Rhester; I disagree with you on a whole bunch of issues but have appreciated your approach to debate civilly and with a fair dose of humility. That said I've pretty much given up on this thread. I've stated my arguments multiple times. Have been insulted for it, not by you, and have just gone round and round. So I hope you don't take my failure to respond to your posts in this thread as disrespect just that I'm taking a break from the subject.
It's so simple that no one in the world has done it. The reason is, if anyone in the ID community decided to try and do what you propose it would be ripped to shreds by science.
I can’t let that pass without correction. You have certainly done your share of insulting, and you have consistently failed to back up your statements or address the points that have been presented to you. You have also repeatedly and blatantly misrepresented what I have said in this thread without even attempting to offer any justification, not even when it was requested of you.
A number of academics have been referred to in this thread. They have published books and I assume papers. Is it your claim that no such papers exist?
ID and Common Ancestry http://www.stcynic.com/blog/ One of the things I've been saying for a long time about "intelligent design" is how frustrating it is trying to get IDers to spell out what they think actually happened. They've got lots of criticisms of evolutionary theory, but no model of their own for the natural history of the earth. Some of them claim that ID doesn't really deny evolution but works well with it. For instance, Bruce Gordon posits that ID is compatible with practically any position on the natural history of life on earth, and with evolution specifically: But if you ask the major players in ID whether they accept the theory of evolution - which is common ancestry, the theory that all modern life forms are derived from one or a few common ancestors via descent with modification - you will get wildly differing answers. Their media appearances in just the last few days demonstrate this. First, William Dembski went on Nightline and said that he accepted common ancestry as valid. When the host made the statement that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, he replied: But in an appearance on the Lou Dobbs show, Jonathan Wells said that common ancestry was out too, that the evidence for common ancestry was very suspect: Michael Behe is on record many times as saying that he accepts common ancestry as well. So among the three most prominent ID scholars, we have a serious split here. Two accept common ancestry and say the evidence supports it and a third says the evidence contradicts it. So what exactly does ID say about the natural history of life on earth? Your guess is as good as mine, which is to say as good as theirs. The only thing they all agree on is that God must have done something at some point within evolution, and lo and behold that point just happens to be wherever scientists do not have a compelling explanation for how some very specific biochemical system evolved. It's a classic "god of the gaps" argument - yes, we accept that life evolved (except for those of us who don't) but in any area where science is still working on a good explanation of a specific problem within evolution, that's where God must have jumped in to do....well, something. We don't know what. Or when. Or how. We just know that, right now at least, evolution hasn't explained it and therefore God must have done it. As my colleague Howard Van Till would say, this is not only bad science it is bad theology. It presumes that God did such a poor job of creating the conditions that give rise to life that he had to continually intervene and tinker with it to get it to work right (see this article for a further explanation of his views). There is a further problem for the IDers in that their position of accepting common ancestry would seem to conflict with their claims on the Cambrian explosion, for example. The DI has made a huge deal out of the Cambrian explosion as an argument against common ancestry, asking where the remains are of the ancestors to those organisms which came to be in the Cambrian. But if one accepts that the evidence for common ancestry is strong, then the Cambrian explosion must be an artifact, not a genuine problem for common ancestry. So why are Dembski and Behe not telling Stephen Meyer and Jonathan Wells, both of whom use the Cambrian explosion constantly in their arguments, that it's not a problem for common ancestry? I'll submit that it's because they neither have, nor are concerned with having, a coherent model of the natural history of life on earth; they only have, and are only interested in having, arguments that show a lack of explanatory power for evolution so that they can claim that wherever such a lack exists, that's where God must have done....well something. Paul Nelson is correct when he admits that there is no actual theory of ID to guide research. No only is there no theory of ID, there isn't even a coherent conception of what actually happened. There is only an attempt to poke holes in evolution large enough to put the word "God" in the hole. And this is quite by design, I might add. The traditional creationists tried to come up with a specific model that makes predictions about the nature of the evidence with a young earth, flood geology model; the problem is that those predictions fail and the evidence flat contradicts the model. So the IDers have learned from this that if you don't try to establish what actually happened, or where and when it happened, you can't be shown to be wrong. Vagueness as compelling argument.
