 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
 Literature on ID, TE and other approaches to creation |
Posted Dec 17, 2004; 1:01 pm |
|
Edit: I'm splitting this from the What are you reading? thread into its own topic.
| Todd wrote: | | The Design Revolution by William Dembski |
I'm also reading Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, a series of essays on theistic evolution edited by Keith B. Miller. It touches on history (including a good essay on approaches to concordism), theology, science, and even social and emotional issues such as animal pain. Some essays are dry and technical, but it provides a lot of information and goes into more depth than what I've found in forum debates or even most web articles. Maybe after we're both done reading these, we could swap books.
Last edited by Marshall on Jan 17, 2005; 3:34 pm; edited 1 time in total. |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| |
Posted Dec 17, 2004; 4:29 pm |
|
| Marshall wrote: | | Todd wrote: | | The Design Revolution by William Dembski |
I'm also reading Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, a series of essays on theistic evolution edited by Keith B. Miller. It touches on history (including a good essay on approaches to concordism), theology, science, and even social and emotional issues such as animal pain. Some essays are dry and technical, but it provides a lot of information and goes into more depth than what I've found in forum debates or even most web articles. Maybe after we're both done reading these, we could swap books. |
Sounds good to me. |
|
|
|
| Martin Blumrich Joined Mar 23, 2004 161 posts Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba |
| |
Posted Dec 20, 2004; 8:47 am |
|
Hey Todd and Marshall (and other readers!),
Miller's book is rather technical in places, I agree Marshall. I give even "airplay" to books of differing perspectives on this whole subject, and the one which "proved" the intelligent design / irreducibly complex arguement in my mind was Michael J. Behe's popular Darwin's Black Box. This summer (see post above) Miller's book and others were involved in further informing my thoughts. Miller will (in my mind) suggessfully challenge Behe's view, and what you Todd, are suggest is this other author's view - irreducible complexity.
I made it through all my other books except Hans Schwartz's Creation this summer, so if you have questions about some of these other science / creation-related works, ask away.
Peace, Martin |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Darwin's Black Box |
Posted Dec 20, 2004; 11:56 am |
|
| Martin Blumrich wrote: | | I give even "airplay" to books of differing perspectives on this whole subject, and the one which "proved" the intelligent design / irreducibly complex arguement in my mind was Michael J. Behe's popular Darwin's Black Box. |
I read Behe's book too. The later chapters got way too complex (irreducibly so) for me to follow much, but earlier he explains his argument in layman's terms and it seemed to make sense to me. I especially liked his example of how a typical spring mousetrap was an irreducibly complex machine where removing any one part would cause it to not work. Since he said there were many things like this in molecular biology, it made a strong argument that these systems could not evolve, since many things would need to evolve at the same time.
But, then I saw this: A reducibly complex mousetrap (just skip down to the pictures). That kind of popped the bubble for me. Although it only deconstructed one of Behe's illustrations, it showed that his whole argument is based on us not seeing how something could be reduced, rather than something not being able to be reduced. As such, it's based on how good a person's imagination is. Other scientists have shown problems with Behe's more technical arguments, but for me, the mousetrap is what did it.
| Quote: | | This summer (see post above) Miller's book and others were involved in further informing my thoughts. |
Yeah, your post is what prompted me to get Miller's book.  I haven't got to his chapter on complexity and design yet, but I'm just one chapter away. |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| Re: Darwin's Black Box |
Posted Jan 17, 2005; 3:04 pm |
|
| Marshall wrote: |
But, then I saw this: A reducibly complex mousetrap (just skip down to the pictures). That kind of popped the bubble for me. Although it only deconstructed one of Behe's illustrations, it showed that his whole argument is based on us not seeing how something could be reduced, rather than something not being able to be reduced. As such, it's based on how good a person's imagination is. Other scientists have shown problems with Behe's more technical arguments, but for me, the mousetrap is what did it.
|
I looked at the illustrations, and nearly all of the transitions require design. Also, there appears to be "information" included in the earlier designs that aren't included in the final design. Making the process go in reverse, requires new information. It would be more convincing if the illustration could go in reverse order by merely removing elements of the mousetrap, rather than adding elements to it.
