Another theory: Ed Swaine's existence falsifies the intelligent design
hypothesis
At 06:33 PM 10/28/2005, Swaine, Edward wrote:
>Frank,
>
>Answer carefully. The first time Tom asked me this, and I asserted that I
>did, he proceeded to throw a haymaker at me -- and, to my eternal shame, I
>reflexively flinched.
>
>Later on, I would reliably answer that I did not, even at a seemingly safe
>remove. Then again, that *was* during the tenuring process, so it was
>undeniably accurate.
>
>Ed
>
>________________________________
>
>From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk on behalf of
>Dunfee, Thomas
>Sent: Fri 10/28/2005 7:03 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: FW: USSC Nominee Monkey Business
>
>
>
>Frank,
>
>
>
> Do you believe that you have free will?
>
>
>
>Tom
>
>
>
>Thomas W. Dunfee
>Kolodny Professor of Social Responsibility
>Chair, Department of Legal Studies and Business Ethics
>The Wharton School
>University of Pennsylvania
>Philadelphia, PA 19104
>215-898-7691
>
>
>________________________________
>
>From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Frank Cross
>Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 6:36 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: USSC Nominee Monkey Business
>
>
>
>
>No, that's not a falsifiable hypothesis for ID. It could be a falsifiable
>hypothesis for Darwinism, but those aren't the only two conceivable
>alternatives. As I understand it the claim is pretty weak, but I really
>can't understand how you could prove anything "impossible." Mere
>randomness makes everything "possible." If it were true, I concede it
>would be suggestive that something more than Darwinian evolution was occurring.
>
>I could identify a variety of possible falsifiable hypotheses for ID. For
>example, I could hypothesize that an intelligent designer would not create
>worthless appendages or organs (called vestiges in evolution like the
>whale's vestigial legs or the human's vestigian tale). But it fails that
>test. Or I could hypothesize that an intelligent designer wouldn't create
>a bunch of creatures only to make them extinct. But it certainly fails
>that test as well.
>
>
>At 03:25 PM 10/28/2005, Pearson Liddell, Jr. wrote:
>
>
>
>Frank,
>
>Isn't Michael Behe's claim that irreducible complexity in a part of an
>organism makes Darwinian evolution impossible a testable and falsifiable
>hypothesis?
>
>Pearson
>
>----- Original Message -----
>
>From: Frank Cross <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 1:07 PM
>
>Subject: Re: USSC Nominee Monkey Business
>
>
>
>I didn't mean you had to choose between science and religion broadly, just
>as a methodology to resolve a particular question (unless they yield
>identical answers). If you are trying to decide about evolution, you can
>put your faith in a Biblical account (say hypothetically a simplistic 6000
>year theory) or the account of science as we best know it today, which is
>based on hypothesis testing. You can't believe both, I don't think.
>
>David is of course right that religion can fully embrace science, indeed
>find God's handiwork in natural laws. But this evades the issue that is
>now controversial and that I thought began the discussion, i.e.,
>intelligent design. As I understand it, that theory has produced no
>falsifiable hypotheses nor tested them, by contrast to the enormous
>magnitude of evolutionary research. As such, you can't call it science
>comparable to evolution. You can believe it as a matter of faith.
>
>
>
>
>At 10:25 AM 10/28/2005, David Opderbeck wrote:
>
>
>
>Religious faith puts forth entirely different standards. One must choose
>
>I disagree with you here again Frank, although it's a little difficult
>because we have to define "religious faith." I can only speak with any
>confidence from my own tradition, which has a long history dating back to
>Augustine of wrestling with such questions, but a traditional Christian
>understanding of epistemology doesn't require any such choice. I would
>characterize a traditional Christian epistemology as "modest
>foundationalism," which accepts the same foundational epistemological
>assumptions as modern science. Most Christians who think about such
>things believe their faith is empirically reasonable given those
>assumptions -- that the data of history and human experience support the
>core claims of the Christian faith (I'm not intending to argue that
>particular point here). Of course, there are some aspects of Christianity
>that are more mystical than rational, but in the traditional Christian
>view faith and reason are complementary and intertwined ways of knowing.
>
>-----"Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk"
><[log in to unmask]> wrote: -----
>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>From: Frank Cross <[log in to unmask]>
>
>Sent by: "Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk"
><[log in to unmask]>
>
>Date: 10/28/2005 11:00AM
>
>Subject: Re: USSC Nominee Monkey Business
>
>Now we're getting deeply into epistemology.