Good read. ID would be credible if it would make predictions or deisgn experiements that can be verified.
Exactly. Plus when you tinker with one thing, you tinker with everything since everything is connected, and is a part of everything else.
But ID is NOT one theory at that level, as we have discussed here. Saying that ID is likelihood or even a realistic possibility is only the start of that process. Different people who believe in ID will ultimately give you different answers to that question. But to even begin this kind of inquiry you need to break away from the “Evolution is absolute truth” mentality. That tries to prevent you from even thinking about anything else. To break free from that you need (from a practical standpoint) to find some justification for saying and believing that evol may not be truth. Evol relies on the belief that the life that exists today randomly evolved from a common ancestor. So if you can do the studies, or even collect the data that has already been generated, and do the probability analysis then you can determine, scientifically, what the probability is that what exists could be a random evolution from a common ancestor. The problem is that the mechanisms suggested by many evolutionists are magical things that have no empirical support or even clear proposal for how they would work. There are leaps in the fossil record, for example, that are unexplained by evolution other than to say that “since evolution is true, something must have happened.” This isn’t good science, but this is “Normal” science.
Grizz - You need to learn more about modern evolution before attacking it Evolution is a Fact and a Theory by Laurence Moran Copyright � 1993-2002 [Last Update: January 22, 1993] http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else: In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was." Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered. Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution. - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981 Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate: Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms. - Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983 Also: It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun. The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution. - R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit. This concept is also explained in introductory biology books that are used in colleges and universities (and in some of the better high schools). For example, in some of the best such textbooks we find: Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution. - Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434 Also: Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972 One of the best introductory books on evolution (as opposed to introductory biology) is that by Douglas J. Futuyma, and he makes the following comment: A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century. - Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15 There are readers of these newsgroups who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled. There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution. We also need to distinguish between facts that are easy to demonstrate and those that are more circumstantial. Examples of evolution that are readily apparent include the fact that modern populations are evolving and the fact that two closely related species share a common ancestor. The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word "fact." In other cases the available evidence is less strong. For example, the relationships of some of the major phyla are still being worked out. Also, the statement that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor is strongly supported by the available evidence, and there is no opposing evidence. However, it is not yet appropriate to call this a "fact" since there are reasonable alternatives. Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some readers of these newsgroups point out that nothing in science can ever be "proven" and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won't do in the real world. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out (see above), means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been made by others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists. The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation .... So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words. - H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit. In any meaningful sense evolution is a fact, but there are various theories concerning the mechanism of evolution. ********************************** Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution Copyright � 1995-1997 by Mark Isaak [Last Update: October 1, 2003] http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html .... "There are no transitional fossils." A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendents evolves. To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human. For many more examples, see the transitional fossils FAQ in the talk.origins archive, and see http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html for sample images for some invertebrate groups. The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category, or that there is some eternal ideal form (for philosophers, the Platonic idea) which defines the category. This kind of thinking leads people to declare that Archaeopteryx is "100% bird," when it is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact). In truth, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesn't. Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism. "But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994 "The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance." There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating. Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go). Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with. (One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.) "Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved." First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved. Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.) Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain. What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.
