E_muse

Well.. this site declares that the natural world is a closed system in no need of explanation whilst at the same time declaring that it wishes to promote the avid pursuit of philosophy and the scientific enterprise (both modes of explanation). In order to promote the idea that the natural world is closed and in no need of an explanation, the metaphysical naturalist must offer an explanation of the natural world (usually appealing to the findings of methodological naturalism) that supports the initial belief or asserton. Metaphysical naturalists will often appeal to the superior explanatory power of methodological naturalism as a defence of their philosophical position. This has always seemed intellectually incoherent to me. However, that is not my main point.

I'm not saying that methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism are the same thing and I appreciate the difference. However, different philosophical outlooks undergird scientist's views of the world and cause them to disagree with each other on just how much a naturalistic method is able to explain. Furthermore, certain scientific conclusions will never be completely philosophically neutral... and can't be completely. This is only obvious.

However, this doesn't stop a heading on this forum asking, "Did life evolve or was it created?" suggesting a clear division between a belief in creation and acceptance of evolutionary theory. This was the main point that I was making... IDers cannot simply be dumped on as though it is solely their fault that such a misunderstanding has arisen.

This may be so but many atheists that I have debated with have stated that their confidence in their own a priori metaphysical naturalistic stance has been galvanized by the success of methodological naturalism.

Or he is just mistaken and can't distinguish the two?

However, to turn back on you a point that you have made about Dawkins... I can't help it if Phillip Johnson talks about metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism being the same thing. It is just his opinion.

I'm not saying that the scientific method shouldn't be or isn't philosophically neutral but I am saying that IDers cannot be blamed in isolation for misunderstanding that occur partly because of the impression given by sites like this.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

E_muse

Pot. Kettle. Black.

You missed out the paragraph coming immediately before the one you quoted:

Now to your pionts.

Not quite. He was discussing with the philosopher explanations for the organized complexity of biological organisms of which intelligent design is one.

He hadn't done this 'for Dawkins' at all and your statement completely misrepresents Dawkins' position. In the passage immediately before the one you quoted Dawkins explicitly states that he could not imagine being an atheist prior to the publication of 'Origins'. It seems obvious that he was unconvinced by Hume's position and makes it plain. He even states that he has more in common with Paley!!

This is true albeit out of context. However, it appears that prior to 'Origins' Dawkins would have been more persuaded by Paley than Hume. He would have been at least agnostic and possibly a believer. Why? Allow me to speculate!

Firstly, at least a theistic explanation is an attempted explanation (even if it is inadequate) and as such is better than no explanation at all (which is all that Hume offered). I should image that, as a scientist, Dawkins feels that Paley's position does more to promote the scientific enterprise than that held by Hume. This why I find the statement of this website incoherent when it states that the natural world is in no need of explanation and yet wants to promote the avid pursuit of the scientific enterprise! I think that Dawkins would see these views as incompatible and I agree with him.

That's not his point at all!!! You completely and blatantly misrepresent Dawkins' position here!

If Dawkins felt that Hume had completely destroyed the arguement from design then how could tell his friend that he couldn't image being an atheist prior to 'Origins'? Your statement just doesn't make sense.

The actual quote (which you used) actually says:

Here Dawkins actually picks up on the point that you are trying to use him to make. However, he doesn't represent it as his own position (which you are stating) but simply says that, "It is sometimes said,". Hume was an atheist prior to Darwin. Dawkins says that he imagines that he couldn't have been. However, Dawkins then gives his own view which differs from this by saying, "But what Hume did..." and then explains how Hume had called theistic explanations into question, leaving the question open.

Well, it wouldn't have been out of the way in Dawkins mind. You obviously feel that it would have been, but Dawkins isn't saying this.

The design arguement wasn't out of the way because, as Dawkins correctly states, there was no alternative.

But he explicitly states that he couldn't imagine himself as an atheist prior to 'Origins'. So Hume's arguements would not have displaced the design explanation for Dawkins.

