The Mars Hill Club

Join moderator Bruce Paolozzi as we continue our discussion of Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. After our stimulating discussion on Thursday, March 1, we are now prepared to discuss 2 of Kant's 4 "antinomies" -- phillosophical arguments that compare pairs of propositions that appear to be contradictory, but which also appear to both be true. We will be looking specifically at time & space extension & the qaulity of substances.

There is little doubt of Immanuel Kant’s importance to philosophy and that he has had far reaching impact upon philosophy, philosophy of religion, and human knowledge in general. James Van Cleve says that Kant is, “Often regarded as the greatest of the modern philosophers…” (Van Cleve 255). Kant’s influence upon modern philosophy can be seen as a domino or billiard ball effect regarding how Kant has influenced philosophers who have influenced other philosophers in chain.

Note: Without a moderator & topic, Mars Hill Club Live in Costa Mesa, California will not take place tonight, Thursday, February 15. However, we are introducing a new on-line discussion below for free participation, no matter where you are & no matter when you would like to participate. Check our Calendar for upcoming live discussion in Costa Mesa.

Render to Caesar, Render to God: What Do You Owe, & to Whom Do You Owe It?

We've just returned from 10 days in China sharing fellowship with Chinese Christians participating in a symposium co-sponsored by Fuller Theological Seminary on History, Theology, & Apologetics in The Church in China. As I began to understand something about the Christians I was going to work with in China, I guessed I would have more to grow from on this trip than anything my audiences would learn from me. Now that I have returned, I am convinced that China had far more to offer me than I offered.

Thanks to both Bruce Paolozzi & George (Phil) Drake for developing a fascinating thread of discussion on intelligent design (ID) & short age or young earth creationism.

I agree with Phil that ID doesn't claim to be making theological declarations or to be tied to any particular theological issues. I agree with Bruce that many young earth creationists (the title more common than short age)make a false dichotomy between biblical faithfulness & judgments about the age of the earth and/or universe.

Responding to Critics (Source: Essays ‘Is Irreducible Complexity (IC) Falsifiable?’ and ‘Blood Clotting Blues’ by Michael Behe from the Discovery Institute website, and some material from DBB)

a. Philosophical naturalism ('nuff said?)
b. Falsifiability (In proposing IC, are we ‘staking the deck’ and writing the rules such that we cannot be proved wrong?)
i. Contradictory argumentation
1. Critics have said it is not falsifiable,
2. Critics have also said it is falsifiable and they have evidence against it
ii. IC is open to direct experimental rebuttal, in other words, you can go into a lab and see if you can make these things happen through naturalistic processes

The debate over intelligent design is deeper than merely between the evolution and intelligent design camps. There is also a faction of Christians who view intelligent design as flawed. These Christians usually identify their branch of this issue as creation science. Within Christian circles the most important distinction between creation science and intelligent design, is the question of the age of the earth. Because of this distinction, the creation science camp is also referred to as young earth creationists, while the intelligent design camp is often referred to as the old earth creationists. Unfortunately, the debate between the old earth and young earth camps has gotten to be rather heated of late. This can be seen in the following quote from Henry Morris’ book History of Modern Creationism:

Darwin's Self Defeat: A Synopsis of the Irreducible Complexity from Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael Behe

by Bruce Paolozzi

What is Irreducible Complexity?

Simply put, irreducible complexity is any system that stops working when any single part is removed. In such a system, all parts play a role in the function of the whole system. An irreducibly complex system could not have possibly been ‘evolved’ because, existing in a simpler state, it would have been lacking a crucial component that it needs to work.(1)

Steps in Determining Irreducible Complexity

In support of Phil Drake's current discussion regarding Intelligent Design (ID) I thought I would post another outline that I have on the subject.

In 1802, William Paley wrote a book titled Natural Theology. In this book, Paley put forth the now famous ‘watchmaker’ argument. Basically, this states that if we see the same sort of design in biology and in the universe that is found in a watch, it is just as obvious that a designer exists who created the universe as it is obvious that someone exists who designed the watch.

Of course, this leads to Hume’s classic rebuttal, later elaborated on by John Stuart Mill, and resurrected by Richard Dawkins, that the universe is nothing like a watch and therefore cannot be compared to a watch for the purpose of making a point here through analogy. This leads to the question, ‘how then do we tell if something is designed?’ This is a pivotal question, for if we leave this to mere ‘intuition’ we have serious problems. What may seem intuitive to one person may not be intuitive to another. So we need something better than mere ‘intuition’, but what?

In support of Phil Drake's current discussion regarding Intelligent Design (ID) I thought I would post an outline that I have on the subject.

I. What is science?

In order to set up a discussion on whether or not Intelligent Design (ID) is a valid scientific theory, we first need to discuss what science is and how it works.

a. Science is based primarily on our experiences and our attempts to explain these experiences.

b. The noted philosopher of science, Karl Popper, has this to say:

‘Science is merely an attempt to classify and describe this perceptual knowledge, these immediate experiences whose truth we cannot doubt; is the systematic presentation of our immediate convictions.’