As a practicing Catholic, my personal beliefs would fall either under 4: The Fully-Gifted Creation Perspective or 5: Naturalistic theism (process theology) as described in the following article. From either point of view, supernatural intervention is absolutely NOT required to explain the way the physical world works. However, in a science classroom, I believe that the approach of 1: The answer of the natural sciences should be taken. An individual can learn about the physical world through science and the scientific method alone--this is what belongs in a science classroom. That same individual can interpret what he learns in a science classroom according to his own spiritual beliefs--this belongs in a philosophy or theology classroom, but NOT in a science classroom: ------------------------------- http://canyoninstitute.org/resources/Publications/news2-2.html Do We Live in a Right Stuff Universe?: The Roots of the Design vs. Naturalism Debate Dr. Howard Van Till, Professor Emeritus, Physics & Astronomy, Calvin College Our universe is quite a remarkable place. A handful of basic building blocks can be arranged to form a spectacular variety of intricate structures and dynamic systems. Furthermore, we know that these building blocks have the capability to self-organize into things like atoms, molecules, galaxies, stars and planets. But is this the way that all natural structures and systems came to be formed? Does the universe really have within itself "the right stuff"-all of the requisite resources, capabilities and potentialities-to form every kind of natural object that we see? Even living things? Does the universe have "the right stuff" to make something as astounding as biological evolution possible? Or do natural formational processes need to be supplemented with some form of non-natural action? That's the basic question that lurks beneath the surface of today's active debate between the Intelligent Design movement and various forms of Naturalism. The choice among answers, however, is more complex than the usual either/or format allows. To get at one of these complexities, I would like to focus on one particular aspect of scientific theorizing-the role of assumptions. More specifically, I would like to focus on one of the most basic and fruitful assumptions that is regularly employed in theorizing about the formational history of the universe. I call it the "Right Stuff Universe (RSU) Principle." Does that sound familiar? Probably not. Neither are you likely to find it listed in the index of any science text. Nonetheless, it is a principle so fundamental that the assumption of its truth (or applicability) is essential to all scientific theorizing about the formational history of all categories of natural structures-from atoms to galaxies to animals-found in our universe. THE QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED As we will soon state it, the RSU Principle will be an answer to a question about the character of the universe; more specifically, about the completeness of its "formational resources." By formational resources, I mean the set of all of the components, potentialities and self-organizational capabilities of the universe that have contributed to its formational history. By components, I mean such things as the basic interactive particles of which things are made. By potentialities, I mean those functional structures, systems and living organisms that could possibly be made from those components. By self-organizational capabilities, I mean the universe's abilities for achieving some of its potentialities, for organizing its components into diverse physical structures (atoms, stars) and living organisms. Examples of the universe's self-organizational capabilities would include the following: Protons and neutrons have the capabilities to interact and combine in such a way as to form atomic nuclei-from the simple hydrogen nucleus, with only one proton, to more massive nuclei like those of uranium, with 92 protons and an even larger number of neutrons. Atomic nuclei, in turn, have the capabilities to act and interact in ways that lead to the formation of other nuclei, including larger and more complex nuclei. Atoms, active structures formed by the combination of electrons with nuclei, have the capabilities to interact and to organize themselves into a vast spectrum of molecules, which have the capabilities to interact in ways that lead to the formation of an even more vast array of other molecules, including those required for the functioning of living organisms. Molecules possess the capabilities to interact in ways that lead to their organizing themselves into molecular ensembles having still more remarkable capabilities, perhaps even the capabilities that constitute life, as exhibited by a unicellular organism. Living cells exhibit an astounding menu of capabilities for metabolism, reproduction, differentiation, variation, adaptation, and organizing into more complex multi-cellular systems and organisms. The question to be answered by the Right Stuff Universe Principle can now be asked. Does the universe have all of the formational resources needed to actualize (arrange, configure, assemble, construct) every kind of natural physical structure and living organism that has ever been present in the universe? THE ANSWER TO BE QUESTIONED To the question just stated, the Right Stuff Universe Principle answers: Yes, the universe has the "right stuff" (all of the necessary formational resources) to make possible - without need for occasional episodes of supernatural, form-imposing intervention - the actualization of both: a) all of the types of physical structures (nucleons, nuclei, atoms, molecules, stars, galaxies, etc), and b) all of the life forms that have appeared in the course of time. Another way to say essentially the same thing is to say: Yes, the universe is characterized by "functional integrity," the kind of completeness that makes possible both its daily functioning and its historical development without need for