>
>David is right that science depends to some degree on faith, so my
>opposition of them was simplistic, though functionally workable.
>
>It is functionally workable because science as currently understood puts
>forth certain standards for establishing "truth." These involve the
>scientific method. Religious faith puts forth entirely different
>standards. One must choose
>
>At 09:47 AM 10/28/2005, David Opderbeck wrote:
>
>Frank -- no, the citation I provided is referring specifically to the
>teaching of evolution, not only to science generally. The quote I gave
>relates to science generally, but the entire text indicates that
>"evolution" is "science" because it shares the same naturalistic
>presuppositions, whereas other explanations of origins are not "science"
>because they don't assume naturalistic materialism. Perhaps this
>conflicts with the "accepted" definition of evolution, but then I'm not
>sure there is a clear or "accepted" definition.
>
>And why does science conflict with faith? Science rests on certain
>assumptions that must be taken on faith (e.g., that human perception of
>reality is reasonably accurate, that natural laws do not vary over time,
>that observation and experimentation can be conducted with limited degrees
>of value bias and with limited influence from the observer's
>presuppositions, and so on). Science is not the bastion of pure
>objectivity the children of the 18th Century Enlightenment thought it was.
>
>-----"Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk"
><[log in to unmask]> wrote: -----
>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>From: Frank Cross <[log in to unmask]>
>
>Sent by: "Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk"
><[log in to unmask]>
>
>Date: 10/28/2005 10:28AM
>
>Subject: Re: USSC Nominee Monkey Business
>
>The accepted definition of evolution refers only to changes in organisms
>over time, not the origin of life. The citation that David provides is
>talking about the notion of "science" generally, that it excludes
>supernatural causes. It's true we get into definitional problems. If the
>supernatural were falsifiable, it sits within science comfortably, I
>suppose. Evolution is not contrary to religion, but science is contrary
>to faith. I think that is all the citation is saying.
>
>At 08:25 AM 10/28/2005, David Opderbeck wrote:
>
>[This is David Opderbeck. My CUNY email is down, so I need to use this
>account. This is kind of a long post, on a topic I personally find very
>interesting, but that many list members might find tedious. If this stuff
>doesn't interest you, please forgive me and hit the delete button.]
>
>Perhaps my understanding of evolution is flawed, but I never
>
>understood evolution as speaking to the origins of life itself
>
>One of the problems in any discussion of "evolution" is that the term is
>highly elastic. You could use the term "evolution" to refer simply to
>changes in organisms over time, in which case your understanding would be
>correct. However, that isn't what "evolution" means in debates over
>issues like public education. Take, for example, the National Association
>of Biology Teachers' Statement on Teaching Evolution (
>http://www.nabt.org/sub/position_statements/evolution.asp
>): "Explanations or ways of knowing that invoke non-naturalistic or
>supernatural events or beings, whether called ?creation science,?
>?scientific creationism,? ?intelligent design theory,? ?young earth
>theory,? or similar designations, are outside the realm of science and not
>part of a valid science curriculum."
>
>In other words, if one accepts "evolution," naturalistic processes are
>sufficient to account for the development of all life. This is the way
>most popularizers of evolution present it, and it also seems to be what
>the proprietor of the website you originally quoted thinks (else why would
>"science" be the "antithesis" of religion?).
>
> Is my understanding of the conflict between a literal reading of The
>
>Bible and the theory of evolution correct?
>
>Only partially. Although some religious people speak of a "literal"
>reading of the Bible, that is a misnomer. There is a school of Biblical
>hermeneutics, prominent within evangelical Christianity, that relies on
>what is called the "literal-historical-grammatical" approach, but even
>that approach allows for metaphors and other non-"literal" devices when
>the context allows. And, in particular, within American evangelical
>Christianity, there are two major and two minor schools of thought about
>the relationship between the early chapters of Genesis and observations
>from natural history.
>
>The two major theories are the "young earth / flood geology" position and
>the "day-age" theory. While the young earth position holds that the
>"days" of creation in Genesis 1 are equivalent to 24-hour periods, the
>day-age position holds that the Hebrew grammar and literary context of
>Genesis 1 suggests that the "days" are idioms for long periods of time (as
>in the statement, "one day, I'll retire and spend my time playing golf").
>
>The two minor theories are the "framework" position and "theistic
>evolution." The "framework" position holds that Genesis 1 and 2 present a
>literary structure for explaining God's creative activity but that the
>literary framework of "days" doesn't suggest any real connection to
>natural history. The "theistic evolution" position is often held in
>conjunction with the framework position; it holds that God initially
>created a universe with the essential conditions for evolution to occur,
>but didn't intervene further after that.
