From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Mon Apr 25 2005 - 17:12:11 BST
Ian:
Msh said:
> You are the one who claims that Paley's analogy, a rational argument,
> supports the notion of an intelligent creator of the universe, so you
> obviously believe that reality conforms to man's reason.
Ham replied:
> That is a non sequitor. A rational argument can support a proposition
> (A) without having to support the rationality of a proposition (B). It
> does not follow that reality must conform to man's reason simply
> because there is rational evidence of a creator.
Ian comments:
> Rational argument doesn't have to follow syllogistic logic, full stop.
> I've pointed out before, and you seem to have missed, that the
> corollary of that last sentence is not just a non-sequitor, but
> totally meaningless. If we forget the cause / effect implications of
> the two halves of your statement for a moment ... and look at just one
> assertion ...
> "Reality [need] not conform to man's reason"
>
> Forget the second half of your statement for just a minute, and as a
> man (presumably) just think about that assertion.
I must be missing something here, Ian, but I don't understand your
criticism. Mark
claims that I believe (ultimate) reality conforms to man's reason, which I
deny. The fact that I think the watchmaker analogy is a convincing rational
argument does not mean that I believe reality is based on rationality. I
happen to believe that existence has a meaning and purpose for man.
However, we were discussing the validity (or invalidity) of rational
arguments, not what I believe.
Mark seems to put much stock in Hume's refutation of the Ontological
Argument.
Hume constructs the analogy of a house (the design of which is evident),
then says we can't assume the universe to be "designed" because the universe
is not like a house. Presumably Hume would have said a watch isn't like a
house, either; but its intended purpose is far more implicit in its design
than the assemblage of parts that forms a house.
Paley's watch and the design of an ordinary mousetrap illustrate the
principle of "irreducible complexity" -- the theory that complex biological
systems appear very unlikely to be produced by numerous, successive, slight
modifications of prior systems because any precursor that was missing a
crucial part could not function. The existence in nature of irreducibly
complex biological systems is an empirical fact that poses a significant
challenge to Darwinian theory.
You can find an excellent discussion of this principle at Natural History
magazine's website, http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html.
I'd be interested in what you and Mark consider to be valid refutation of
this theory, since apparently several MD participants feel that mousetrap
and watch analogies have long since been dismissed as invalid ID arguments.
Essentially yours,
Ham
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 25 2005 - 17:15:32 BST