Hi!
This is a copy of a post I've made at the TWeb, but I thought it might be of interest here as well.
William Dembski has written a rebuttal of a critique by Howard Van Till of Dembski's book No Free Lunch.
Near the end of the linked paper Dembski invokes the spirit of W.V. Quine and writes:
From the point of view of 99.99% of the world population, "sensibilia, possibilia, spirits, a Creator" may appear much more real than do quarks and black holes. Quarks and black holes may indeed appear to be little more than objects made up to explain the otherwise unexplainable. However, there is an important difference: quarks and black holes are only given the attributes necessary for their explanatory values. Does e.g. a unicorn explain anything? Does it explain it better than a gnome would? In science is used a special version of Occam's razor that states that a theory should explain as much as possible with as little effort as possible. No decorations for mere display are allowed. Quarks have no quirks, and there are no shocking pink black holes.
Dembski continues:
Ok, so Dembski would have made an excellent used-car salesman, but should we joyfully accord intelligent design full scientific status? Does the assumption of invisible hands add any explanatory power?
Let's look at, what the words of the Bible say, shall we?
In 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chron 21 we find the story about a census supposedly ordered by king David. The main differences between the two versions are in the very first verse:
2 Samuel 24
Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah."
1 Chron 21
Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.
So, who is against Israel? And who incited David to take the census? God ("the LORD" by any other name) or Satan? Is there any observable difference? The rest of the story is pretty much the same in the two versions. Yet we must assume that it makes some difference, whether God or Satan were against Israel and incited David to take the census!
What if David simply himself decided to take the census without spiritual inference? Is there any observable difference?
In the continuation of the story God gets upset with the census (for no apparent reason, divine logic is weird) and decided to take punitive action. The Angel of Death is sent towards Jerusalem, but then David asks, why innocent people should be killed because he had done something wrong. God regrets the evil he had planned, recalls the Angel of Death and gives David the choice between three punishments: 3 years of famine in the land, 3 months of fleeing from his enemies, and 3 days of plague in the land.
Again the divine logic escapes us: only one of these choices hits David directly without collateral damage, but who are we to inquire about the reasonings of God?
David chooses the plague - and 70,000 people are killed all over the land in the three days.
Well, if Satan wanted to hit Israel and have God do the hard work for him, this would be the way to go, so the version in 1 Chron 21 appears to be the one that makes the most sense
However, say a census was taken, and shortly after 70,000 people die during some plague. We'll simply accept the story as historical with respect to this. Would either of the versions be much of an explanation, or would they just confuse matters more than needed? And if confimative, which version should be accept as the best explanation?
- FreezBee
This is a copy of a post I've made at the TWeb, but I thought it might be of interest here as well.
William Dembski has written a rebuttal of a critique by Howard Van Till of Dembski's book No Free Lunch.
Near the end of the linked paper Dembski invokes the spirit of W.V. Quine and writes:
William Dembski said:
From the point of view of 99.99% of the world population, "sensibilia, possibilia, spirits, a Creator" may appear much more real than do quarks and black holes. Quarks and black holes may indeed appear to be little more than objects made up to explain the otherwise unexplainable. However, there is an important difference: quarks and black holes are only given the attributes necessary for their explanatory values. Does e.g. a unicorn explain anything? Does it explain it better than a gnome would? In science is used a special version of Occam's razor that states that a theory should explain as much as possible with as little effort as possible. No decorations for mere display are allowed. Quarks have no quirks, and there are no shocking pink black holes.
Dembski continues:
William Dembski said:
Ok, so Dembski would have made an excellent used-car salesman, but should we joyfully accord intelligent design full scientific status? Does the assumption of invisible hands add any explanatory power?
Let's look at, what the words of the Bible say, shall we?
In 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chron 21 we find the story about a census supposedly ordered by king David. The main differences between the two versions are in the very first verse:
2 Samuel 24
Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah."
1 Chron 21
Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.
So, who is against Israel? And who incited David to take the census? God ("the LORD" by any other name) or Satan? Is there any observable difference? The rest of the story is pretty much the same in the two versions. Yet we must assume that it makes some difference, whether God or Satan were against Israel and incited David to take the census!
What if David simply himself decided to take the census without spiritual inference? Is there any observable difference?
In the continuation of the story God gets upset with the census (for no apparent reason, divine logic is weird) and decided to take punitive action. The Angel of Death is sent towards Jerusalem, but then David asks, why innocent people should be killed because he had done something wrong. God regrets the evil he had planned, recalls the Angel of Death and gives David the choice between three punishments: 3 years of famine in the land, 3 months of fleeing from his enemies, and 3 days of plague in the land.
Again the divine logic escapes us: only one of these choices hits David directly without collateral damage, but who are we to inquire about the reasonings of God?
David chooses the plague - and 70,000 people are killed all over the land in the three days.
Well, if Satan wanted to hit Israel and have God do the hard work for him, this would be the way to go, so the version in 1 Chron 21 appears to be the one that makes the most sense
However, say a census was taken, and shortly after 70,000 people die during some plague. We'll simply accept the story as historical with respect to this. Would either of the versions be much of an explanation, or would they just confuse matters more than needed? And if confimative, which version should be accept as the best explanation?
- FreezBee