>
>Although there is plenty of intramural debate about this within the
>evangelical Christian community, the "day-age" position can be considered
>a "literal" reading of the text, and the "framework" position, although
>not invoking a "literal" reading of the text in the colloquial sense,
>could be considered cosistent with a conservative hermeneutic which views
>the Bible as fully authoritative and truthful.
>
>Specifically as to the relationship between humanity and animals,
>proponents of the "young earth" view, and many proponents of the "day-age"
>view, hold that the text of Genesis 1 and 2 cannot be reconciled with a
>view that humans descended from animals. However, some proponents of the
>"day-age" view, along with most proponents of the "framework" and
>"theistic evolution" views, argue that Genesis 2:7's reference to the
>creation of Adam from the "dust of the ground," if intended to refer at
>all to events in natural history, could represent a guided evolutionary
>process by which homo sapiens descended from other animals and
>subsequently was imbued with the imago Dei . This latter view is not
>prominent in American evangelical Christianity, although it is more widely
>accepted among Brittish evangelicals.
>
>All Christian positions about the relationship between humanity and
>animals (including the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox positions, which
>aren't surveyed here), however, reject the notion that naturalistic
>processes alone are sufficient to explain the development of life and the
>nature of humanity. Thus, when "evolution" is defined to include only
>unguided, naturalistic processes, this conflicts with a Christian
>understanding of scripture. When "evolution" is defined to mean simply
>change over time, that does not necessarily conflict with a Christian view
>of scripture.
>
>(If you're interested in some further reading on the variety of Christian
>approaches to this topic, see the website of the American Scientific
>Affiliation, at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/index.html )
>
>
>
>-----"Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk"
><[log in to unmask]> wrote: -----
>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>From: Michael O'Hara <[log in to unmask]>
>
>Sent by: "Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk"
><[log in to unmask]>
>
>Date: 10/28/2005 12:10AM
>
>Subject: Re: USSC Nominee Monkey Business
>
> Perhaps my understanding of evolution is flawed, but I never
>
>understood evolution as speaking to the origins of life itself (i.e.,
>
>evolution neither accepts nor rejects the proposition that life itself was
>
>created by a deity).
>
> See, for example,
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
>
> As I understand the conflict between a literal reading of The Bible
>
>and the theory of evolution is that the theory of evolution does speak to
>
>the origins of --human-- life. Specifically, the theory of evolution
>
>asserts human life sprang from forms of life preceding human life. In that
>
>way the theory of evolution is in conflict with a literal reading of the
>
>seven days of creation in Genesis.
>
> See, for example,
>
>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=1&version=50
>
> Is my understanding of the theory of evolution (propounded by the
>
>adherents of the theory of evolution) correct?
>
> Is my understanding of the conflict between a literal reading of The
>
>Bible and the theory of evolution correct?
>
>Michael
>
>Professor Michael J. O'Hara, J.D., Ph.D.
>
>Finance, Banking, & Law Department Editor, Journal of Legal
>
>Economics
>
>College of Business Administration (402) 554 - 2014 voice fax (402)
>
>554 - 3825
>
>Roskens Hall 502 www.AAEFE.org <http://www.aaefe.org/>
>
>University of Nebraska at Omaha www.JournalOfLegalEconomics.com
><http://www.journaloflegaleconomics.com/>
>
>Omaha NE 68182
>
>[log in to unmask]
>
>(402) 554 - 2823 voice fax (402) 554 - 2680
>
>http://cba.unomaha.edu/faculty/mohara/web/ohara.htm
>
>**********************************************************
>
>Frank Cross
>McCombs School of Business
>The University of Texas at Austin
>1 University Station B6000
>Austin, TX 78712-1178
>
>**********************************************************
>
>Frank Cross
>McCombs School of Business
>The University of Texas at Austin
>1 University Station B6000
>Austin, TX 78712-1178
>
>**********************************************************
>
>Frank Cross
>McCombs School of Business
>The University of Texas at Austin
>1 University Station B6000
>Austin, TX 78712-1178
>
>**********************************************************
>
>Frank Cross
>McCombs School of Business
>The University of Texas at Austin
>1 University Station B6000
>Austin, TX 78712-1178
**********************************************************
Frank Cross
McCombs School of Business
The University of Texas at Austin
1 University Station B6000
Austin, TX 78712-1178
|
