I will then take that as a no; thank you for your honesty.
>
>>
>> "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.
>
We've been talking about several points simultaneously; I thought you were
referring to the origin of the universe, since that is what those models
describe. You are right that science cannot yet answer the question of the
origin of the values of the physical constants, but the unification models
do provide a tentative explanation, which is superior to ID's claim that
this question is unanswerable except by invoking a miracle.
>
>>
>> "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 at 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.
>
Science is by definition the methodology used to investigate all physical
phenomena; how could that be incorrect?
>
>>
>> "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.
Exactly, as I explained in the above paragraph. Let me suggest this (and
again I'm being blunt but not intentionally insulting): If your faith in
the salvation promised by Christ were strong, it would make no difference to
you how the universe or life or man originated. I have often found that the
people who struggle the hardest to scientifically validate their beliefs are
those with the weakest faiths.
>I believe that the heavens declare the glory of God, not
>the glory of quantum tunnelling.
And what if God created quantum tunneling as a tool to make the universe?
>I believe that that which is known about
>God can be understood through what had been made.
Which tells us that God created the universe using natural forces rather
then supernatural forces; this does not invalidate the belief that in the
beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
>Now, maybe I'm wrong
>about these things just like the geocentrists were wrong about their
>theology
It's not their theology that's wrong; it's their attempt to scientifically
validate their faith and their incorrect interpretation of the Bible.
>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.
>
Science cannot intrude into theology, since theology deals with supernatural
events and science cannot study supernatural events. But the origin of the
universe does not seem to be a supernatural event, and doesn't need to be to
preserve belief in God and salvation.
>
>> 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).
>
And as I have pointed out continuously, science can only say what physical
reality is, not what reality as a whole is, so the confirmation that the
origin of the universe was a natural phenomenon would not disprove the
existence of God or that He created the universe.
>
>>
>> "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 position). 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.
>
I'm not sure there can be such evidence in that case, because everything we
know so far confirms the evolutionary model for the origin of the universe.
Perhaps if you elaborate, or provide a possible example of such evidence?
>
>>
>> "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.
>
You're mixing apples and oranges. Genesis 1-3 purports to describe
historical events; if the actual history of the universe is different from
that description, then Genesis 1-3 cannot be history and therefore must be
allegory or myth. Science, however, purports to explain only the physical
universe, nothing else. Science can often be wrong in its explanations, but
it always corrects itself; science would have to be fundamentally wrong to
abandon it for some other methodology. But that would also mean that the
concept of a physical universe would have to be fundamentally wrong as well.
Are you suggesting there is no physical universe?
>
>>
>> "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.
>
Exactly right. Science cannot determine what the motive was for creating
the universe; it can only determine how the universe was made, not why.
Therefore any scientific "theory" that assumes a "personal" motive is _a
prior_ unscientific.
>
>>
>> "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?
>
Scientific knowledge that the origin of the universe was a natural
phenomenon coupled with my belief that God created the universe.
>
>> Science can be led to consider any explanation, 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.
>
But science can only use tests against physical reality; all other kinds of
tests are worthless from a scientific point of view as tools to understand
and explain the universe.
>
>>
>> "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.
>
I would agree to that, provided that ID'ers stopped trying to pass off what
they do as legitimate science and call it what it really is, theological or
metaphysical investigation.
>
>>
>> "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.
>
Then that's another difference between us; let's approach this topic again
in another fifty years to see who is closer to the truth.
>
>>
>> "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.
You are referring to spiritual regeneration no doubt. That's actually
something I've never experienced, because I was raised a Christian rather
than converted, so I never had a "conversion experience". However,
spiritual regeneration is not a natural phenomenon, which is what I meant
when I said "everything we can experience in this physical universe"; it's
my fault for not making myself plainer, but I didn't think I had to. Since
it is not a natural phenomenon, then obviously it cannot be explained by
natural mechanistic forces.
>I also believe
>that the resurrection is an event that has occurred in this physical
>universe that cannot be explained scientifically.
>
Ditto what I said above for resurrection; by the way, did you know that at
least a dozen religious figures have bodily resurrected in the course of
human history?
>
>>
>> "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.
>
And since all known scientific evidence for all known scientific phenomena
demonstrates that all known scientific phenomena are in fact really natural,
this point is moot.
>
>>
>> "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.
>
I see, you misunderstood what I said. (What I meant was that science can
never study or explain supernatural phenomena; it was not my intention to
claim that science could never describe or identify such phenomena.)
Actually you can conceivably have scientific evidence that an event is not
reproducible, was not predictable and was not natural; in that case science
could only describe the event, not explain it. But so far no such event has
ever been discovered.
>
>>
>> "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).
>
But science would never, in fact could never, make such a claim, though some
atheist scientists might.
>
>> 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