supplementary, form-conferring intervention by any supernatural agent. But as soon as the principle is stated, it can also be questioned. Is the Right Stuff Universe Principle true? Do we actually live in a "right stuff" universe? The answer one gets depends, of course, on who is asked. I will first look very briefly at three common replies, then a bit more extensively at two that I believe deserve more attention than they ordinarily get. 1. The answer of the natural sciences: Yes, the empirical evidence points in the direction of a "right stuff" universe. Why is the universe like this? That's a question that science itself cannot answer within the limits of its methodology and competence. One needs to go to more comprehensive disciplines like philosophy and religion to deal with questions of this sort. The two principal contenders in the contemporary creation/evolution debate are maximal naturalism and supernaturalist creationism. By "maximal naturalism" (it could also be called materialism), I mean a comprehensive worldview built on the premise that the physical/material world is all there is; no non-material God or gods exist. By "supernaturalist creationism," I mean any form of theism that posits the need for occasional episodes of form-conferring intervention as the means for actualizing some of the physical structures and/or life forms that have appeared in the universe. This category includes the positions generally advocated by the contemporary Intelligent Design movement. 2. The answer of maximal naturalism: Yes, we do live in a "right stuff" universe. Why is the universe like this? Answers vary considerably, but words like accident, necessity, uncaused, unknowable and mystery generally play a substantial role. There is, however, no need for any God. 3. The answer of supernaturalist creationism: No, because the universe was designed by God in such a way that some of its forms, structures or living organisms could not be actualized naturally. Consequently, occasional episodes of form-conferring divine intervention would be necessary to assemble them, and there is empirical evidence that confirms this need. In addition to these three familiar answers to our question, there are two less familiar ones that I would like to outline. Both are based on theistic worldviews, and both welcome the Right Stuff Universe Principle. 4. The Fully-Gifted Creation Perspective: Yes, we do live in a "right stuff" universe. Its character is an expression of the creativity and generosity of its Creator. No supernatural intervention is required for forming new creatures in time because the creation has been fully gifted with all of the necessary formational resources. This approach offers a portrait (a what-happened-and-when account) of the creation's formational history that a) begins with the historic Christian doctrine of creation, b) seeks to be well-informed by the natural sciences, and c) is not simply a reaction to the rhetorical excesses of some spokespersons for maximal naturalism (the names Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett come to mind). The universe is presumed from the outset to be a creation-something that exists now only because its Creator has given it being and continues to sustain it in being from moment to moment. The being of the creation includes: a) all that the universe is, b) all that it is capable of doing, and c) all that it is capable of becoming. Given this starting point, then, each and every resource, potentiality and capability present in the universe can be celebrated as a gift of being that is an expression of the Creator's creativity (in conceptualizing a system of resources, potentialities and capabilities that will accomplish the Creator's purposes) and the Creator's generosity (in giving such integrity/wholeness of being as we find this robustly equipped creation to possess). All of this applies to the creation's capabilities for forming new structures. Each capability that contributes to the creation's formational resources is a gift of being that can be celebrated as a manifestation of the Creator's creativity and generosity. Contrary to the usual rhetoric, the more robust the creation's formational resources are, the more the creation owes to its Creator for the richness of its being. And, in contrast to what appears to be the judgment of supernaturalistic creationism, the Creator's signature would best be seen in what the creation can do, not in what it is incapable of doing. In the spirit of this perspective, a person would be inclined to have high expectations regarding the wealth of form-producing capabilities that contribute to the creation's formational resources. A person advocating this approach would expect the formational resources of the creation to be complete-gapless-lacking nothing that would be needed to bring about the formation of any cosmic structure or life form in the course of time. In other words, a proponent of this fully-gifted creation perspective would expect the creation to satisfy the Right Stuff Universe Principle. 5. Naturalistic theism (process theology): Like the fully-gifted creation perspective, this view also presumes that we live in a "right stuff" universe, but for different reasons that are rooted in a number of fundamental metaphysical presuppositions about the natures of God, the world, and the God/world relationship. In order to appreciate how this approach differs from more familiar forms of Christian theology, let us first recall a few of the tenets of traditional supernatural theism. Traditional supernaturalism holds that God created the world ex nihilo - from absolutely nothing. Consequently, the character of the world is whatever character God freely chose to give it; God was not constrained by any metaphysical principles whatsoever in choosing the character of this creation. Traditional supernaturalism maintains a radical distinction between God and the world: God is self-existent, eternal and omnipotent; the world, on the other hand, is totally dependent