For some, yes. But not Dawkins.

This is your term for the Arguement from Design and Dawkins never refers to it like this. He simply states that the logic of it had been called into question perhaps fuelling the search for a new explanation.

Yes he does! Here is that statement from Dawkins again (that you chose to omit):

What is he saying if he is not saying that Darwin made him an atheist? Have you actually read what Dawkins is saying?

This is just completely wrong. Although Hume may have persuaded some (as Dawkins states), Dawkins himself explicitly states that he couldn't image being an atheist during Hume's time!

Darwin's explanation answered the problems left behind by the theistic explanation.

Dawkins never calls the Arguement from Design a non-answer (this is your term, not his) and even suggests that it would have been his position! At least he found it more intellectually satisfying than Hume's non-explanation. Please read again what Dawkins says:

1. There were logical problems with the Arguement from design although it did offer some explanation for the apparent complexity in nature.

2. The only positon that Dawkins refers to as a non-answer is Humes!!

I quote:

Dawkins obviously seeks Darwin's 'Origins' as an alternative (emphasised in Dawkins original text) explanation to the design hypothesis. He does not see it as filling a gap where there was no explanation at all (which is what you are implying).

In the passage you quoted he does say this:

Please note, an atheist prior to Darwin could have said this. But Dawkins has already said that he couldn't imagine himself being an atheist prior to Darwin (which you omitted). He is therefore not conveying his own position.

Also, he stating the atheist position, he declares that the Arguement from Design would have been described by them as 'not good', not as no explanation at all.
I think you need to go and read it again.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

pz

This argument is disconnected from the issue at hand. We aren't talking about people giving birth to people as 'direct', vs. people giving birth to cats as 'indirect'. It's about how change spreads through a population, what kind of variation is available within a population, and in what ways populations will change in the future. All of those processes are buffeted by random noise, and even the guiding principle that winnows signal out of the noise (natural selection) is subject to frequent changes in direction.
What I see here is the fallacy of retrospective coronation. It is the use of a historical observation to claim inevitability or superiority of a particular pattern.

Let's use a specific example, the evolution of hominids. It's pretty much an obvious truism that our modern brains are larger and probably significantly more complex than those of australopithecines. We can survey the fossil record of our lineage and see that H. erectus had a brain of intermediate size. Can we therefore declare that evolution of our brains was "direct" and "linear" and represents a trend of increasing complexity? Of course not. Look at the record with more care, and you see that multiple hominid species coexisted at different times -- so it was a branching pattern. Different lineages followed different strategies, so there was a large-jawed vegetarian line at the same time there was a smaller-faced omnivorous line. If we could rewind the tape of history a million years and watch H. erectus evolve again, there is no reason to suppose it would necessarily transform into H. sapiens. It's equally likely that the lineage could follow a path of simplification, stasis, or increasing complexity. Chance is the dictator here, and we simply cannot predict.

For another analogy, consider Brownian motion. You can sit and watch a particular particle bounce around for a while, and chances are that it will end up some distance away. Would you mark the starting position, the ending position, draw a vector between them, and declare that there was a direct, linear trend for that particle to move in that particular way?

Albion

E_Muse, maybe Phillip Johnson was just mistaken ten or fifteen years ago. Not now. It simply isn't possible. And it isn't really correct to say that it's just his personal opinion, because he's a very major part of an organisation trying to promote the notion that science implies metaphysical naturalism and that anyone who says the two are different are not being honest. Dawkins isn't the front man for an equivalent organisation to ARN or DI; when he speaks, he speaks for himself.

E_muse

I shall make this my last point as I see it as a side issue to the main topic of this thread.

However, as someone who holds the view that the scientific enterprise was birthed in a predominantly theistic age, I have no arguement with you that the scientific method should be shared by theist and atheist alike.