At any rate, I don't see how the illustration would be useful anyway seeing that design is required in going from one step to another.
Also, the conception that ID is evidenced by gaps in information is incorrect. The explanatory filter does a good job of detecting design, without relying on gap hypotheses.
Regarding objections to Behe's arguments, has Behe responded to them? Has he been given a chance to defend his model? I think we need to consider his defense before coming up with our own conclusions. I'm sure Behe would have predicted before his book was published that there would later be criticisms of his theory. The fact that there are criticisms is not evidence in itself that Behe is wrong.
I see that MacDonald had revised his model after Behe's critique of it (http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mousetrapdefended.htm). What would Behe's response be to MacDonald's revised version? |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Re: Darwin's Black Box |
Posted Jan 17, 2005; 3:47 pm |
|
| Todd wrote: | | I looked at the illustrations, and nearly all of the transitions require design. Also, there appears to be "information" included in the earlier designs that aren't included in the final design. |
That's not the point of the mouse trap example, though. This was supposed to be an example of something that is irreducibly complex -- where removing any component makes the device useless -- and the transitions show that this is not the case. The mouse traps aren't meant to show how other aspects of evolution such as how new information forms or how mutations happen. Mouse traps can't help with those things since, among other things, mouse traps don't reproduce.
| Quote: | | Also, the conception that ID is evidenced by gaps in information is incorrect. The explanatory filter does a good job of detecting design, without relying on gap hypotheses. |
I think we need to discuss that in-depth sometime.
| Quote: | | Regarding objections to Behe's arguments, has Behe responded to them? |
Yes. He's written a number of articles responding to critics. In his mouse trap response, he mainly brings up the same thing you mentioned -- that the reducibly complex mouse traps still couldn't have been constructed by evolution. But again, that's shifting the goal posts from his original claim that the finished mouse trap was irreducibly complex.
Part of the reason Behe has raised a lot of ire from other scientists is that he's bypassed the normal peer-review process and instead tried to sell his ideas to the public before they'd been analyzed by other experts in the same fields. Based on how well his arguments have fared, I think it's fairly obvious why he chose to do that.  |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| Re: Darwin's Black Box |
Posted Jan 17, 2005; 5:50 pm |
|
| Marshall wrote: |
Yes. He's written a number of articles responding to critics. In his mouse trap response, he mainly brings up the same thing you mentioned -- that the reducibly complex mouse traps still couldn't have been constructed by evolution. But again, that's shifting the goal posts from his original claim that the finished mouse trap was irreducibly complex. |
| Behe wrote: | | Notice that in the second mousetrap, not only has a platform been added, but two (barely visible) staples have been added as well. Thus we have gone not from a one piece to a two-piece trap, but from a one to a four piece trap. Two staples are needed; if there were only one staple positioned as drawn, the tensed spring would be able to rotate out of position. The staples have to be positioned carefully with respect to the platform. They have to be arranged within a very narrow tolerance so that one arm of the spring teeters perilously on the edge of the platform or the trap doesn't work. If either of the staples is moved significantly from where they are drawn, the trap won't function. I should add that I did not emphasize the staples in my book because I was trying to make a simple point and didn't want to exhaust the readers with tedium. However, someone who wishes to seriously propose that the mousetrap I pictured is approachable in the tiny steps required by Darwinian processes would indeed have to deal with all the details, including the staples |
Here Behe is making an objection based on irreducible complexity.
Behe also claims to have stated some limitations of the moustrap illustration in the original book. It's not perfectly analogous to Darwinian evolution. At any rate, it doesn't take much imagination to think of an irreducably complex mechanism. Part of the problem I see with Darwinian evolution is that it is based so much on imagination, and relatively little on observation. I acknowledge that observation is somewhat limited, as we don't have the luxury of time in our experimentation. Nevertheless, I see it as a major problem of neo-Darwinian evolution when it extrapolates it's (often faulty) observations to extreme degrees. The extrapolation is very much based on what we can imagine, and I don't think that is appropriate.
| Quote: | | Part of the reason Behe has raised a lot of ire from other scientists is that he's bypassed the normal peer-review process and instead tried to sell his ideas to the public before they'd been analyzed by other experts in the same fields. Based on how well his arguments have fared, I think it's fairly obvious why he chose to do that. |
| Disovery.org wrote: | 6. Is research about intelligent design published in peer-reviewed journals and monographs?
