Is ID non-scientific because it has relgious implications?

[ARWallace]

For frank:

I really have to break for lunch...just intended to drop a quick post this am and got subsumed.

I am a bit baffled by what you mean by "cause"? As you point out, the mass of objects bending the space-time continuum around them causes nearby objects with less mass to fall sorta towards them may be the only "cause" of gravity in the purely scientific sense. If you want to know why there are heavy objects and a space-time continuum to bend them - well, that may be an inherently unanswerable question - by science. I think this is why religion plays such a vital role in humanity - it answers the questions that science can not (again, because science is bounded by principles that exclude the acts of the very deities that may answer your causal questions). Look, I am not saying science is perfect - it just is what it is. Likewise with religion. What I am trying (and apparently unsuccessfully) to say is that science is practiced in a particular fashion whether we like it or not - and it is limited in the kinds of questions it can ask and answer. Knowing why the universe came into existence and why whatever god(s) designed it, designed it the way they did is not a question science can answer.

ID goes to the cause of an effect. So ignoring all of the relationship to a creator or designer the ID movement is mainstream science and to try and define it as anything else just makes scientist look foolish.

I'm not sure I agree. Pure ID doesn't really get at the causal question - why did god(s) choose to endow bacteria with a flagellum and not me? Why did he choose to make blood clotting so complex that he/she/they saw fit to invent it? No, ID simply purports to identify structures that are too complex to have arisen without an act of divine fiat. It doesn't bring us any closer to understanding the question of why a designer did it this way than that...that I can see. Then again, I am myopic.

[frankbaginski]

ARWallace,

What I am pointing out is that some in science want to pick and choose what science is. Does it only look at causation until the natural observable limits run out? Does it keep looking at that boundry and keep trying to push our understanding beyond our current understanding? Of course it does. What ID does is look at the limits and tries to set a definition of that limit. Does the limit exist because of resolving power like observing an atom or does the limit occur because we hit the end of natural causes. I think this is a subject that science should deal with. There are lots of unknowns but we know enough to at least describe the unknowns.

[Himantolophus]

At first pass I reread Genesis to see if anything jumped out. If indeed all life was from a point source of information then the creation of the universe may be a type that would indicate that God started with a source of information and then made all life from this. So as He started the universe small and then expanded it, maybe He started life as a source of information and all came from this one source. I have to think about this some more. It would explain a lot of data in molecular biology.

wouldn't this be considered "created evolution", progressive creationism, or something of the sort? If God created all matter in the Beginning and also the laws of Biology, Chemistry and Physics, then he basically laid the framework for all that would follow. Whether it was all pre-ordained is debatable and another story.

ARWallace: good posts

I'm not sure I agree. Pure ID doesn't really get at the causal question - why did god(s) choose to endow bacteria with a flagellum and not me? Why did he choose to make blood clotting so complex that he/she/they saw fit to invent it? No, ID simply purports to identify structures that are too complex to have arisen without an act of divine fiat. It doesn't bring us any closer to understanding the question of why a designer did it this way than that...that I can see. Then again, I am myopic.

While I can accept God being involved with biogenesis, once the first cells with organelles and DNA were created I think evolutionary processes could have taken over from there. By Darwinian, or some other mechanism, evolution we still have to iron out. I just don't see things as "perfectly designed" by any means. We know that God is capable of anything and yet there are many poor designs out there. Creatures with tiny, nearly vestigial limbs, amphibians with external gills throughout their lives, placoderms without jaws, deepsea fishes with fully functional eyes, false eyespots that don't really look like eyes, poor mimicry in some species, and humans themselves. If I had the limitless template of God, I'd make all things unique and designed for their environment in the best possible way. Instead it seems like everything is a variation on a theme: the same amino acids, the same nucleotides throughout, the same homologous structures appearing in vastly different creatures, etc.

It all cries out evolution of some sort since things go from primitive to advanced, or stay the same, over a period of time. You don't see things "devolve" from amphibian to fish and mammal to reptile. Add the fact that none of the ancestral species of every kingdom are alive today, just their descendents. And I'm talking macroevolutioon here (before someone jumps on me with "ID's believe in microevolution")

[zoegirl]

For zoegirl:

Well, we seem to be wandering a little here. Let me back up a little. I am simply saying that in order for one to practice science properly, they must start with the assumption that god(s) is/are not going to (nor have they ever) intervened in the investigation. To start introducing theistic explanations or intervention into scientific inquiry becomes inherently problematic at a whole lot of levels. For example, I was not implying that your god was whimsical or unpredictable, and if I offended you, I apologize.

No offense taken, (I;m not that thin-skinned) but I just felt you were approaching an either-or perspective that does not have to exist. I would change your definition of science....in order to practice science they must start with the assumption that the creation operates under predictable laws.....but this does not, in my humble opinion , mean that it operates with a God that is not HImself predictable (at least within His creation ) ...

I don't think we must assume a Deist position (an uninvolved God) in order to practice science. We don't have to assume that God would not have made a creation under predictable laws that can be observed in order to make predictions and hypothesis.