My main point was that IDers cannot take sole blame for the perceived few that methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism are somehow the same. Especially when the primary defence used by the metaphysical naturalist is an appeal to the findings of methodological naturalism.

In short, this is what Dawkins says of himself in relation to evolutionary theory. This site asks, "Did life evolve or was it created?"

Surely you're not trying to argue that the metaphysical naturalist's primary defence of their philosophical stance isn't to the findings of methodological naturalism? If you are, where else does it come from? There must be a defence otherwise it is nothing but an a priori assumption.

Albion

Actually, I don't know where the metaphysical naturalist gets his ideas about his philosophy from. In my case, it never occurred to me that Bible stories were one-to-one correlations with reality, so I never went through the stage of thinking that there were supernatural causes. As far as I was aware, things were the way they were, and the scientific method described them and explained them, it didn't affect their causation in any way. Maybe people who were theists or grew up in a theistic atmosphere and who went through the process of rejecting all that were more heavily dependent on science than people who never had to take that step. I grew up hating science because it was being pushed down my throat by a father who's a physicist and thinks that intelligence is defined solely by the ability to do physics. I still don't like science. It's just that narrow-minded religious zealotry with strong political overtones disgusts me to the point that I've got involved in creation-evolution debates, much to the amusement of my husband and the amazement of my dad. So my view about the natural world (and I remember that view was decidedly nontheistic even when I was a child) was not a result of being in any way in favour of science, because I wasn' t n favour of science.

Zira_C

Originally posted by E_muse
Snip rest of condescending tripe.

Your entire post is just a major exercise in "I know you are but what am I". What a colossal waste of time. Dawkins is quite clear on what Hume did to the design argument, and he’s equally clear on what Darwin did for his intellectual fulfillment. It’s right there in the post for anyone to read. I find Dawkins’ paragraph pretty hard to misinterpret. You do an amazing job of doing exactly that though.

This post is off topic for this thread. If you want to continue it, perhaps you could start another thread with something more substantive than this tit-for-tat, I know you are but what am I, waste of time, that you’ve got going here.

E_muse

Not exactly. I wrote what I did in reply to something you said.

Of course I'm not arguing that people giving birth to cats would be an example of indirect evolution! I'm surprised that you seem to have taken it literally when I made the point that I was using hyperbole. A deliberate use of exaggeration intended to make a point.. in the same way that I could say, "Cor, this book weighs a ton!"

You are making the point that highly complex evolved systems may not have always had the same function during the course of their developement.

However, on the back of this you then said:

My silly point about cats was in reponse to this in a deliberate attempt to convey the fact that there are some aspects of the evolutionary process (reproduction being one) that are very linear and direct.

The other was to demonstrate that where increases in complexity occur we can attempt to place them on a time line of when they came into being based upon the understanding that initial life forms must have been very simple in order to appear by chance.

Which, according to yourself, we cannot predict.

I wouldn't disagree with this presentation of the theory.

Perhaps. However, all scientific conclusions are based upon after the fact observation and so we cannot confuse the above with it.

I think that any true scientist will speak in terms of probability rather than inevitability.

One could, I suggest, look at the theoretical progress of evolution through time and state that there is a high tendency for organisms to become more complex through time. We would therefore expect to see it happen in the future.

One is not dictating the nature of the complexification but simply that it is likely to occur in a general sense somewhere.

Well, being picky for a second, your use of the term lineage suggests something linear doesn't it?

Secondly, here you are using the evolution of something that hasn't changed its primary function (the brain) which is something this debate went through earlier.

Along a particular line, yes. Given that this all boils down to chance, any new feature can only be very slightly different from its predecessor.

You can say that, where complexification occurs, there is a linear progression along a particular line because more complex organisms must be historically younger than their slightly less complex counterparts.

But the more complex hominids would have to be historically younger than their slightly less complex counterparts.. that is my point.

In order to become more complex, the hominid would have to be descended from a less complex ancestor who was only slightly different (according to Dawkins).