Yes. Although open hostility from those who hold to neo-Darwinism sometimes makes it difficult for design scholars to gain a fair hearing for their ideas, research and articles supporting intelligent design are being published in peer-reviewed publications. Examples of peer-reviewed books supporting design include The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press) by William Dembski and Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press) by Michael Behe. Additional peer-reviewed books about design theory are scheduled to be published in 2003 and 2004 by Michigan State University Press and Cambridge University Press. In the area of journals, Michael Behe has defended his concept of "irreducible complexity" in the peer-reviewed journal Philosophy of Science published by the University of Chicago. There is also now a peer-reviewed journal that focuses on design theory, Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design, which has an editorial advisory board of more than 50 scholars from relevant scientific disciplines, most of whom have university affiliations. Finally, the works of design theorists are starting to be cited by other scholars in peer-reviewed journals such as the Annual Review of Genetics.
|
They claimed that Behe's book did pass peer review, it claims that it is difficult for design scholars to get a fair hearing, and I believe this is a massive understatement. Dembski talks has a chapter devoted to this topic in "The Design Revolution" and he brings up Behe's character in the discussion. AIG has also talked about this barrier on its website. If you haven't read up on the issue of the peer review obstacles, I would suggest giving it some research. There's no doubt that neo-Darwain evolutionists have an agenda to keep ID out of schools, and they will use many tactics that are not honourable for the science community to use. Discovery.org also talks about this. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Re: Darwin's Black Box |
Posted Jan 19, 2005; 2:45 pm |
|
| Todd wrote: | | At any rate, it doesn't take much imagination to think of an irreducably complex mechanism. |
Yes, that's exactly the point I've been trying to make. Seeing something as irreducibly complex doesn't take a lot of imagination. In fact, the more imagination one has, the less likely one is to think something is irreducibly complex, since one would be more able to think of ways it may have formed. Again, going back to the mouse trap, it was irreducibly complex to someone with little imagination, but more creative thinking showed that not to be the case.
Especially since natural selection is not a process similar to human problem-solving skills, it is unreasonable to expect that changes made through natural selection should be immediately intuitive to a human thinking in standard human terms. In fact, mimicking natural selection is now used by human designers specifically because it allows them to approach a problem from a direction they'd be unlikely to take themselves. For example, here's a link to a popular (and bit sensationalistic) article about machines designed using the process of natural selection where nobody understands how they work!
| Quote: | | Part of the problem I see with Darwinian evolution is that it is based so much on imagination, and relatively little on observation. |
No, I don't think that's the case. It is based on a huge body of evidence. Even Behe, the author of Darwin's Black Box, finds the evidence overwhelming and does not doubt that evolution (including macroevolution) has occurred. In his book he states that he has "no particular reason to doubt common descent", which is the idea that all life, including apes and humans, shares a common ancestor. He only doubts that evolution is able to explain certain transitions without interference from an outside designer.
When you get to specific questions for which there is no evidence or little evidence, imagination and speculation come into play. Here's an example totally unrelated to evolution. A while back I was in a discussion about heaven with an atheist. He claimed that heaven was impossible because if it was a perfect place, then humans must not have free will there, and that begs the question of why God gave us free will now -- why not take it away and make this life "heaven"? Or, heaven was not a perfect place and as such was unworthy of being called heaven. Anyway, my response provided three ways that God could make heaven a perfect place without making our free will meaningless. In some cases, the reasons even contradicted, but I was clear that these were only possibilities, and if I could come up with three, I was quite confident that an omniscient God would not be stumped by the problem.