on God for its existence, is temporal (did not always exist), and has limited power. Finally, given these basic tenets, traditional supernaturalism envisions God as both able and willing on occasion to exercise total control over members of the creation. This possibility for forceful control provides the warrant for the signature of supernaturalist creationism-the expectation that God did occasionally actualize some creatures by episodes of form-imposing intervention. Naturalistic theism, on the other hand, adopts a very different set of tenets. Traditional supernaturalism's radical distinction between God and the world is replaced by the more intimate relationship offered by panentheism-the view that the world is in God, but God is more than the world. In place of the traditional assumption that God created the world ex nihilo, this view posits that there was always God plus a world. Being related to a world by love is taken to be essential to God, and being in God is considered equally essential to any world. This particular world - the universe in which we live - is taken to be the present epoch of a world that has always existed in God. This universe's particular character is taken to be the outcome of divine choice within the parameters allowed by the nature of the God-world relationship. Naturalistic theism, as the name itself implies, posits that there is only natural action. It rejects the idea that God would engage in supernatural interventions, in which the action of any member of the creation is overpowered or superceded. God's action is effective but constrained to be persuasive, never coercive. This constraint is not imposed on God by any other power, but by the very natures of God, the world and the God-world relationship. God's non-coercive action is taken to be an essential factor in all natural processes. Divine action is ever-present, not confined to occasional intrusions into an otherwise Godless flow of processes and events. Applied to our concerns about the formational history of the universe, the fruitfulness of the universe's evolutionary development is taken to be evidence both that we live in a "right stuff" universe and that God's persuasive action has been effective in bringing about the formation of creatures with a wondrous variety of capabilities with which to enjoy their experience of being what they are. CONCLUSION Do we live in a "right stuff" universe? I believe that we do and that this position may be held with integrity as part of either of two Christian theological perspectives: 1) The fully-gifted creation perspective (there is no need for form-conferring interventions to actualize new creatures, but divine intervention is not categorically ruled out); and 2) Naturalistic theism (non-coercive divine action is essential to all processes; form-conferring interventions are ruled out by the character of God, the world, and the God-world relationship). Dr. Van Till is Professor Emeritus of Physics and Astronomy at Calvin College. This article is an excerpt of his lecture presented at Grand Canyon University on November 21, 2002. See page 7 for information on how to obtain a video or audio copy of his presentation. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Canyon Institute for Advanced Studies.
flamingmoe posted: I think this illustrates perfectly the mentality of the Normal Scientist as described by Kuhn and discussed earlier in this thread. “We are far from understanding, but we know it’s true.” This is a pure statement of faith, not science. You’ve taken the time to learn what the argument here is, right? From reading the rest of this piece I don’t think you have. We have already discussed the difference between micro and macro evolution. Further, some evolutionists apparently try to muddy the water by calling broad based gene drift macroevolution, so I have been calling the mechanism in question, the one that relates to evolution to higher levels of complexity, vertical evolution. Maybe have a look back at what has been discussed in this thread and we can go from there.
Sigh... I've stated one simple thing. ID isn't science because it is dependent upon the idea of a nonobservable entity that is beyond empiracism. Other than that I've agreed that there are plenty of holes in Evolution and that as far as ID is a criticism that is fine. That said as an assertion of a positive scientific theory it doesn't work unless you can empiracally prove the existence of the the nonobservable entity resposible for creation indepedently. That's it, I haven't addressed many of your points because for the most part they were redundant. If you feel I misrepresented what you said in general you never denied when I asked you a few times if ID comes about because people see irreducable complexity and that irreducible complexity can only be caused by an intelligent designer. Again is that not what ID is? Anyway I've never said Evolution is absolute truth. Heck I've even said ID may be true (I don't think it can be proven empiracally but I won't deny the possibility). How is that misrepresenting. That's what you're saying? I would also say that your point that ID didn't have anything to do with God or divinity is a misunderstanding of ID since that by definition is what it is. How can you have Intelligent Design without a creator? If its aliens then did the aliens evolve or come about randomly? You answered that already by saying that Evolution doesn't answer the question of where matter comes from. So even if super intelligent aliens created life on Earth to get to questioning where matter came from under the idea of an intelligent designer that would have to mean GOD, since presumably super intelligent aliens are composed of from matter and couldn't have preexisted the creation of matter. I will say I have gotten heated and if you took offense I apologize but in general I never called you dense or a wall until you did first. I'm prone to be pompous and pedantic and many people take offense to that. If so then I apologize.
