|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Draft of anti-ID letter to the editor | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
I'm attempting to reply to a pro-ID letter in the Duluth, Minnesota newspaper. Here is my first (rough!) draft. Suggestions? Remember, I want to keep this pretty short and concise.
In reply to the Dan Erickson letter printed in the July 8th edition: The quality of intelligent design theory is thin at best. Many intelligent design (ID) proponents do not state who the designer is. But the possibilities seem to come down to either God or extraterrestrial aliens. I must presume that Mr. Erickson is one of the former. The Raelians would be an example of the later. ID proponents range from young Earth creationists (YECs) to varieties of old Earth evolutionists. My experience, from on-line debates, is that YECs will grasp at any concept that seems to go against the hated concept of evolution, regardless of how contrary to YECism it may be. Michael Behe, PhD in biochemistry and professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, is an example of the evolutionist variety of IDer. He is on record as accepting the ancient (4.45 billion year) age of the Earth, the bulk of the theory of evolution (ToE), and that humans and the great apes share a common ancestor. He, in my opinion, is the one who has forwarded the most coherent biological argument for ID. But that argument is but one of “God of the gaps”. That is, there are allegedly details in evolution that evolutionary theory can not adequately explain, which requires the input of a designer. In other words, the designer has to some degree influenced the pathways of evolution. Mr. Erickson notes that “A Harris poll done in 2005 found that 64 percent of American adults (and about half of those who are college graduates) agree that ”human beings were created directly by God.’” Sorry, but scientific study of “the creation” strongly indicates that those people are wrong. References/further reading: The Discovery InstituteDiscovery Institute - Wikipedia Michael Behe -Michael Behe - Wikipedia The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case -Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia The Of Pandas and People book:Of Pandas and People - Wikipedia Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Moose writes: Many intelligent design (ID) proponents do not state who the designer is. But the possibilities seem to come down to either God or extraterrestrial aliens. I must presume that Mr. Erickson is one of the former. The Raelians would be an example of the later. To preclude any misunderstanding about what you want to say, my suggestion here would be: "I must presume that Mr. Erickson is one of those who promote the former. The Raelians would be an example of proponents of the latter." (My additions in bold; thanks, Mike, for "latter".)
[Behe], in my opinion, is the one who has forwarded the most coherent biological argument for ID. But that argument is but one of “God of the gaps”. That is, there are allegedly details in evolution that evolutionary theory can not adequately explain, which requires the input of a designer. In other words, the designer has to some degree influenced the pathways of evolution. Minor quibble about the sentence in bold: two buts is ugly. Better would be: "But his argument is still one of "the God of the Gaps" (Some more embellishments also in bold.)
Mr. Erickson notes that “A Harris poll done in 2005 found that 64 percent of American adults (and about half of those who are college graduates) agree that ”human beings were created directly by God.’” Sorry, but scientific study of “the creation” strongly indicates that those people are wrong. I'd leave out "Sorry, but". First, there's no need to apologize for the results of science, and second, I think it weakens the power of the argument. You might also want to point out that the truth about the nature of existence is not a matter of majority opinion.
References/further reading: Include something by Dawkins? Edited by Parasomnium, : added paragraph about "Sorry, but" Edited by Parasomnium, : "latter" "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin. Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
4.55 billion years.
OK letter, but look for the last sentence to cause people to fire up their pens.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Well, aesthetically, I can only see that you spelt "latter" as "later". Or did you mean later? Or am I wrong? Other than that, I'd say it's as succinct as it can be.
As for agreement/disagreement with what you said in the letter, I assume that's not what you're interested in. But I'm tempted to say that one of the only Theistic-argument/s I see as having worth are also the one/s you seem to be promoting somewhat. If I were to reply to your letter, I'd say that a better conclusion for Theists, would be to infer that there is some sort of intelligence either within nature itself, or from an inexplicable source. We seek an inexplicable intelligent source POSSIBLY. Well, we have intelligence in lifeforms, and entities (gods), therefore it's a lifeform or entity(gods). We seek an inexplicable X.A, B, and C have explicable X Therefore it is A B or C. (Animal, god or alien). As you can see, such reasoning is not sound, because by observation, what we are looking for is inexplicable and because we only relate intelligence to entities, doesn't mean that's the answer. The actual matter isn't that simple, as once again it could be that the impression of intelligence is an illusion, but at a deeper level.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Do you have a link to the letter that you're replying too?
Just curious. I think your letter would be improved by the suggestions already provided. It looks good to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Is this the Duluth News Tribune? If so, I couldn't find the letter on-line. Their website seems to list very few letters.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
mike the wiz writes: If I were to reply to your letter, I'd say that a better conclusion for Theists, would be to infer that there is some sort of intelligence either within nature itself, or from an inexplicable source. One of the problems with ID and creationism is that they are ideas which arise expressly from a belief in a transcendent entity. There are many possibilities conceivable by the imagination which would reconcile theism with evolution if we weren't bound by that theological conclusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Max Power Member (Idle past 6035 days) Posts: 32 From: Minneapolis, MN, USA Joined: |
I'm not sure what Mr. Erickson's intent was with his article, but one thing you left out was how ID is in no way scientific. It isn't falsifiable, has no predictive power, and doesn't add anything to the table as far as scientific inquiry goes. I gather that Mr. Erickson isn't trying to push it as a scientific theory though.
