> Greetings Randy:
>
> "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.
>
Agreed. And a lot of evidence has been offered over the centuries to
support the existence of God(and the inerrancy of Scripture) which I find
convincing. Are you asking me to list the reasons I believe in God?(I'm
happy to do so if you are)
> "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.
>
I've become aware of some very legitimate challenges to the ID argument
through my involvement with this list. I'm planning to do further research
on this question(and bone up on quantum mechanics as well!)
But it also seems to me that there is no scientific evidence for the
scientific explanation of these same facts. The scientific position seems
to be that one day science will be able to explain these facts about the
universe through the functioning of natural, mechanistic forces. But no
SCIENTIFIC evidence is offered to substantiate this claim of future
explanation, only the fact that science has been able to explain all other
natural phenomena in the past. And this is not a scientific argument(I
suppose it would be a combination of a philosophical and a sociological
one). It seems to me that neither side, at present, has scientific
evidence to support it's explanation.
> "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?
So then, this would be a theological argument against the ID argument?
>
> "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.
Thanks.(I eventually figured out that that punctuation thing(:-)) is a
smile. Gee, I'm learning a lot from this list!)
>
> "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;
But what evidence would lead to a rejection of the evolutionary model
instead of an appeal to wait for further research?
> the ID model cannot, because the proposed deity cannot be
> verified or refuted.
Do you mean cannot be verified scientifically or cannot be verified at
all? If the latter, then I would certainly disagree. If the former, this
brings up the question of whether or not facts that have been established
extra-scientifically(like historical facts) can be used in scientific
research? You comment on this below.
> 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...?
The traditional theistic proofs. This again brings up the question of
whether or not science is open to facts established extra-scientifically,
which you address below.
>
> "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;
So I guess the answer to the earlier question is that science is NOT
open to facts established extra-scientifically?
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.
Okay, but does it qualify as just-plain-evidence? _IF_ the theists are
right and the universe does exist as the result of a personal decision by
God then is the question of the origin of the universe even a scientific
question at all? Although I realize this analogy isn't perfect I see some
connection here to the discovery of the Piltdown Hoax. When it was
determined scientifically that natural forces could not have produces the
effects on the skull's teeth then intelligent intervention was
hypothesized.(I hope I'm remembering these details correctly) It seems to
me that it is at least POSSIBLE for science to legitimately be led to
consider extra-scientific explanations for certain phenomena. I don't
disagree that the ID`ers are doing what you're saying they're doing. I'm
just not sure that it's necessarily a bad thing.
>
> "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.
What kind of evidence would qualify?
>
> "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.
I'm not very aware of the current state of research into the functioning
of the mind(man, you sure know a lot about a lot of areas!) but are you
saying that research has identified the physical state in the brain that
corresponds to self-awareness? or love? or that determines
decision-making?
I wonder if a scientist who believes in free will(which I would think
would be most scientists) would even be open to evidence that free will
doesn't exist and all our decisions are reducible to chemical states in
our brains.
You up bring the question below of whether or not I'm really open to
scientific explanations for some of these things and this is probably an
area where I don't think I'm totally open-minded. I've been conditioned by
a lifetime of experience, and 22 years as a Christian, to believe that
there is more to my choices than can be represented physically.
>
> "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.
My goodness, e-mail certainly isn't a very nuanced form of communication
is it? Looking back at my statement, I left out about two sentences that I
should have included(hopefully I'll also learn how to express myself
through my interaction on this list!) Let me try this again:
I wasn't trying to base anything on the fact that you might be wrong.
What I was trying to say(and not very well) was that, from the scientific
perspective) it is at least POSSIBLE that the constants were not changing
during the Planck Era. If research eventually does confirm that the
constants were not changing it seems to me that that would be at least
slight evidence(of some sort) for design.
>
> "(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.
I'm glad you mentioned this. I've been wondering what you're theological
position is but after the recent flap over the privacy of Pim's beliefs I
haven't wanted to inquire in this area. But any details you'd like to give
me in this area would help me in our conversation.
> 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.
But it does open up the possibility that some phenomena which may SEEM
to be natural may in fact be supernatural and therefore not have a
scientific explanation. I don't seem to detect an openness to this
possibility from you. Am I mistaken?
>
> "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.
Well, I think my position may lose a little something in the summation.
If the universe exists as the result of a personal decision by God(as we
apparently both believe) then how would science explain that fact through
the functioning of natural forces? If science explains the values of the
physical constants through the laws of the universe then I would wonder
why the laws are as they are. If science shows that the laws arise from
space-time then I would wonder "From what does space-time arise?" If
science claimed that space-time was the fundamental reality of existence
then I would simply disagree; God is the fundamental reality. Perhaps one
day I will lose that faith but as I consider that question from this
present moment I cannot conceive of how that could happen. My faith in God
does place limits on what I believe science can explain by itself.
I realize you're not saying I have to be a pagan to have a scientific
perspective. I'm just saying that at some point science must reach, and
admit, it's limitations. Perhaps science can explain the physical
constants without recourse to God. Perhaps science can someday explain the
laws of the universe without recourse to God. But if science continues to
investigate reality it must eventually reach a point at which it can no
longer explain reality without recourse to God.
>
> "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.
This conclusion doesn't arise from impatience, as I explained above.
Perhaps if you decide to discuss your personal theological position it
will help me see how you reconcile your theology with this scientific
research.
>
> "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
>
Randy Bronson