"Well, it is AT LEAST my belief. If it is also true (whether or not that
truth is scientifically verifiable) then it would be more than 'just' my
belief."
I was responding to your claim that "the 'specialness' of the universe is
based on the **fact** that it was created by God...[emphasis mine]". If
it's a fact, then you should have evidence to verify it; if not, then it is
just your opinion. "Truth" in the absence of fact is just opinion.
"Well, the ID proponents certainly hope to show that this theory IS testable
scientifically, don't they? Isn't that what Dembski's argument is trying to
accomplish (even if you think he fails to do so)?"
Yes they do, and they continually fail. To date they have not produced one
test that would allow us to verify or refute any of their central claims.
"If you're trying to describe a panentheistic view of God then I would agree
that that view of God does not describe a 'special' deity (or even one that
exists at all!)."
I was referring to the fact that, if this universe was meant solely to be a
temporary home for human life, it's awfully big when it could have been only
the size of a single solar system. Since God seems to like to produce gobs
or stars and gobs of galaxies, why not gobs of universes?
"My goodness, e-mail certainly isn't a very nuanced form of communication is
it? Brian also pointed out the egotistical nature of my statement, which I
acknowledge."
I was being facetious, trying to lighten things up a bit. I knew you didn't
mean it the way it sounded.
"But, if I've been taking all this in correctly, the ID'ers at least have an
internally consistent theory. That is, a proposed deity who is capable of
creating the constants to be a certain value and has a motive to do so.
Evolutionary theory hasn't yet verified that 'natural mechanistic forces'
are capable of setting these physical constants to just the right values
(possibly over many trials). Certainly this verification may eventually come
but, at present, I think I see a difference between the two theories."
I agree, but the difference is that the evolutionary model can be verified
or refuted; the ID model cannot, because the proposed deity cannot be
verified or refuted. Heck, there isn't even any evidence to support its
existence, whereas evolution knows that natural mechanistic forces exist.
It seems to me that it is the evolutionary model that is internally
consistent (with science), not the ID model.
"I've never read any discussion by the ID'ers on this topic but I hope they
would say that the origin of the universe can never be solved
mechanistically because the origin of the universe is personal, not
mechanistic."
And their evidence for this would be...?
"And of course much evidence has been produced to substantiate this point,
much of it philosophical and only some of it cosmological."
Philosophical evidence is worthless as scientific evidence; remember, to be
a valid _SCIENTIFIC_ theory (not a philosophical one) the ID theorist must
offer scientific evidence. I've never seen any, never heard of any, never
read any on this list or in ID groups, that wasn't ultimately based on the
"unsolvable mystery" premise: science cannot solve these mysteries;
therefore ID is true. Even you have used a modified version of this
argument in conjunction with the values of the universal constants. I'm
sorry, but it just does not qualify as scientific evidence.
"But from a naturalistic perspective, would the scientific community have to
deny the existence of any supernatural being, simply on methodological
grounds."
Until science can study supernatural beings and perform tests on them, yes.
Show science evidence that supernatural beings exist and science will
listen.
"I agree, although I wonder if we would end up calling it natural 'design'."
Not if they can demonstrate that there is a difference.
"I would not be as confident but you would certainly have a more informed
opinion. But what about the human mind? ID theory, and the views of some
philosophers, would lead us to avoid even looking for a mechanistic
explanation for a personal phenomena."
That would be great for ID theory; it would win by default. However, this
reminds me of what vitalists used to say about muscles; that mechanistic
explanations could never explain how muscles work, because it was obvious
that some mysterious force was needed to get hunks of meat to move by
themselves. Now, we understand the molecular mechanism that moves muscles,
how it works and how impulses from nerves make the muscles move. People
used to say the same thing about nerve impulses; now we understand how the
nerves transmit electrical signals along their lengths and pass those
signals chemically across synapses. The same is becoming true for the mind;
the more we learn about the way the brain works, the more we understand how
the mind works.
"In your interaction with Stan you admitted that the statement 'the physical
constants were not fixed and could have been changing constantly' is
very-well-informed speculation. Isn't it therefore possible that science
will never be able to explain what happened during the Planck Era?"
"Non sequitor; your facts are uncoordinated." [Nomad, from "The Changling",
_Star Trek_ (The Original Series)] Just because I might be wrong doesn't
mean the whole of science is wrong as well. As Stan also pointed out, the
theory of everything doesn't require that the constants be changing. To
answer your question, yes it is possible (though not because of my
speculation), but it is very unlikely. When we first learned about the
existence of the Planck Era from our other unification models, we knew
absolutely nothing about it at all, except that the four fundamental forces
were united as one force. That meant that to describe the Planck Era we
would have to somehow create a theory of quantum gravity. We have not yet
completely succeeded, but what we have so far accomplished in that regard
has told us something of the properties of the universe during that time,
properties I have already described. So we are actually well on our way to
doing exactly what you suggest we may never be able to do.
"(I know I keep harping on this but from my perspective the existence of the
universe is the result of a personal decision by God."
I believe that too. But that doesn't invalidate evolution, abiogenesis or
the Big Bang; nor does it require us to explain natural phenomena using
miracles instead of natural mechanistic forces.
"I therefore don't expect science to be able to explain it."
Exactly (despite your earlier denial). That's your sole evidence in this
debate: It cannot be explained because it will not be explained; case
closed.
"I expect this to be an area, like the human mind, in which science reaches
it`s epistemological limitations. I know this research is continuing but
from my theistic perspective I would expect a certain resolution to these
questions.)"
They will come; don't let your impatience make you jump to conclusions that
are incorrect.
"Sorry, I should have explained that I understand the term 'noise'. So, how
much 'noise'" do these particles make?"
Still none. In these kinds of experiments noise refers to particles that
leak in from the outside, or are there throughout the experiment, but do not
participate.
"Is it measure in volts (or electron volts?)"
I suppose it would be, yes, but noise is measured only to eliminate it, not
to study it.
Kevin L. O'Brien