Normal scientist? As oppose to what, the insane psuedo-scientist? Dude you have been shot down by the big guns. Give it up. If you look hard enough you can find a number of people who support any position, any preconceived notion you want to come up with. But real science requires that peers question, test, review and critique ideas, preferably in scientific journals not on-line chat groups, until a concensus is reached. Thats the way civilized people determine what is fact and what is fiction. You know school attendance is mandatory, for all religions, so let's just teach the facts and leave the religion lessons till Sunday Church where the attendance is optional. x
Thank you. Excellent post. Communicated much better than I could myself on this subject (obviously). Like trying to catch flies with chopsticks.... slipped away again. You assume they exist. I can't find them. Please be more explicit about where I can find them. Since this story has now made it to Nightline, I would assume this information, if it existed, would be common knowledge. ID is not a theory, it is not a hypothesis, it is strictly an idea... philosophy. Dodge every issue, undermine the credibility of every opponent. Yes Grizzled, you are the only one that is paying attention, and everyone else keeps wandering off topic since they haven't bothered reading this thread.
And you’ve been told countless times that this is wrong. It does not depend on such an idea … *sighs and shakes head while knitting eyebrows* Yes I did, quite specifically. In fact, as I said, IC is one argument for ID, but only one of a number of arguments, but if you chose not to see that last time I’m sure you’ll chose not to see it again. It’s in the thread if anyone else would like to check. No it isn’t. I don’t think anyone in the world would define ID that way … and, of course, this very point has been discussed a number of times in this very thread. Interesting questions, but unfortunately we never got there because we were stuck answering the same entry level questions for you a dozen times each. I can get annoyed and sarcastic and critical myself so I apologise as well. I must say, however, that what probably annoys me most is your repeated attempt to try to rewrite the history of this thread. This may be an architect thing though. One summer when I was in school I worked on the Banff Springs Hotel Spa renovation. One of the contractors on the site was laying tile around the pool and he had a lot of it done at this point. All of a sudden the architect comes flying in. “No! No! It’s all wrong! Those tiles are the wrong colour!” He yells as he almost runs across the pool deck. The contractor is understandably shaken. “I was sure I got the right one…,” he says meekly and he turns to one of his men, “Where’s the specs?” So they find the specs and check the codes on the tiles and sure enough, the contractor is right. He is using the colour the architect specified. “It’ll be fine,” the architect says calmly and walks away… So I guess a short and somewhat faulty memory can be an asset when you’re an architect.
You don’t even know what the term “normal science” refers to, do you? You don’t even know what we’re talking about.
This is something that I could try to do, but what exists in technical journals usually far from common knowledge. But I’m about to give up on this thread. We’ve been going around in circles for a long time now and I no longer believe that if I got you that one more bit of proof that it would mean anything to you. If you’re really interested you could look up Behe’s book and check his references. That would probably be the quickest way to do it. I believe there were some listed in that link to that Muslim fellow’s paper on evolution too. Well, that is certainly my impression. And as I said, I don’t feel that this thread is going anywhere anymore. I think it probably stopped going anywhere quite a few pages back, in fact, and it’s probably long past time to just let it go. So I’m out. I hope you read the Kuhn link because what he says about “normal science” is key to this whole question too. After reading that you may be able to look at the scientific establishment more critically, and more objectively.
For you Grizz, here's the ADD version of the Kuhn POV: http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=4405&t=dispatch Comments later.
