Darrel R. Falk's Generous Review of Michael Denton's New Book

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

Eddie,

I watched one of the videos you recommended.

Conversations with Michael Denton: What Is Structuralism? | Evolution News

I don’t detect a trace of Consciousness in his view of natural order and the replication of natural order throughout the Universe.

George

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

Well, a video is better than nothing. But you should read the whole book. You should also look at all the videos. In one of them, I can’t remember which one, he says explicitly that his view of Types is entirely compatible with “intelligent design” by a conscious mind.

I will do some Google Books… but I’m thinking he is being a little poetic about the intrinsic properties of “design” that UNCONSCIOUS laws of nature can promote.

In my view, the only way you can have “design” is if you have consciousness or intention. I don’t believe the laws of nature are capable of either intention or consciousness. And as soon as we construe them as such, they become a form of cosmic deity.

George

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

The “laws of nature” need not be conscious for the Author of those laws to be so. Nobody says that Newton and Kepler did not believe in a conscious God because they believed the planets were governed by laws. Thus, if evolution turns out to be governed by laws rather than chance, it does not follow that there is no conscious God behind those laws.

@Eddie,

I know you are going to be surprised by this … but none of these reading projects have anything to do with my work or career. Google Books is the perfect compromise for a person in my situation.

I think it is all together clear that Denton does not think there is ANYTHING conscious behind the unconscious laws of nature. So while I appreciate the distinction you point out CAN BE MADE – the distinction seems utterly lost on Denton.

There is no Universal or Cosmic Consciousness for Denton – so there can be no Designer, no matter how we tumble the words around.

Your sentence: “Nobody says that Newton … did not believe in a conscious God because they believed the planets were governed by laws.” WELL SURE!

I hope you don’t think that I assume someone is an atheist as soon as they talk about the Laws of Nature.

But this is not what Denton is describing. He is describing a cosmos full of UNINTENTIONED design features … with no Designer.

George

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

How amusing it is that, if I were to read “uninentional” or “unguided” into Dennis Venema’s or Darrel Falk’s accounts of Darwinian evolution, you would jump all over me for reading a metaphysical notion like “unintentional” into their purely scientific description of the evolutionary process, while you freely ascribe to Denton a metaphysical commitment (“unintentioned”) which he nowhere states or implies.

@Eddie,

Getting a long post from you is like getting hit on the head, repeatedly, with a very large book. I think everyone would benefit if you could figure out how NOT to have that affect on your correspondents.

If you want to make a difference in this discussion - - prove me wrong. I think it’s pretty clear there is very little I can do to convince YOU of anything. So I’m not really going to try.

IN CONCLUSION: We are still looking for a proponent of COSMIC Intelligent Design (let’s call it C.I.D.!) - - who believes there is a designer that isn’t the God of Abraham.

George

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie,

This ain’t my first rodeo, Eddie. I’ve known many fellows who debate like you do … and who are unrelenting.

Nothing bends their mind to consensus or compromise. I’m not going to sweat your lack of satisfaction with how I discuss topics here.

Have a wonderful and joyous evening.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

The “laws of nature” need not be conscious for the Author of those laws to be so. Nobody says that Newton and Kepler did not believe in a conscious God because they believed the planets were governed by laws. Thus, if evolution turns out to be governed by laws rather than chance, it does not follow that there is no conscious God behind those laws.

And if you really want to understand Denton, don’t do “Google Books.” That will give you only part of the text. Denton’s book is a sustained, coherent argument, like Darwin’s Origin of Species. Surely you have the patience to read an entire book? Especially one so groundbreaking?

@Eddie ,

I thought I would update this thread with this footnote:

[Footnote 3: Stephen C. Meyer. Signature in the Cell. Harper Collins. Retrieved 13 November 2010. Michael Denton, an agnostic, argues for intelligent design in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 326–43.]

Page 557:

Footnote #4:
"Michael Denton, an agnostic, argues for intelligent
design in EVOLUTION: A THEORY IN CRISIS, 326-343. Antony
Flew, a longtime champion of atheism, recently announced
his abandonment of atheism based on the evidence of
intelligent design, but emphasized that his religion was far from
conventional (much less sectarian): "I’m thinking of a
God very different from the God of the Christian and
far and away from the God of Islam, because both are
depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam
Husseins" (“Famous Atheist Now Believes in God,”
http://abcnews.go.com/US/WireStory?id=315976 ).
See also Flew, “There is a God.”

You have two choices:

Ague that Denton’s God is not a CONSCIOUS God …

or -

Argue that a God doesn’t have to be conscious to be God.

Or, I suppose you could just accept that Denton’s ID work is still working for a God…

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

I don’t understand the relevance of this. What does Stephen Meyer’s 2010 opinion of Denton’s 1985 book have to do with Darrel Falk’s opinion of Denton’s 2016 book?

I think the special relevance of Denton is what he brings to the party. You once proposed Denton as an Intelligent Design proponent who DID NOT attribute the Designer to God.

So I thought it was important that we get a better understanding of what he thinks about God. It seems that his use of the word “Agnostic” is not exactly how other people use the word. We should understand this.

George

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

The purpose of my “column” was not to stimulate discussion on Denton’s view of God (which we have had elsewhere), but to stimulate discussion on Denton’s “structuralist” view of evolution and to raise the possibility that ID and TE/EC might find some common ground if a “structuralist” approach to evolution were to replace the Darwinian one. That is, I was trying to build some bridges – an attempt I thought you would appreciate, since elsewhere you have accused me of creating friction between ID and TE/EC.

I see, @Eddie, so: can you describe this UNIFYING “structuralism” in one, maybe two sentences? I’m VERY interested in unifying ID and TE/EC.

George

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie,

I am always amused when people who want me and others to follow their views … are UNWILLING to share their views…

I’ll get to it when I get to it …

[BradKramer]

@Eddie

I want people to read original sources before making up their minds what somebody thinks and why it’s right or wrong.

Are you saying that, in general, anyone who wants to have a view about origins needs to spend hundreds of hours reading original sources in science and theology? What is the role of institutions and trust figures in all of this (considering that 99.5 percent of our audience doesn’t have the time or acumen to read all those sources themselves)?