I think irreducible complexity is a similar situation. It is not about finding a logical reason why something is impossible. Instead, some are arguing that because they can't see how something could be, then it must mean that it can't be. I think that argument is faulty, whether it's used to disprove heaven or certain evolutionary steps.
As for the peer review comments, we discussed that a bit in person, so I won't repeat that here. |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| Re: Darwin's Black Box |
Posted Jan 19, 2005; 5:11 pm |
|
| Marshall wrote: | | Todd wrote: | | At any rate, it doesn't take much imagination to think of an irreducably complex mechanism. |
Yes, that's exactly the point I've been trying to make. Seeing something as irreducibly complex doesn't take a lot of imagination. In fact, the more imagination one has, the less likely one is to think something is irreducibly complex, since one would be more able to think of ways it may have formed. Again, going back to the mouse trap, it was irreducibly complex to someone with little imagination, but more creative thinking showed that not to be the case. |
I still think the mousetrap is irreducibly complex, for reasons I mentioned in an earlier post.
| Quote: | | Especially since natural selection is not a process similar to human problem-solving skills, it is unreasonable to expect that changes made through natural selection should be immediately intuitive to a human thinking in standard human terms. In fact, mimicking natural selection is now used by human designers specifically because it allows them to approach a problem from a direction they'd be unlikely to take themselves. For example, here's a link to a popular (and bit sensationalistic) article about machines designed using the process of natural selection where nobody understands how they work! |
Interesting article. It does show that Darwinism works in theory (and I agree it does), but it doesn't show that Darwinism actually operates in biological systems.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Part of the problem I see with Darwinian evolution is that it is based so much on imagination, and relatively little on observation. |
No, I don't think that's the case. It is based on a huge body of evidence. Even Behe, the author of Darwin's Black Box, finds the evidence overwhelming and does not doubt that evolution (including macroevolution) has occurred. |
I realize Behe's position on the subject, and he could be right. However, does he believe in evolution on the basis of a successful Darwinian mechanism, or because of other reasons such as the fossil record and genetic similarities? He is critical of the abilities of the mechanism, and it is this that I'm questioning. | Quote: |
When you get to specific questions for which there is no evidence or little evidence, imagination and speculation come into play. Here's an example totally unrelated to evolution. A while back I was in a discussion about heaven with an atheist. He claimed that heaven was impossible because if it was a perfect place, then humans must not have free will there, and that begs the question of why God gave us free will now -- why not take it away and make this life "heaven"? Or, heaven was not a perfect place and as such was unworthy of being called heaven. Anyway, my response provided three ways that God could make heaven a perfect place without making our free will meaningless. In some cases, the reasons even contradicted, but I was clear that these were only possibilities, and if I could come up with three, I was quite confident that an omniscient God would not be stumped by the problem.
I think irreducible complexity is a similar situation. It is not about finding a logical reason why something is impossible. Instead, some are arguing that because they can't see how something could be, then it must mean that it can't be. I think that argument is faulty, whether it's used to disprove heaven or certain evolutionary steps. |
I haven't read Behe's book, but I know that's not how Dembski approaches irreducible complexity, so I doubt Behe does either. We are constantly working with an absence of data and evidence. It is because of this that we can't be sure of anything at all. This problem is highlighted when it comes to Intelligent Design Theory, but when it comes to evolutionary theory, it is ignored. How do we know that there isn't a better mechanism for evolution to occur in reality? Biological systems are complex well beyond our comprehension. If the Darwinian mechanism does actually work in real life, it's a miracle in my mind, and it would seem to be a mechanism that must have been designed by God. BTW, in your opinion, at what point in time does God get involved?
