|
Author
|
Topic: The Gradual Illumination of the Mind by Michael Shermer
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 21. January 2002 12:48
The Gradual Illumination of the Mind
The advance of science, not the demotion of religion, will best counter the influence of creationismBy Michael Shermer
Scientific American In one of the most existentially penetrating statements ever made by a scientist, Richard Dawkins concluded that "the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless
indifference." ... To read the full article click here [ 21 January 2002: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
William A. Dembski
Member
Member # 7
|
posted 21. January 2002 14:13
SHERMER'S COZY DELUSIONMichael Shermer and I have known each other since the evening we both spoke at MIT in the spring of 1999 (though to different audiences). I was speaking on the topic of intelligent design whereas he, among other things, was denouncing it. We went out for beers afterward. I like Shermer. I even read his column regularly in Scientific American. Mostly, his skepticism is good medicine for a society that indulges too readily in quackery. Shermer's skepticism, unfortunatley, does not go far enough. In particular, it does not extend to Darwinism. Shermer's standing refrain is that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly vindicates Darwinism and that anyone who objects to it in on design-theoretic grounds is motivated solely by religious considerations. What evidence does Shermer cite for this claim? None. The fact is that most of my colleagues in the intelligent design community (me included) started out as entirely comfortable with Darwinian evolutionary theory. Only when we started trying to fit the theory to the evidence did we give up on it. This is well documented in our books. It is all too convenient for Shermer to characterize intelligent design proponents as religious nuts. Intelligent design raises substantive issues over the origin of biological information. Let Shermer start to engage the issues instead of continually sidestepping them. William A. Dembski
Baylor University [ 21 January 2002: Message edited by: William A. Dembski ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
William E. Newby, Jr.
Member
Member # 33
|
posted 06. February 2002 08:27
Mr. Shermer quotes Mr. Dawkins; surely meaning to say that the observation is fundamental: “the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”
Therein lies the entirety of Mr. Shermer’s problem: He will not, and therefore cannot, observe anything that is not purely and mathematically physical. But even the theories of science are factually based upon paradigms which involve something more than just observation, re: Thomas Kuhn; the fundamental discoveries are not made by the ‘gradual illumination of the mind,’ but rather, by a sudden intelligent observation and cognition and subsequent alignment of data. It is only the unthinking followers of those paradigms (ones who do not have the willingness to find out how they came about) who then assume the received paradigm has placed them in some all-knowing position in relation to competing paradigms, and so become rather “puffed-up,” and then spend their time ridiculing others. At bottom, metaphysically, he places “intelligence” or “design” below “order”, as if that were possible. It follows that he places his ability as a “thinking” being below any observable order in the physical universe. Most basically, this means that he really has no idea that his own beingness, or self, or awareness, has any reality, and he will probably be willing to tell you this. Long ago we used to pity such a state, when anyone actually sank so low in awareness that they believed it. It is an easy step from this personal state to the conclusion that there is no God. (This is almost exactly the converse of Bishop Berkeley’s argument). We all know that, without some at least proximate spiritual involvement in observation, (the determination of a balance of forces, the determination of cause and effect, etc) the physical universe is indifferent and unjust, and I have seen the common rebuke “…you expected some cosmic justice? The universe doesn’t give a damn about you!” It is a valid point, starting from the unexplored and unevaluated point that there is no real spiritual causation (this used to be what the Greeks, [see Aristotle], meant by “efficient cause” but it gradually lost that meaning and has now become causation by various types of physical energy, in the moment, from some immediately past physical event). What the Greeks knew, and Mr. Shermer from his high point assumes is superstition, is that there is factual causation by spiritual being. It is not “just a category mistake” or an archaic “dualism”. Mr. Shermer will now backtrack, and claim that he can see that men design things, and that there is stuff that has an already existent “design” in the universe, which no current being is capable of, but it is still the result of random evolutionary forces. At that point Mr. Dembski’s mathematics does handle this quite satisfactorily, if you have read his books. Professor Louis Bounoure has flatly stated that “Evolutionism is a fairy-tale for grownups.” It is becoming more and more apparent that this is true.
There is justice in the universe. But it is only that justice which men put there because they have the freedom to do so, and are good, and so do. Will Mr. Shermer get to the point where he claims that justice is a delusion, or that justice is put there accidentally by the random forces of an indifferent universe? Yes, we see all those chaotic little physical particles bouncing around, and they appear quite indifferent. There is something else here which is not indifferent, but you have to be able to observe it where it is. Only if Mr. Shermer states that there is NO physical component of justice at all can he deny its reality in physical terms. But then don’t catch him ever saying that a robbery is unjust. Or that if I dole out three to you, three to me, and three to the other guy, that it is of no consequence to survival. If Mr. Shermer claims that he can DO justice, but he can’t SEE justice, I would like to see this clearly stated. And please do not try to fool us with some denial of the relevance of any metaphysical point of departure, while clearly starting from one thyself!
You will please pardon the didactic flavor of this rejoinder. I have only responded in kind, at the level Mr. Shermer operates. If you want the real science of it, read Mr. Dembski and other serious scientists of the day. They don’t spend their time ridiculing others. They give well-articulated scientific, mathematical, and metaphysical reason for their formulas and conclusions.
Bill Newby
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic