> Greetings Randy:
>
> Therefore let me be perfectly clear (and forgive my bluntness): do you have any valid unambiguous scientific evidence for any of the
following statements --
>
> 1) The values of the physical constants are specifically tuned for our type of life;
I tried to read some of "Mere Creation" this weekend and there was one
argument in there which fit into this category, involving the initial
entropy of the universe. However, I'm going to have to look at this
argument for a while before I understand it well enough to defend it in a
debate so the answer to your question would be-
No.
>
> 2) this combination of values is too improbable to have occurred by chance; or
No.
>
> 3) the universe is special because God created it to be a temporary home for man?
I stated in a previous post that the word "special" had a lot of
theistic baggage and should not have been introduced into a scientific
discussion.
>
> "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."
>
> There is, but it's not the kind that people are used to. It's mathematical evidence, based on models created from what we know for a fact
and extrapolating beyond that using known laws and forces. These models can be tested in one of two ways. If they successfully predict the
current nature of the universe and/or if they make secondary predictions that can be confirmed by direct experimentation or observation,
then they are considered to be good evidence, or rather good theories based on good evidence.
But if I've followed this correctly(and maybe I haven't) these models
explain how the universe came into existence, not how the physical
constants came to be the values they are. I thought it was that question
which you believed science cannot answer at present but would be able to
answer one day in the future.
>
> "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."
>
> That's my personal position, not the position of science,
This is a helpful distinction for me.
>but the proper scientific position is that if the only explanation is a
>miracle,
>then science will never be able to understand it. Since the purpose of
>science is to understand natural phenomena, science tries to find
>natural explanations since it cannot use anything else. At best, a
>scientific mystery might hang in perpetual limbo, waiting for a day that
>might never come when technology becomes advanced enough to solve the
>mystery. But meanwhile science is not going to throw up its hands in
>frustration and give up. It will continue to propose answers for as long
>as it takes to arrive and one that works. The odds are that, if
>the phenomenon can be scientifically investigated, one day it will find
>that answer.
So if the view that science is capable of investigating all phenomena
that occur in the physical world is correct then everything should work
out just fine. If this position is incorrect(and I guess we'll discuss it
further below) then other truth-seeking disciplines(like history,
philosophy, and theology) could be unfairly excluded from debates for
which they have legitimate answers.
>
> "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)."
>
> Agreed (I never said it was). But if I understand you right, you are demanding physical evidence that will verify that one day in the
future we will have an explanation for what is currently a mystery. That is a nice rhetorical comeback designed to put you back on the
offensive, but it is sheer nonsense. I might be able to do it with a time machine (maybe a Toynbee convector), but otherwise what you ask
is impossible.
If I've understood you correctly above, this is your personal position
and not the official scientific position. I was reacting to what I thought
was the official scientific position that they demand scientific evidence
for all theories but offer their past performance as evidence of their
future performance. If this is just your personal belief then that's fine.
(It makes a lot of sense too, but for reasons which I'll explain below I'm
not convinced it's correct)
No one can guarantee that a scientific explanation will ever be found for any natural phenomenon; in fact, many phenomena
have been singled out in the past as being unsolvable. Yet we have found explanations for every one. You are simply following the
tradition of so many others before you seeking proof of their personal beliefs or looking for mysticism where they see only mechanism
(searching for the ghost in the machine if you will). You also remind me of those who claimed that there were valid scientific reasons why
man would never fly, or split the atom, or go to the moon, to name only three.
Actually a better comparison would be the geocentrists as I'll explain
below.
Such people simply lacked the imagination to see beyond what we currently know to what we could conceivable come to know.
Nah, my imagination is as good as the next guys. The problem here is
that if these scientific claims go far enough they'll begin to conflict
with my theology. I believe that the heavens declare the glory of God, not
the glory of quantum tunnelling. I believe that that which is known about
God can be understood through what had been made. Now, maybe I'm wrong
about these things just like the geocentrists were wrong about their
theology but until I understand the scientific evidence for this version
of the universe's origin that you have proposed(and that is next on my
personal reading agenda) I'll continue to hold my present position. For me
this is a case of science intruding into an area with which theology
deals.
>No, I cannot prove to you that one day we will have the answers you demand,
but as you point out later in your post, even if we do someday succeed at it, you will simply declare us wrong and forget about it.
What I said I would reject is science's claim that any physical factor
is the ultimate reality(not the ultimate PHYSICAL reality, but the
ultimate reality).
>
> "It seems to me that neither side, at present, has scientific evidence to support it's explanation."
>
> It's true your side has none, but you simply dismiss the evidence I offer.
The only evidence I recall disagreeing with was the statement that
science's future research success can be counted on on the basis of their
past success(which I now know is your personal position, not science's
official postion). I have asked for quantum texts which will help me
understand the explanation you have given for the origin of the universe
so that I can evaluate that theory intelligently.
> "But what evidence would lead to a rejection of the evolutionary model instead of an appeal to wait for further research?"
>
> The discovery of a six-legged tetrapod would do nicely, or finding a pod of whale bones in Devonian sediments. Or how about a human
skeleton inside the rib cage of a T. rex?
I was thinking more of the evidence in the area of how the physical
constants were established. Probably would have helped if I'd said that.
>
> "Do you mean cannot be verified scientifically or cannot be verified at all?"
>
> Since the ID model purports to be a valid scientific model based on the existence of a supernatural designer, I mean scientifically
verified. No other evidence is appropriate.
Well, if those are the rules then those are the rules. But it seems to
me that if theologians are to be encouraged to consider extra-theological
evidence when interpreting Genesis 1-3 then researchers in other
disciplines could be encouraged to find a way to integrate other
truth-findings into their research programs.
>
> "The traditional theistic proofs."
>
> That's not valid scientific evidence. What valid scientific evidence do you have that the origin of the universe was "personal"?
Well, since I consider the concept of personhood to include both body
and spirit(or in God's case, spirit only) I guess there could, by
definition, be NO scientific evidence for this fact. It seems then that
this would be a truth claim which science would be unable to investigate.
>
> "Okay, but does it qualify as just-plain-evidence?"
>
> Yes, but just-plain-evidence is not valid scientific evidence.
Okay.
>
> "_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?"
>
> Yes. I am a theist and I believe that the universe exists as a result of a personal decision by God. But I also believe that God created
the universe mechanistically, not supernaturally.
If by this you mean that God created the quantum nothingness so that it
had the characteristic of giving rise to universes spontaneously(hopefully
I'm stating this correctly) then I guess we just have different
theological views. What led you to this conclusion?
> Science can be led to consider any explanations, but if it cannot test those explanations against physical reality then science cannot use
them to understand. Science can only understand what it can study, and it can only study what it can test. Explanations that cannot be
tested are a waste of time and so ignored as worthless.
Okay. It just seems to me that there are other tests use in other
disciplines which could be considered here.
>
> "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."
>
> Then you are also saying that science is not the proper way to pursue these questions, because the ID'ers are not doing science.
Since I believe God created the universe supernaturally, not
mechanistically, I would agree with this statement. I agree that what the
ID'ers are doing is not science as science is officially described. But I
think it's a valid method of seeking the truth, even if it's not valid
science.
>
> "What kind of evidence would qualify?"
>
> Valid scientific evidence, either empirical data or a mathematical model grounded on what we know is true and extrapolating to new
information using known naturalistic laws and forces.
>
>
> "...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?"
>
> Probably not, but we do know that conditioned responses are controlled by newly developed neural pathways, that phobias can be caused by
specific neural peptides (remember scotophobin?), that psychoses and in fact many mental abnormalities are caused by neurotransmitter
imbalances, we know that psychotropic drugs can create false sensory impute (hallucinations), that hypnosis can create false memories, etc.
We are only scratching the surface so far, but all these studies have led to insights into how the mind works.
What I'm specifically objecting to is the claim that science will one
day be able to extrapolate to a future state of the mind(i.e. a future
decision) based on the present physical state of the brain. Since I
believe the mind has a non-physical component I don't believe science can
fully explore it's workings.
>
> "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."
>
> Scientists who believed in vitalism had to admit that it doesn't exist and to adapt to a new view of biology once biochemistry began to
unlock the mechanistic secrets of metabolism, but that does not mean they decided that life didn't exist and that it can all be reduced to
chemical states in the cells. The same will be true of free will, when we understand its molecular basis.
>
> "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."
>
> I have also been conditioned by a lifetime of experience, 40 years as a Christian and 15 years as a biochemist, to believe that everything
we can experience in this physical universe can be explained by natural mechanistic forces.
But regeneration is something I've experienced in this physical universe
and I don't believe this experience is explainable by natural mechanistic
forces. I guess I should state that I have no scientific evidence that I
have in fact been regenerated, my evidence would come from other
truth-seeking disciplines, but it does meet the criteria of being
something I have experienced in this physical universe. I also believe
that the resurrection is an event that has occurred in this physical
universe that cannot be explained scientifically.
>
> "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."
>
> Non sequitor; your facts are uncoordinated. Even if the constants were fixed at the very moment of the Big Bang itself, that does not
mean that some natural mechanism was not at work establishing those constants in that instant. So it still would not be (scientific)
evidence for design.
Okay.
>
> "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."
>
> Why? What, other than your religious belief and your desire to prove that belief, leads you to draw this conclusion?
I have no scientific evidence, if that's what you're asking. Although,
by definition, I couldn't have any scientific evidence for ANYTHING
supernatural.
>
> "I don't seem to detect an openness to this possibility from you. Am I mistaken?"
>
> I need more than just your personal opinion; my personal opinion says otherwise, but that hardly counts as proof that I am right. What
(scientific) evidence do you have that might support this claim?
Again, if I understand the rules correctly I could, BY DEFINITION, have
no scientific evidence that a supernatural event had occurred.
>
> "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?"
>
> Science cannot explain that, because science cannot study or test God. However, if God created the universe mechanistically, then we will
be able to figure out how He did it.
Agreed.
>
> "If science shows that the laws arise from space-time then I would wonder 'From what does space-time arise?'"
>
> Since space-time is not composed of energy or matter (it's nothingness, remember?) then that question does not even make sense.
Hmm, okay. I can't wait to start on "Cosmic Questions".
>
> "If science claimed that space-time was the fundamental reality of existence then I would simply disagree; God is the fundamental reality."
>
> Exactly. If science were to ever prove ID wrong,
This isn't what I said. I said if science ever makes claims about the
fundamental reality of existence(not just PHYSICAL existence, but ALL of
existence) then I would reject the claim as already disproven by theology
and outside the proper realm of scientific inquiry(at least from my
perspective).
you would simply ignore it and go on believing it was true. However, space-time can be
the fundamental reality of PHYSICAL existence without invalidating God as the fundamental reality of spiritual existence.
This then would be a different claim than the one to which I referred.
>
> "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 never said science did not have limits, but since it is limited to the physical universe it should be able to explain everything about
the physical universe, including its origin.
As stated above, I disagree with this position. I'll wait to see your
reasons for coming to this conclusion.
>
> "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."
>
> Science has, but these limitations do not include the physical universe.
>
> Kevin L. O'Brien
>
>