Anyway, I understand Behe offers the example of the flagellum. I'm not well-researched in the flagellum, but it's apparently of a very efficient and complex "design", with few similarities between it and other body mechanisms. Roughly 25% of its components are found in other known systems (not to mention the organization of the flagellum, which is ingenious in itself). It is a huge jump in the process. This is consistent with a designed framework. The Darwinian framework requires gradual changes.
| Quote: | | As for the peer review comments, we discussed that a bit in person, so I won't repeat that here. |
Dembski's book is good reading on this subject. I'l lend it to you sometime. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Aargh! |
Posted Jan 19, 2005; 6:08 pm |
|
Todd, I'm wondering if we're examining the wrong half of the question. We agree that macroevolution is not doubted by most scientists, including Behe. We agree that mutations occur in biological systems. We agree that natural selection occurs in nature. We agree that artificial mutation + natural selection, such as what that article described, actually works and can lead to increases in useful information and end results that appear to be irreducibly complex. And yet, you made this comment:
| Quote: | | Interesting article. It does show that Darwinism works in theory (and I agree it does), but it doesn't show that Darwinism actually operates in biological systems. |
To me, that seems to be an indication that you're not willing to treat the data fairly. It seems much like a person who accepts all the data about electromagnetism but still insists that it doesn't prove that electromagnetism has anything to say about lightning. Usually, that's due to a person holding other data as overriding all the data that is being discussed -- in my example, perhaps a belief that lightning must be supernaturally caused by God's outstretched arm and can't have natural causes. For most Christians who take this approach on creation issues, they believe the Bible precludes evolution or even an old earth, and so only examine evidence to see if there is support for what they already know, and not to actually discover something new.
Now maybe that's unfair; I don't know. But, I do know that I'm a lot more comfortable discussing the theology side of the creation issue, and it seems like that side may be the only one where we'll get anywhere. So, let me know. When you look at the science side, are you open to the possibility that you may be wrong, or do you have biblical reasons for assuming that no matter what, there must be some reason why the data is wrong, or some reason not to make logical inferences from the data?
| Quote: | | BTW, in your opinion, at what point in time does God get involved? |
God is involved from "in the beginning" and he's still involved now. I think you knew that this is my answer. I do not accept the idea that by discovering natural processes we are somehow pushing God further away. God created those processes. Just because we know something about electromagnetism doesn't mean that lightning happens apart from God. He is sovereign over all that is, and that includes the natural and the supernatural. |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| Roar! |
Posted Jan 20, 2005; 9:03 am |
|
| I just responded, and lost my message due to some unknown key I pressed. I will try again later. |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| Grrrrr! |
Posted Jan 20, 2005; 10:08 am |
|
| Marshall wrote: | Todd, I'm wondering if we're examining the wrong half of the question. We agree that macroevolution is not doubted by most scientists, including Behe. We agree that mutations occur in biological systems. We agree that natural selection occurs in nature. We agree that artificial mutation + natural selection, such as what that article described, actually works and can lead to increases in useful information and end results that appear to be irreducibly complex. And yet, you made this comment:
| Quote: | | Interesting article. It does show that Darwinism works in theory (and I agree it does), but it doesn't show that Darwinism actually operates in biological systems. |
To me, that seems to be an indication that you're not willing to treat the data fairly. |
Why? I don't question the data from the computer application. I question the data from the biological application. I also question the data from the cosmos application. Questioning the data and questioning the workability of the theory are two different things. The Darwinian mechanism could work in the cosmos too, unfortunately, the conditions don't allow for it in the same way as the computer program. | Quote: | | It seems much like a person who accepts all the data about electromagnetism but still insists that it doesn't prove that electromagnetism has anything to say about lightning. |
I don't see this as analogous. | Quote: | | Usually, that's due to a person holding other data as overriding all the data that is being discussed -- in my example, perhaps a belief that lightning must be supernaturally caused by God's outstretched arm and can't have natural causes. For most Christians who take this approach on creation issues, they believe the Bible precludes evolution or even an old earth, and so only examine evidence to see if there is support for what they already know, and not to actually discover something new. |
Allow me to explain it a little differently. It comes down to credibility of the evidence. For us, we have scientific and Scriptural evidence, both have a level of credibility attached. In establishing the credibility of Scripture, we must also include the credibility of our interpretation of the Scriptures. An inerrantist believes that the Scriptures is fully credible, so the credibility factor simply becomes the credibility of our interpretation of the Scriptures. We way this credibility factor against the credibility of our scientific observations. Whichever is more credible is more likely to be true. As an analogy, many archaeologists in the past have made a claim that was contrary to Scripture (with a clear interpretation). If we only attach credibility to archaeology, we would believe the archaeological claim. However, in many instances, the Scriptures were later proven correct, and the archaeologists were wrong (and later took the correct position). If we would have established that the Scriptures were more credible to begin with, we wouldn't believe come up with the wrong conclusion. I think it is fair to take this approach to issues of creation as well. I know many scientists are annoyed that the Bible is given credibility in our studying of science. But, if the Scriptures are credible, they ought to be considered.