Otherwise I like it. It is straight to the point. Max
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
One of the problems with ID and creationism is that they are ideas which arise expressly from a belief in a transcendent entity. Yes - that's a problem, as one can never infer that God is the cause of a thing it seems, as God will always be invoked posteriori. Therefore nobody can ever predict that an intelligence is at work without people thinking that the person is claiming that God did it. But if there is a genuine cause to consider an intelligent agent of some sort, then the person's beliefs should not matter. A Theist can also not have an ulterior motive. I, for example, consider myself a Theist, but I don't see that this intelligence necessarily has anything to do with God - as there could be a natural explanation, which there usually is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
mike the wiz writes: Yes - that's a problem, as one can never infer that God is the cause of a thing it seems, as God will always be invoked posteriori. Therefore nobody can ever predict that an intelligence is at work without people thinking that the person is claiming that God did it. People have always claimed that an intelligence was at work. History shows that the intelligence has been given many, many forms and names. 'The Christian God' is just the latest name, and to exlude that from being the 'I' in ID, is to start all over again in the evolution of theology. If the inexplicable is simply called 'God' we must, again, decide if the atributes of that God are natural, alien, immanant, or transcendent. Basically, because the Christian God arose from the conclusion of ID, there can be no Christian God Who is NOT intelligent and Who does NOT design. Anyway, I started a thread which I thought was similar, but probably isn't. I won't clog up this one any more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
I was unable to find the letter online. I also have not seen the letter it was replying to. The following is the letter as reproduced for the paper version:
Elvis analogy unsuited to intelligent design theory The June 21 letter, “Intelligent design shouldn’t go near the science column,” implied that those who advocate for intelligent design are on an intellectual par with folks who claim to have sighted Elvis Presley. Yet the writer ignored the facts that no proponent of intelligent design believes in a “flat, geocentric world” and that only a small minority of intelligent design advocates are “young Earth creationists.” It’s also obvious that the writer’s Elvis-sighting analogy carried no weight. A Harris poll done in 2005 found that 64 percent of American adults (and about half of those who are college graduates) agreed with the statement that “human beings were created directly by God”. There are hundreds of scientists with earned PhD degrees who opt for intelligent design over neo-Darwinism. What if the majority of Americans believed Elvis was still alive and even 10 police detective testified that the evidence convinced them that this was the case? No, it would not mean Elvis was really alive, but it would require those who disagreed with this claim to respond, not with mockery, but with rational argument. In the same way, intelligent design cannot be dismissed by ridicule. Nor is it adequate to simply claim that intelligent design is no scientific because in considers more than a naturalistic explanation of origins. Intellectual honesty requires folks on both sides of this debate to acknowledge that very intelligent people disagree with them. The discussion should then continue with an effort to honestly weigh the evidence and discover the truth. This means refusing to make “a priori” assumptions which rule out certain conclusions, even supernatural ones. Dan EricksonChisholm Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Moose,
In your draft you quote Erickson mentioning the Harris poll and respond with "Sorry, but scientific study of 'the creation' strongly indicates that those people are wrong." But you didn't quote his following paragraph in which he says:
What if the majority of Americans believed Elvis was still alive and even 10 police detective testified that the evidence convinced them that this was the case? No, it would not mean Elvis was really alive, but it would require those who disagreed with this claim to respond, not with mockery, but with rational argument. So in fact, he's not merely claiming that since a majority of American adults believe that human beings were created directly by God, it must therefore be true - as one might interpret it without the paragraph that follows it - but he's claiming that it should therefore be taken seriously and not ridiculed. That's quite a different argument, and he's got a point. You and I may not agree with it, but your rebuttal does not address Erickson's point. You'd do well to change your letter and address Erickson's claim proper, instead of taking the, excusez-le-mot, shallow route. Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin. Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4022 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Hi, Moose. If the Harris poll is correct and 64% of adults are still wooly-headed, it`s time to forget the nice guy approach and hit them hard with facts that MIGHT cause them to start thinking. Sabotaging their foundations could improve those percentages.
Should there be an intelligent designer, then he/she/it deserves no respect, having created millions of species that couldn`t withstand five major extinctions, often are poorly constructed so spend their lives restricted, or in pain, have little or no defences against the ID`s diseases, are sustained almost completely by another life form (bacteria), and, in the case of mankind, resort to fantasies to cope with reality. Only an Incompetent Designer would fill the bill. If there was one. For which little evidence exists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I don't think you're directly addressing all the points Erickson raises. Some of his points are more obvious than others, these are the key points I think he's making:
Because Erickson introduces the foundation of ID's stance into the debate, a response is an opportunity to expose in a broad and sweeping way ID's intellectual poverty and inherent dishonesty. Post your next revision and let's give it another review so that ID is on the receiving end of the most high caliber ammunition we're capable of delivering. In fact, you might even sign it:
Your name here EvC Forum I don't know your newspaper's position on very long letters, but you might be surprised at what can happen. A few years ago in a local school board dispute I wrote a very lengthy letter to the editor. They gave it column status and it took up the entire bottom half of the Sunday editorial page. If you work on something hard enough and give it sufficient quality, it might be printed regardless of the length. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Only an Incompetent Designer would fill the bill Intellegence and competence are not mutually exclusive.
Should there be an intelligent designer, then he/she/it deserves no respect, having created millions of species that couldn`t withstand five major extinctions, often are poorly constructed so spend their lives restricted, or in pain, have little or no defences against the ID`s diseases, are sustained almost completely by another life form (bacteria), and, in the case of mankind, resort to fantasies to cope with reality. You're just labeling those things as "bad". Maybe that is the best way for things to have happened. We don't know if they're good or bad.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024