Hi Professor. You know, I went to the Mall of America when I was working nearby, and I couldn't see what all the fuss was about. Where's the justice? You of all people get thrown out on your ass, while half the tourists in there should be cuffed and hauled off simply for what they were wearing.
PZ, I find with Victor Stenger, that science indeed tests for God show probably no god. Mine is the atelic argument that the weight of evidence as my friend the philosopher Paul Draper notes that there is no cosmic teleology and thus to conflate natural selection with divine teleology is to contradict oneself as theistic evolutionists so do! That is the new Omphalos argument that God deceiveds into thinking that natural selection does the job. No, selection is its own boss [unless Provine is right that other forces determine its working- still same argument] ,working as a sieve without any teleology.
I rely in Weisz's comments in "The Science of Biology," where he notes that teleology is backwards causation- the effect before the cause, the future before the past, thus negating time. By teleology, he means predermined outcomes whereas causalism "denies foreknowledge of terminal states,,predestination,purpose,goals, and fixed states. It holds that natural events take place sequentially. Events occur only as other events permit them to occur , not as preordained goals or pppurposes, maaake them occur. End states are connsequences, notforegone concllllusions, of beginning states....Because scientists can obtain different end states after changing the conditions of initial states, the idea of predetermined goals loses all validity in scinetific thought." [ He allow that religion is another language and does not make himself the atelic argument.]
Metaphysics should not override science!
Now ,as you probably know, Eugenie C. Scott, because of her fear of offending creationists, brays that certain scientist like Ernst Mayr [
What Evolution Is" and George Gaylord Simpson] err in stating that science does not show no teleology. Steve Schafersman over ten years ago said no to her! Draper notes that she is playing with the demarcation problem.
Now Kenneth Miller wants to introduce design into biology when what we see are patterns. He sees the pareidolia that behind nature there is teleology at work. That pareidolia is just what theists see- like seeing Yeshua in a tortilla!
And to invoke that pareidolia is to assume what is in question as all teleological arguments so do- design, fine-tuning, probability and froom reason.
As Amiel Rossow notes @ Talk Reason , Kenneth Miller takes out ID out of the front door, only to bring it back through the back one!
We owe so much gratitude to those three, but we should oppose them on this matter. She thinks she is defending science and showing creationists that they can have God and evolution both whereas we, with Dawkins, prefer the truth!
Now, let her have her way, but we should affirm ours against her.
Stenger notes that Polkinghorne and others do indeed try to use science to buttress their religion and, they are theistic evolutionists.
Can't both the Dawkins and Scott camps co-exist ?
Thanks for your militancy! Now ,we militants are not dogmatists as we rely on fallibilism, demanding evidence, so atheist Julian Bagini is wrong about some of us militants.
He notes that even those who defend passionately natural theology, in the end come to their god by faith, the arguments are just padding! So, we have to use emotion and whatever else in addition to reason to get to them.
So, say a couple of centuries?
Thanks for your indefatigable work! I will note Pharyngula in my posts now. Skeptic Griggsy [ Google that to see that I post about naturalism the world over. I am in contact with Draper, Richard Carrier[ Goodness and Sense without God] and Graham Robert Oppy [ 'Arguments about Gods].
I 'm so very glad to email you today!