| Quote: | | Now maybe that's unfair; I don't know. But, I do know that I'm a lot more comfortable discussing the theology side of the creation issue, and it seems like that side may be the only one where we'll get anywhere. |
I don't think that's true. We need to look at both our interpretations of the Scripture, and the scientific evidence. | Quote: | | So, let me know. When you look at the science side, are you open to the possibility that you may be wrong, or do you have biblical reasons for assuming that no matter what, there must be some reason why the data is wrong, or some reason not to make logical inferences from the data? |
I don't think I have been as dogmatic as you have suggested. No more so than you have, at least. In my last post, I acknowledged a possibility that the Darwinian mechanism might hold true. I have my doubts, but I have to have a critical mind towards the mechanism, if my aim is to determine whether it holds true or not.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | BTW, in your opinion, at what point in time does God get involved? |
God is involved from "in the beginning" and he's still involved now. I think you knew that this is my answer. |
You don't often talk about evidence of God in the realms of science. | Quote: | | I do not accept the idea that by discovering natural processes we are somehow pushing God further away. God created those processes. |
I'd like to hear your perspective on why you think the Darwinian mechanism is "intelligently designed" and not just the way nature is. | Quote: | | Just because we know something about electromagnetism doesn't mean that lightning happens apart from God. He is sovereign over all that is, and that includes the natural and the supernatural. |
I agree. However, there ought to be evidence that goes against known natural mechanisms when God is sending lightning on his own will, in contrast to the "will" of nature. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Re: Grrrrr! |
Posted Jan 20, 2005; 2:08 pm |
|
| Todd wrote: | | I don't see this as analogous. |
I don't see how my analogy was significantly different from yours, but for that reason, I'm fine with chucking mine and dealing with yours instead.
| Quote: | | As an analogy, many archaeologists in the past have made a claim that was contrary to Scripture (with a clear interpretation). If we only attach credibility to archaeology, we would believe the archaeological claim. However, in many instances, the Scriptures were later proven correct, and the archaeologists were wrong (and later took the correct position). If we would have established that the Scriptures were more credible to begin with, we wouldn't believe come up with the wrong conclusion. |
This is what is called the heads-I-win, tails-you-lose approach. If the archaeological findings confirm what we believe, they are evidence in our favour. If they don't, we wait (sometimes indefinitely) for them to be overturned. Oftentimes, when evidence that was in our favour is overturned, we take no notice. Now, if we have good reason to hold something else, such as the Scriptures, as more authoritative than archaeology, why are we looking to archaeology to confirm them? It's like using a known liar in court to back up the perfect witness.
Archaeological findings are often wrong, but not just on finds that go against the Bible. For instance, the James Ossuary was purported evidence for Jesus' existence, but it was shown to be a fraud. An investigation uncovered that the same perpetrators were involved in making a number of other biblical artifacts, such as the only known relic from Solomon's temple (here's an article from CBC). These crooks had found a lucrative business: manufacturing "artifacts" for Christians and Jews who were searching for concrete proof for their beliefs.
True supporting evidence requires vulnerability. If we do not approach a study or a find with the acknowledgment that it may either add support or remove support from a claim, then the study or find is worthless to us. If I am convinced that a coin will only flip heads, it's no good saying after 50 trials that I have 25 pieces of supporting evidence and 25 pieces of evidence that I believe is untrustworthy.
| Quote: | | I know many scientists are annoyed that the Bible is given credibility in our studying of science. But, if the Scriptures are credible, they ought to be considered. |
But what is the ratio between the Bible's credibility and the credibility of findings in science? Wouldn't you say it's approaching 1:0? If so, why even look at the scientific data?
