05 PM mark24 has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 5 of 68 (126933)
07-23-2004 9:21 AM


Non-Christian Intelligent Design Advocates?
From the forward by Colson again:
Bill Dembski has been in the vanguard of an exciting movement of thinkers, Christian and non-Christian,...
To me this seems a misrepresentation. I'm sure there must be a few non-Christian ID advocates, but isn't this for the most part a Christian movement? Isn't Colson painting a false picture that Christians have significant allies from other faiths?
Finishing the sentence:
...who effectively argue that naturalistic evolution can give no answers to the most vital questions of day.
Assuming that the most vital questions of the day are issues of faith and morality, I'd have to agree. But if he instead means scientific issues, such as how do we feed the planet's burgeoning population, then evolution proposes, to mention just a couple, selection and genetic modification solutions. Can anyone think of any contributions ID could make on this or other scientific issues?
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 08-07-2004 5:35 PM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 6 of 68 (126939)
07-23-2004 9:34 AM


ID a Scientific Revolution?
Moving on to the Preface by Dembski:
Nonetheless, there is good reason to think that intelligent design fits the bill as a full-scale scientific revolution. Indeed, not only is it challenging the grand idol of evolutionary biology (Darwinism), but it is also changing the ground rules by which the natural sciences are conducted.
But ID does not constitute a scientific revolution, and it doesn't even qualify as science. Like Colson, Dembski is painting a false picture. Everyone is entitled to blow their own horn, but the blare must not drown out the truth.
Dembski is trying to make it appear that there is a scientific debate on evolution, but isn't it still true that no papers supporting ID have ever been published in any peer reviewed journal? Those scientists who take an interest do not debate with other scientists about ID, but with Christian ID advocates. And the debates do not take place in letters to journals or at scientific conferences, but at forums set up by Christian advocacy groups.
I'm not against puffery per se, and ID is Dembski's pet idea, but this level of misrepresentation appears to go beyond that. He could have perhaps more legitimately charged a conspiracy to keep ID out of the halls of science, but he instead attempts to leave the false impression that ID has some level of scientific status.
--Percy
This message has been edited by Percy, 07-23-2004 08:35 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by NosyNed, posted 07-23-2004 10:52 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 10 by Loudmouth, posted 07-23-2004 1:20 PM Percy has replied
 Message 14 by jar, posted 07-23-2004 2:16 PM Percy has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 7 of 68 (126952)
07-23-2004 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
07-23-2004 9:34 AM


Vicarious Reading
Thank Percy, keep it coming.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 07-23-2004 9:34 AM Percy has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 8 of 68 (126980)
07-23-2004 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
07-22-2004 11:10 PM


Morality
As an Athiest, I thought I would present a short anecdote as a response to the question.
Long story shortened...
I had been discharged from the Navy for about 2 or 3 months and during that time I would bar hop over the weekend. Was great having the freedom to go wherever I wanted to. Well, one night I am playing pool and I look down and I see a bill laying on the floor. I pick it up and low and behold it's a $100 bill. It didn't occur to me to pocket the money, I just thought to myself that someone is probably pretty upset about losing this (If they weren't so drunk they thought they spent it). I promptly took it to the bar and told one of the bartenders that I had found this $100 bill on the floor.
If I had lost $100 in some bar I would think it is probably lost but I would definitly hope I could ask the bartender if it was found and for him to say "Sure, let me see. Yep, here it is."
The golden rule is how I try to run my life, in other words. All we can do is the best we can do, and be good to each other.
By the way, told this story to my girlfriends mother, who happens to be a deeply religious Catholic, and though she praised me for being a good guy, she said she would have kept it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 07-22-2004 11:10 PM Percy has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 9 of 68 (126983)
07-23-2004 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by mark24
07-23-2004 8:21 AM


Naturalistic Morality
I would have to agree with you and PaulK as well, but with a little caveat. I am not sure that morality is logical per se, but bound within a social context. Much of morality is learned from parents and peers. Idea's of moral behavior can differ across societies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by mark24, posted 07-23-2004 8:21 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by mark24, posted 07-23-2004 1:26 PM DBlevins has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 68 (126988)
07-23-2004 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
07-23-2004 9:34 AM


Re: ID a Scientific Revolution?
I especially take exception to:
but ID is also changing the ground rules by which the natural sciences are conducted.
I don't see this anywhere. It might have changed the creationist political movement, but I can't see anywhere in the scientific literature or in scientific methodologies that ID has had an effect. Does the author support his claim with anything? At most, it has created it's own section of discourse among creationists and evolutionists, both through online debates and the popular press, but I don't see how the practice of science has changed one bit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 07-23-2004 9:34 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 07-23-2004 2:08 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 36 by Brad McFall, posted 07-24-2004 3:12 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 11 of 68 (126992)
07-23-2004 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by DBlevins
07-23-2004 1:05 PM


Re: Naturalistic Morality
DBlevins,
Good point, but the question was how would an atheist derive morality. I agree that all that is held to be moral isn't necessarily consistent, although an example escapes me.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by DBlevins, posted 07-23-2004 1:05 PM DBlevins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 08-07-2004 5:47 PM mark24 has not replied
 Message 59 by DBlevins, posted 08-08-2004 5:49 PM mark24 has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 12 of 68 (126996)
07-23-2004 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
07-22-2004 11:10 PM


I think that the Path, as outlined by the Buddha is a great example.

