From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Mon Apr 25 2005 - 22:26:34 BST
On 25 Apr 2005 at 12:12, hampday@earthlink.net wrote:
I don't think you can reasonably deny that this house analogy and
Paley's watchmaker analogy both provide evidence that a Creator is
more probable than no Creator.
msh says:
The house and watch are evidence that the house and watch had a
Creator. The inference cannot extend to the Universe because the
analogy doesn't hold.
msh lists Hume's objections:
1) The analogy between the universe and man-made items is very weak.
For an analogy to be convincing, there must be
substantial similarity between the analogy's object and target.
ham said:
Why then didn't Hume suggest an analogy that had good similarly, such
as the watchmaker's story, instead of setting up a strawman that he
could so easily knock down? A bit one-sided, wouldn't you say?
msh says:
Humes point applies to the watch as well as the house. It doesn't
matter which human artifact you choose. See below.
ham:
If we were conscious of a chaotic universe, a cause would still be
implied; the fact that we are conscious of an intelligently designed
universe is evidence that the cause is "intentional" rather than
incidental or random in Nature.
msh says:
"the fact that we are conscious of an intelligently designed
universe..." You are assuming your conclusion... again.
2) - Analogies to the the origin of the universe are meaningless,
since the "creation" would be a single, unprecedented, and in fact
unique event.
We have only one universe. Analogies are meaningful only when we can
compare and contrast a variety of objects or ideas. It is both
meaningful and useful to compare the attributes of humans,
sunflowers, tides and watches, but to what do we compare the
universe?
ham said:
We can "describe" the universe in the same way that we can describe a
house or a watch. Descriptions can be comparisons in that sense.
When they include principles or features that suggest purpose or
intent, they infer an intelligent designer.
msh says:
We can't even BEGIN to describe the universe in the same way. We can
describe the house and watch with absolute precision.
3) Intelligence is not the only active cause in the world.
It's obvious that natural phenomena do not require creative
intelligence to occur. Perfectly symmetrical crystals of quartz,as
well as dozens of other minerals, will form during the cooling of
silicon rich magma, and this process is understood without reference
to intelligent design. The ebb and flow of tides can be explained in
terms of simple well-understood gravitational interactions. No ID
required. In short, there is no reason to believe that because some
things are intelligently designed, a watch for example, that
everything in nature must be ID as well.
ham said:
I agree, but I don't see this an objection to the ID argument.
msh says:
You don't? I reinserted my explanatory paragraph above. Try reading
it again. The point is that appearance of design is no proof of
design.
4) Even if signs of intelligence are everywhere, it does not follow
that intelligence created the universe.
ham:
This only works as an objection if the intelligence "seen everywhere"
is regarded as primary evidence. Of course the evidence can not be
primary because someone had to design it. So this is an argument
from a false premise -- which may explain why it is your "favorite" .
msh says:
You are attaching some significance to the notion of primary evidence
that I do not understand. Rather than excise or ignore my
explanatory paragraphs, why not use them to explain what you mean.
Where does my example of a Martian finding a rover go wrong, in your
estimation?
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.
msh:
That's "non sequitur." And, yes, "Conforms to man's reason" was a
terrible choice of words on my part, but this is really semantic
quibbling. If you believe that a rational argument proves the
existence of an intelligent creator of the universe, then you must
believe that your creator (your ultimate reality) is at least in part
rationally knowable.
ham:
Mark seems to put much stock in Hume's refutation of the Ontological
Argument.
msh:
Just to clarify, Hume is refuting the Teleological Argument, often
referred to as the Design Argument, of which Paley's watch analogy is
a classic example, pun intended. Paley and Hume were near
contemporaries, so it's natural to bring in Hume's classical
refutation.
ham:
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.
msh:
Your still missing Hume's point. His point is that neither a house,
nor a watch, nor any other man-made device, is even remotely similar
to the Universe. Analogies, if they are to be convincing, require a
high degree of similarity between subject and target.
ham:
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.
msh:
Yes, 21st century guys like Behe and other ID proponents are taking
the argument to a new level whereby they claim to have discovered a
scientific principle that proves certain biological structures are
too complex to have been produced by evolution, the so-called
principle of "irreducible complexity." Obviously, in order to
criticize this recent incarnation of the design argument we must
bring to bear scientific information that was not available to David
Hume.
Fortunately, since the publication of Behe's book in 1996, there have
been literally dozens of scientific and philosophical criticisms of
Behe's principle. Here are just a couple, for starters:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/ruse_irredcomplex.html
I find the Miller article to be particularly devastating and, though
it's loaded with a lot of biological science, is nevertheless quite
accessible to the biological layman... such as the biological Heyman.
:-)
But for the sake of argument, let's imagine that the principle of
irreducible complexity is empirically verifiable. All this would
prove is that natural selection and random mutation may indeed be
inadequate mechanisms to drive evolution, not that evolution doesn't
occur, and certainly not that the universe was designed and created
by God. If our inadequate understanding of natural processes is all
that's necessary to prove the existence of God, I'd have become a
Mormon a long time ago.
Best to all,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "There is, to be sure, nothing new or novel in an anti-evolutionist pointing to a complex or intricate natural structure, and professing skepticism that it could have been produced by the "random" processes of mutation and natural selection. Nonetheless, the "argument from personal incredulity," as such sentiment has been appropriately described, has been a weapon of little value in the anti-evolution movement. Anyone can state at any time that they cannot imagine how evolutionary mechanisms might have produced a certain species, organ, structure. Such statements, obviously, are personal – and they say more about the limitations of those who make them than they do about the limitations of Darwinian mechanisms." 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 : Tue Apr 26 2005 - 01:04:01 BST