Of course (as I argued previously), the less complex version could continue to reproduce and coexist with its more complex offspring as branches side by side if you wish. But this wouldn't alter the fact that there would be a traceable direct line of descent to the common ancestor.

O.K, but I think that further clarification is required.

I am considering the scenario presented by Dawkins in which life appeared by chance. Under this scenario initial life would have to be extremely "simple". At this time only "simple" forms would exist.

As they reproduce mutation and complexification occurs under the guiding hand of natural selection (this is all hypothetical you understand). As offspring become more complex the older forebears wouldn't necessarily die off. There would be a branching off.

In terms of a linear pattern we would see that the most complex organisms are the latest to arrive and simpler organisms have been around on earth the longest.

Yes. However, this is all rather academic. The fact is evolutionary theory does say that Homo Sapiens evolved in this way.

Not once did I say that complexification was inevitable. I simply said that, based on after-the-fact observation, the tendency for organisms to give rise to more complex offspring is highly probable or highly likely. This is founded on the observation that such complex life has appared in the time available, even under a scenario that has needed billions of years.

This isn't entirely true IMO. We CAN predict that further complexification is highly likely somewhere looking at the behaviour of organisms in the past and the speed at which highly complex life has appeared relying on nothing more than chance.

This is where your analogy breaks down. No, you wouldn't draw a line because this would be in direct contradiction of what you had just observed.

Unfortunately no one has directly observed Homo Erectus turning into Homo Sapien and so this analogy is rather fallacious. Your analogy implies that the course of evolution (which has taken thousands and millions of years and therefore beyond direct observation) is comparable to making a direct observation of a particle under your direct gaze.

Scientists study fossils and draw the lines where they think they ought to go based upon educated guesswork, not direct observation.

E_muse

I was responding to something you raised and admitted was off topic. If it was a waste of time you shouldn't have raised it.

You brought up an objection relating to my reference to Dawkins which I think I have the right to repond to as fully as I wish.

If anything its a waste of my time, not yours, so why should it bother you?

I agree. He argues that Hume had called into question the logical coherence of the Arguement from Desigm but that there was no atheistic explanation and that Hume didn't leave one.

He outlines the impact that he believes this would have had on atheists at the time. However, he clearly states that he couldn't imaging being an atheist during Hume's time himself.

You give no substance as to why my interpretation is fallacious and so this boils down to nothing more than a baseless ad honimem. You don't even know me.

Then you shouldn't have raised the issue in this thread. As you did I confined my response to the context of this thread. You were under no obligation to respond further.

I don't wish to continue it. You raised the issue and so I responded.

I haven't got anything going or started any tit-for-tat. You made one remark about Dawkins and I have made one reply in which I have excercised my freedom to express my opinion as you have done.

More baseless accusations. Why don't you just outline where my intepretation is fallacious? Start a new thread if you wish. But substance will expose me for what I am not baseless accusations. You are the one making the accusation and so the burden of proof lies with you to expose what I am.

If you do choose to respond (either here or elsewhere) then please could you simply answer the following question rather than simply throw out accusations.

If Dawkins would have been fully convinced by Hume to become an atheist and didn't require Darwin for this then how do you explain his statement to his friend that he could not imagine himself being an atheist prior to 1859 (publication of Origins)?

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

Clutch

E_muse, please explain what you think the phrase "though logically sound" means in the Dawkins quote. No honest reading can magic away Dawkins' explicit acknowledgement of the soundness of Hume's critique; no reading of the passage supports the idea that Dawkins denies the rational force of Hume's demolition of design arguments.

His point is transparent: "intellectual fulfillment" (he is claiming) involves more than knowing what won't work as an explanation. It requires having some positive explanation, too. Hume demonstrates that design falls into the former category; Darwin provides the first really workable example of the latter.

It's hard to see what -- besides wishful thinking -- could lead you to think anything else is being said here.