That's why I think it may be more useful to look at the biblical side of the equation. If you view the Bible as saying something beyond doubt about the age of the earth, the possibility of common descent, or other issues, there's no point looking at the science. Science never gives concrete, 100% answers, so if you think you already have such an answer, science will not dissuade you of it: there's always possibilities even when you run out of probabilities.
I'm not sure where you stand on the biblical side of things. Do you think the Bible rules out an old age for the universe and the earth? Do you think it rules out common descent for humans? Do you think it rules out common descent for animals? Do you think it rules out animal death before the Fall? Your answers to these questions will greatly influence the way you approach science, and will also determine the utility or futility of looking at the science in these areas.
| Quote: | | I'd like to hear your perspective on why you think the Darwinian mechanism is "intelligently designed" and not just the way nature is. |
That's a false dichotomy. I think all natural processes, including evolution, are designed and sustained by God. That is why nature is the way it is; in fact, that's why nature is. |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| Re: Grrrrr! |
Posted Jan 20, 2005; 3:23 pm |
|
| Marshall wrote: | | Todd wrote: | | I don't see this as analogous. |
I don't see how my analogy was significantly different from yours, but for that reason, I'm fine with chucking mine and dealing with yours instead.
| Quote: | | As an analogy, many archaeologists in the past have made a claim that was contrary to Scripture (with a clear interpretation). If we only attach credibility to archaeology, we would believe the archaeological claim. However, in many instances, the Scriptures were later proven correct, and the archaeologists were wrong (and later took the correct position). If we would have established that the Scriptures were more credible to begin with, we wouldn't believe come up with the wrong conclusion. |
This is what is called the heads-I-win, tails-you-lose approach. If the archaeological findings confirm what we believe, they are evidence in our favour. If they don't, we wait (sometimes indefinitely) for them to be overturned. Oftentimes, when evidence that was in our favour is overturned, we take no notice. Now, if we have good reason to hold something else, such as the Scriptures, as more authoritative than archaeology, why are we looking to archaeology to confirm them? It's like using a known liar in court to back up the perfect witness. |
I think you need to review my analysis. The example, is just one example, and not to be used as an overgeneralization (I probably should have used the word, "example" instead of "analogy".) I actually thought you would agree with my analysis, though I'm sure it wouldn't in itself change your mind about evolution. My point has to do with credibility. We are both on the side of the Bible being a highly credible source of history. Now I do understand that your presuppositions don't include inerrancy. All this means, is that you are a little more open to the possibility that the Bible may be wrong in some of its claims than I am, and you would accept strong archaeological evidence over weak Biblical evidence. I would also expect you to reject weak archaeological evidence in favor of strong Biblical evidence.
As for your last question, if the Scriptures are indeed inerrant, archaeology done correctly would not contradict the Scriptures. It is still valuable to see and realize that archaeology does confirm the historical claims in the bible, and doesn't contradict it. We must also realize that there is human error involved in our personal investigations: both in the study of archaeology and our study of Scriptures.
| Quote: | | Archaeological findings are often wrong, but not just on finds that go against the Bible. For instance, the James Ossuary was purported evidence for Jesus' existence, but it was shown to be a fraud. An investigation uncovered that the same perpetrators were involved in making a number of other biblical artifacts, such as the only known relic from Solomon's temple (here's an article from CBC). These crooks had found a lucrative business: manufacturing "artifacts" for Christians and Jews who were searching for concrete proof for their beliefs. |
Just so you know, many archaeologists have not yet conceded on the issue. Some still think the evidence is clearly in favor of it being authentic. Also those arrested have not been convicted, nor have they acknowledged any wrong doing. Nevertheless, the Scriptures do not require that the ossuary be found authentic. The ossuary is not mentioned in the Bible, nor does its inauthenticity falsify any Scriptural claims.
