|The whole truth
Joined: Jan. 2012
|Quote (JLT @ May 04 2012,23:46)|
|Did anyone read Todd Wood's response to Dembski (Part I, Part II)? |
I'm not very interested in the compatibility stuff, not my problem. Darrell Falk's response was not at all what I had expected, though, it was basically a 'This is what I believe' declaration, and for the main part, he was
kissing Dembski's backside agreeing with Dembski. One difference between the two was their take on human exceptionalism. Dembski seems to believe that humans should be qualitatively different than animals in a scientifically detectable way, and if science says otherwise, too bad for science. Falk OTOH says that God cares for us makes us exceptional, so no problem.
Both seem to agree that if science doesn't agree with something they believe, science must be dismissed.
I just don't get it.
Anyway, this is from Todd's response:
|Even odder, though, are the non-negotiables* for Darwinism: Common ancestry of all organisms, natural selection as the primary mechanism of evolution, humans continuous with other animals, and methodological naturalism. For an evolutionary biologist, however, the first three of those non-negotiables are entirely derived from interpretations of evidence. Could you have an evolutionary biologist who doubted the efficacy of natural selection to explain most of evolution? Sure, there have already been such evolutionists. Could you have an evolutionary biologist who thinks humans (or maybe some other critters) did not come from the same ancestor as everything else? Of course. Here's a famous one:|
|I believe that animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number. Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, and their laws of growth and reproduction. ... Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.|
So if Darwin himself equivocated on one of the non-negotiables of Darwinism, does that make him not a Darwinist?
And that brings me to my final concern: The ubiquitous use of "Darwinist" and "Darwinism." The way Dembski uses it implies that it is some kind of dogmatism, as if it actually had non-negotiables. Since three of Dembski's four non-negotiables are contingent on evidence, I'm not sure what a "Darwinist" could be philosophically. Dogmatically committed to an untenable scientific position? I am dubious such a creature would exist (present company excepted, of course). If we think of Darwinism as the version of evolution that Darwin believed, then there are no Darwinists left, since science has advanced much in 150 years.
|A consistent methodological naturalist when confronted with Christ's resurrection (or any miracle) could only say that science is extremely limited in such cases to understand what happened or how. There is no way that methodological naturalism could rule out the miraculous. That's what philosophical naturalism does. Dembski insists that evolutionary creationists "have to confront why this naturalism [i.e., methodological] shouldn’t extend to salvation history as well." Frankly, I'm not sure what the problem would be. If methodological naturalism means that science limits itself to naturalistic explanations (as Dembski himself asserts), then science would merely have nothing to say about Christ's resurrection. How is that incompatible with Christian theology? It sounds like Dembski is conflating methodological and philosophical naturalism.|
This is what Falk should've said, instead of his own version of the Nicene creed.
*According to Dembski:
|Non-Negotiables of Christianity:|
(C1) Divine Creation: God by wisdom created the world out of nothing.
(C2) Reflected Glory: The world reflects God’s glory, a fact that ought to be evident to humanity.
(C3) Human Exceptionalism: Humans alone among the creatures on earth are made in the image of God.
(C4) Christ’s Resurrection: God, in contravention of nature’s ordinary powers, raised Jesus bodily from the dead.
Non-Negotiables of Darwinism:
(D1) Common Descent: All organisms are related by descent with modification from a common ancestor.
(D2) Natural Selection: Natural selection operating on random variations is the principal mechanism responsible for biological adaptations.
(D3) Human Continuity: Humans are continuous with other animals, exhibiting no fundamental difference in kind but only differences in degree.
(D4) Methodological Naturalism: The physical world, for purposes of scientific inquiry, may be assumed to operate by unbroken natural law.
I just read Wood's response to dembski and I grimaced when I saw this paragraph:
"For those still not quite sure what to make of me, let me say again that I'm a young-age creationist, and I have profound and troubling disagreements with evolutionary creationism. I also happen to believe that the disagreement over evolution isn't getting anywhere and that the strategies creationists have employed to debate the issue have been colossal failures. Insofar as Dembski's essay is yet another unsatisfactory rehash of old arguments, I think it too will fall on deaf ears. Resolving this conflict (which I think is quite possible) will require much more than just more of the same."
I wonder what "evolutionary creationism" is. I wonder even more about why creationists need "strategies" of any kind, for any reason. If their chosen god actually exists, and is as powerful as they claim it is, then why doesn't that so-called god just show its fucking face to everyone on Earth and settle the "conflict"? A being that could create an entire universe could EASILY prove its existence.
All the crap about "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter", and especially concealing itself, and all the other bullshit spewed by religious kooks who make every excuse imaginable as to why their so-called god hides itself is just plain lame and diversionary. A couple thousand years ago their chosen god (and its illegitimate son) allegedly did lots of awesome things right out in the open to prove its existence and powers, but lately it must be taking an extended nap or is just too chicken to show up. And don't forget that the christian god, and most or all other gods, are depicted as demanding, jealous, vengeful, petty, murderous, violent, genocidal, all powerful tyrants that won't tolerate any disobedience. Would such a god hide from us lowly humans?
Edited by The whole truth on May 07 2012,02:36
Fellatio is in fact a type of sodomy - gordon e mullings
I don't even know what that means- "study CSI". - joe g
Joe G is the only person I have ever encountered who could start a fight in an empty room and still manage to lose. - Amadan