tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post6183748723379784775..comments2024-03-25T19:00:40.046-06:00Comments on The Constructive Curmudgeon: Behe Strikes AgainDouglas Groothuis, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/08766692378954258034noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-83358789373512296592007-06-16T08:56:00.000-06:002007-06-16T08:56:00.000-06:00Ohmy."God is self-explanatory and explains everyth...Ohmy.<BR/><BR/>"God is self-explanatory and explains everything else rationally."<BR/><BR/>Both 'explanation' and 'rationally' are, per force, contingent and finite. Explanation is required to be about something rather than nothing or everything, and, rationally is about a formal structure for reasoning. <BR/><BR/>Once you frame God with those terms, God has to come down from the non-contingent heights. God can live there, but 'explanation' happens down here.<BR/><BR/>Alas, "God is self-explanatory" is imprecise. Self-explanation is a trope. Implicit in this description is the act of explaining.<BR/><BR/>So, better: God explains God.<BR/><BR/>Problem. How do we know this is in actuality what God does? What would certify this being the case?<BR/><BR/>I doubt you will be abe to solve this problem for the simple reason that both brilliant and insipid attempts throughout human history have ended up, at some point, in implicating something along the order of "because I say so," or, "because (I believe,) God is God in the terms I've entered as to what God is." Obviously a tautological argument won't do.<BR/><BR/>Prove me wrong without the appeal to human authority, or concealing a tautology in the predicate of your proof.SHOONhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10797583639419242157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-4346505604436403382007-06-05T16:11:00.000-06:002007-06-05T16:11:00.000-06:00I just realized that the links to "this and this" ...I just realized that the links to <A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/behes_edge_of_evolution_part_i.php" REL="nofollow">"this</A> and <A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/behes_edge_of_evolution_part_i_1.php" REL="nofollow">this"</A> went missing from my previous post (which, as a consequence, does not make much sense). Sorry.The Daily Fuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12636581068441603099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-65111029519349464522007-06-05T15:44:00.000-06:002007-06-05T15:44:00.000-06:00Saunders:I wrote this in my review of Sam Harris's...Saunders:<BR/><BR/>I wrote this in my review of Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation.<BR/><BR/>"Like Dawkins, Harris thinks that the question, “Who created God?” puts an abrupt end to theistic arguments, since this would mean an infinite regress of explanation (73). A designing mind would have to be as complex as the creation itself, so the creation is never explained. But cosmological and design arguments attempt to explain the existence of finite and contingent states of being. They argue that the universe does not explain itself—either in terms of its origin or its form. Therefore, the best explanation is something outside of the finite and contingent universe: God. But God is understood to be non-finite and non-contingent. Unlike the universe, God is not a collection of finite and contingent states that require explanation. Therefore, God’s character as designer and creator does not demand explanation, as does the universe and its form. God is self-explanatory and explains everything else rationally."<BR/><BR/>I will have more to day in my review of "The God Delusion," which will also come out in "The Christian Research Journal."Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08766692378954258034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-41229851211378217612007-06-05T12:14:00.000-06:002007-06-05T12:14:00.000-06:00Perhaps the title of this post should have read: B...Perhaps the title of this post should have read: <BR/>Behe strikes OUT, again.<BR/><BR/>I read this and this, and I have to say the logic of the critique seems to hold up quite well, certainly much better than Behe's capricious ideas about the necessity of a designer to explain complexity. (As an avid fan of poker, I could particularly relate to the introduction of the the Straight Flush Complexity Cluster mataphor).<BR/><BR/>Supporters of ID always whine that scientists who come out in support of intelligent design do not get the peer reviews they deserve because evolutionists (often contemptuosly referred to as scientific materialists) are a clannish kind that does not want to open up to outsiders who threaten their domain with competing theories (while the truth is that very little propositional scientific writing gets done in the name of ID). Guess what, I have a feeling there won't be a lack of peer reviews for The Edge of Evolution, and they won't be flattering. (To call them *peer* reviews seems actually an insult to the poor biologists who will go to the trouble of reviewing Behe's nonsense as if it were on an equal footing with evolutionist literature.)<BR/><BR/>Behe is lucky sloppy scientific thinking is not a crime, and that he does not live in a three-strikes state, or he would have been locked up for life a long time ago.The Daily Fuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12636581068441603099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-61786229481869768082007-06-05T12:12:00.000-06:002007-06-05T12:12:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.The Daily Fuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12636581068441603099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-78745506153759796902007-06-05T12:04:00.000-06:002007-06-05T12:04:00.000-06:00""The cell's macromolecular machines contain dozen...<I><BR/>""The cell's macromolecular machines contain dozens or even hundreds of components. But unlike man made machines, which are built on assembly lines, these cellular machines assemble spontaneously from their ...components. It is as though cars could be manufactured by merely tumbling their parts onto the factory floor.""<BR/></I><BR/><B><BR/>Then it doesn't suggest design at all, does it?<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>More importantly the statement illustrates that we do not <I> detect design</I>, we <I> model manufacture</I>.John Stockwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03496308585336775569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-57979586856148954462007-06-04T14:47:00.000-06:002007-06-04T14:47:00.000-06:00"Modern science reveals the cell is a sophisticate..."Modern science reveals the cell is a sophisticated, automated, nano-scale factory."<BR/><BR/>Er...no.<BR/><BR/>"For example, the journal Nature marvels,"<BR/><BR/>Journals don't marvel. People do.<BR/><BR/>""The cell's macromolecular machines contain dozens or even hundreds of components. But unlike man made machines, which are built on assembly lines, these cellular machines assemble spontaneously from their ...components. It is as though cars could be manufactured by merely tumbling their parts onto the factory floor.""<BR/><BR/>Then it doesn't suggest design at all, does it?Smokeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05904417073935434187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-12952263824512259892007-06-04T07:20:00.000-06:002007-06-04T07:20:00.000-06:00"In the teeth of that evidence a person such as Ri..."In the teeth of that evidence a person such as Richard Dawkins is still free to think it was all one huge cosmic accident. Most people will decide God -- or some remarkable being -- is the most likely explanation."<BR/><BR/>Who do "most people" believe designed and created God (or the remarkable being)do you imagine?Saunders 1865 BLOGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02903048824339130818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-16695454225754365622007-06-04T01:43:00.000-06:002007-06-04T01:43:00.000-06:00The scientists aren't impressed with Behe's book: ...The scientists aren't impressed with Behe's book: http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/05/behes_dreadful_new_book_a_revi_1.php<BR/><BR/>Especially those scientists who work with real stuff in evolution are not impressed: http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/05/good-virus-bad-creationist.htmlEd Darrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10056539160596825210noreply@blogger.com