1. Right View Wisdom
2. Right Intention
3. Right Speech Ethical Conduct
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort Mental Development
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Concentration
It shows a method of developing a moral code as well as a behavioural code that is outside any religious framework.
I would imagine that an Atheist would follow something similar in any endevour.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 07-22-2004 11:10 PM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 13 of 68 (127007)
07-23-2004 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Loudmouth
07-23-2004 1:20 PM


Re: ID a Scientific Revolution?
LoudMouth writes:
I especially take exception to:
but ID is also changing the ground rules by which the natural sciences are conducted.
I don't see this anywhere.
Thanks for picking up on this. I included this part of the quote because I intended to comment on it, but I must have gotten sidetracked.
I agree, of course, with everything you say. It has had no effect on the way science is practiced. Evidence gathered from experiment and observation is still the foundation of scientific theory, and ID has no evidence. Not only no evidence of God creating anything, but no evidence of God himself. They have no evidence of the process they are advocating, and not even any evidence of the prime mover behind that process. ID is as far from science as anyone could possibly imagine.
IDists will often say that the evidence of design is all around us, but they're never to provide an answer answer to the question, "How do you tell when something couldn't possibly have come about by natural processes, and when we just haven't been able to figure it out yet." The history of science is just chock full of supposed supernatural events being given scientific explanations. Of course, I know I'm preaching to the choir when I say this to you, but it's worth mentioning anyway.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Loudmouth, posted 07-23-2004 1:20 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 14 of 68 (127010)
07-23-2004 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
07-23-2004 9:34 AM


Re: ID a Scientific Revolution?
I still have a major problem with the IDists over their direction. They always seem to want to point to some of the most complex, most poorly designed and built objects and say, "Look, that could never have come about by accident".
IMHO, a more reasonable response would be, "No competent designer would ever have created such an abortion".

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 07-23-2004 9:34 AM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 15 of 68 (127058)
07-23-2004 4:37 PM


Signs of Intelligent Design
From the Preface:
Dembski writes:
Yet depending on where the intelligence makes itself evident, one may encounter fierce resistance to intelligent design. Archeologists attributing intelligent design to arrowheads or burial mounds is not controversial.
I recognize this argument. Someone used it here a few months ago when arguing for intelligent design, and I have the same answer now that I had then. Archeologists are not seeking signs of intelligent design, but signs of being man-made or of human origin. Archeologists, being human themselves and actually living among communities of humans, and having a specialized educational background, are fairly reliable at identifying signs of human manufacture.
IDists, however, are not gods, do not live among a community of gods, and have received no educational training in recognizing the handiwork of gods. They have no everyday nor professional experience at recognizing what has been made by gods and what has occurred naturally.
What we do know is that as time goes on, the signs of the work of gods or of God retreat from the everyday toward the rare, far-off, difficult to observe or ambiguous. Where once a burning bush was the sign of God, now it is a micro-biological propellor. And as microbiologists unravel the evolutionary pathways of propellor evolution, ID will have to retreat yet again.
But biologists attributing intelligent design to biological structures raises tremendous anxiety, not only in the scientific community, but in the broader culture as well.
Once more tooting his own horn, Dembski seems to believe the "ID revolution" has shaken the halls of science. This couldn't be further from the truth. ID merits no attention, and certainly no anxiety, within scientific circles.
But Dembski is right about the broader culture, of course. ID has generated much anxiety among those concerned about science education because the Creationist movement has now latched onto ID as their latest, favorite path into public school science classrooms. Where at one time Creationists wanted coverage of a sanitized Genesis, they now demand coverage of ID.
The plain truth is that they really don't care what means are used to cast doubts on evolution. They don't care about the science, they just care about what they perceive as a challenge to their faith. If sanitized Genesis can do it, that's fine by them. But if that doesn't work, then if ID can do it, that's fine by them. And if ID doesn't work, then they'll latch onto whatever comes next, because their professed concern for science is but crocodile tears.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by SRO2, posted 07-23-2004 4:59 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 17 by Loudmouth, posted 07-23-2004 5:13 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 19 by paisano, posted 07-23-2004 6:12 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 37 by Brad McFall, posted 07-24-2004 3:21 PM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024