| Quote: | | True supporting evidence requires vulnerability. If we do not approach a study or a find with the acknowledgment that it may either add support or remove support from a claim, then the study or find is worthless to us. If I am convinced that a coin will only flip heads, it's no good saying after 50 trials that I have 25 pieces of supporting evidence and 25 pieces of evidence that I believe is untrustworthy. |
But, where oh where have I been found guilty of this?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | I know many scientists are annoyed that the Bible is given credibility in our studying of science. But, if the Scriptures are credible, they ought to be considered. |
But what is the ratio between the Bible's credibility and the credibility of findings in science? Wouldn't you say it's approaching 1:0? If so, why even look at the scientific data? |
No. Scientific findings have a credibility of 0<x<1, in all instances. Sometimes its higher, sometimes its lower. Perhaps some conditional probabilities might help. Ignoring scripture, let's say a scientific claim is 90% likely. Consider the Scriptures make a contradictory claim that is 95% likely (due to partial ambiguities in interpretation or translation) ignoring any scientific evidence. When you combine the two together, the probability of both claims are diminished significantly. Assuming there are only these two possibilities, the chance that the scientific claim is correct becomes 33.3%, and the chance that our interpretation of the bible is correct becomes 66.7% (there are other variables involved, so these figures may not turn out exactly as such). For yourself, the prior probability that this scriptural claim is correct may be around 95%. Further assume that you are about 95% sure about your interpretation of the Scriptures, than overall, you are about 90% sure that your interpretation of the Scriptures corresponds with reality. In this case, for you, the chances of the scientific claim, and the chances of the Biblical claim being true are about equal.
One thing I should add. I'm not 100% sure that the Scriptures are inerrant. I'm not 100% sure of anything. But, it could be that some archaeological claim could be so convincing, and the Scriptural interpretation also very clear (but contradictory to the archaeological claim), that the archaeological claim could bring serious doubt in terms of the inerrancy of Scripture. This is one reason why it is beneficial to study archaeology: to see whether or not the credibility of the Bible is indeed as high as we presuppose.
| Quote: | | That's why I think it may be more useful to look at the biblical side of the equation. If you view the Bible as saying something about the age of the earth, the possibility of common descent, or other issues that is beyond doubt, then there's no point looking at the science. Science never gives concrete, 100% answers, so if you think you already have such an answer, science will not dissuade you of it: there's always possibilities even when you run out of probabilities. |
It could be that the Bible is 100% correct. It could also be that we are mistaken in believing that. That is why we need to investigate these claims that are seemingly contrary to Scripture. Also, the information is not just for ourselves. Someone may doubt the existence of God because the Bible seems unreliable, so it may be good for us to give a reason in defense, and to give others hope in Christ Jesus.
| Quote: | | I'm not sure where you stand on the biblical side of things. Do you think the Bible rules out an old age for the universe and the earth? |
It may or may not. I'm not sure. | Quote: | | Do you think it rules out common descent for humans? |
The prior probability that my interpretation of the Scriptures speak against it are rather high. The prior probability of the majority of scientists agreeing on some alternative theory, is also high. Overall, I'm left with a decent probability that there is common descent. | Quote: | | Do you think it rules out common descent for animals? |
It seems about equal probability as humans. I do accept a certain degree of common descent of animals, as a result of genetic loss. | Quote: | | Do you think it rules out animal death before the Fall? |
Again, the prior probability seems moderately high that the Scriptures rule out animal death before the Fall. | Quote: | | Your answers to these questions will greatly influence the way you approach science, and will also determine the utility or futility of looking at the science in these areas. |
You're correct, except I don't agree that such analysis could be futile. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Re: Grrrrr! |
Posted Jan 20, 2005; 4:18 pm |
|
Todd, thanks for the answers. I did not know that you were at a point where, for a number of claims, you see the probability of a certain interpretation of Scripture being accurate as within the ballpark of the probability of opposing claims from science being accurate. Knowing that, my frustration was unwarranted.
I'll answer some of your questions and comments a bit later. |
|
|
|
|
|