I would, however, argue that because the existence of god is outside our ability to detect, and certainly their actions are beyond our ability to understand that there is no prima facae reason to expect that they would act in ways that are predictable - or even consistent. That is the very nature of god! He/she/it/they are not bound by the natural laws that govern our universe - they likely invented them!

Ok, fair enough....I guess here I am going by my faith in the Christian texts here.

A God would be above the laws He makes but that doesn't exclude the idea that His laws are predictable.

So my point is simply that methodological naturalism is a necessary bedrock assumption of scientific inquiry.

Again, my bedrock assumption is that the *creation* is predictable and testable. I don't feel that the existence of God in no way compromises the ability to test and observe his creation. I don't think we have to constantly pray "Oh God, please let your gravitational force be the same today that it was yesterday" In that regard He has made a creation that does operate under rules and laws set by Him. However, I don't think it excludes a personal and invovled God.

BTW - I noticed from your profile (just curious...) that you teach high school science. As someone who taught high school biology myself for several years, I am curious how you present these concepts to your students. That may be a deeply personal question, and one that is off topic. So you don't have to answer. But I am wondering if you are able to leave it at the door, so to speak, and exclude personal beliefs from your teaching. I found it to be hard myself.

Well, I teach at a Christian school, so, no, I don't have to exclude my personal beliefs in my classroom. (didn't include it in my profile). However, as above, as long as I hold to a predictable creation, I don't see how I would have a problem with teaching science as a method of studying the world.

I think we must all be careful of making assumptions that cannot be made and naturalism as an argument against the existence of God is one, imo.

[ARWallace]

What I am pointing out is that some in science want to pick and choose what science is.

Well, I suspect that most of these folks are ID advocates (grin). Seriously, though, Michael Behe seems to pick and choose a little. On the one hand he has, what I believe to be an active research program in biochemistry in which he more or less strictly follows the rule of MN, and on the other hand violates it in explaining the existence of other structures. But I will agree that there are some folks in science who follow the rules more closely than others - not unlike any discipline or profession I suspect.

Does it only look at causation until the natural observable limits run out?

Well, to strictly follow the rules of science, yes. If an answer has not been found, it's assumed it's because we haven't come up with it. At no point does one throw up their hands and say "I can't think of how it happened, ergo it is the result of supernatural acts". This is an argument from personal incredulity, and it doesn't wash in science. But what I want to continue to emphasize is that science doesn't have all the answers. Let's say for the sake of argument that structure A was popped into existence - with no biological precursors - at some point in history by a benevolent and undetectable designer. Science would fail to provide an explanation for the origin of structure A because no evidence exists to explain it. This may be a shortcoming of science - and maybe this is the value of a religious approach to understanding the origins of IC structures. But what if structure A is the result of natural events but has the appearance of something that is the result of supernatural entities creating it? Worst case scenario - we identify it as the product of design and stop looking. We have then failed to understand the true origins of structure A and its relevance to the evolution of the organisms possessing it. So my question is this - just because we don't know every detail of the evolution of the bacterial flagellum - should we abandon the notion that god(s) created it because natural explanations do exist (albeit in imperfect detail)? If not, at what point do we abandon a supernatural explanation for this, or any other IC structure? This is the answer to your question "Does the limit exist because of resolving power like observing an atom or does the limit occur because we hit the end of natural causes."

I think this is a subject that science should deal with.

Well, I don't think we have reached the limits of what science can answer via-a-vis natural explanations. We have, after all, explanations for the origins of structures some people seem to think are the result of divine intervention. They may not be compelling to you - or many other people, but they do exist and they aren't without some measure of support. And science has a pretty good track record of explaining other phenomena previously thought to be too complex to be understood as anything more than the act of god(s). I am not sure we are at the point yet where we should be allowing supernatural explanations into scientific inquiry - but that's totally just IMHO.

[ARWallace]

For Himan -

While I can accept God being involved with biogenesis, once the first cells with organelles and DNA were created I think evolutionary processes could have taken over from there.

Well, technically, the first cells likely didn't possess organelles - at least not like those that exist today. And prior to the existence of cells, it is possible that there was "stuff" that natural selection could act on. All that is needed for selection to act is (a) heritable diversity in a population and (b) a struggle for existence. Consider a population of short strands of RNA in a test tube. RNA is autocatalytic - it can prime its own replication. So we have variation in a heritable population of self replicating molecules - the existence of which may also arise through natural means. Some of these RNA strands may be - by virtue of their sequence, better or faster at replicating themselves. Viola - natural selection. The structure of the population will change over time as the better replicants become more abundant in the population. And imagine one RNA strand that is able to assemble a few amino acids in the same test tube into a short protein that acts as an enzyme to catalyze RNA replication! And then imagine the RNA with this sequence becomes encapsulated within small drops of lipids (self forming, of course) such that the enzyme it produces catalzyes its own, and not other RNA strands. Of course this is all conjecture. But possible, experimentally confirmed and maybe even probable.

We know that God is capable of anything and yet there are many poor designs out there. Creatures with tiny, nearly vestigial limbs, amphibians with external gills throughout their lives, placoderms without jaws, deepsea fishes with fully functional eyes, false eyespots that don't really look like eyes, poor mimicry in some species, and humans themselves.

Consider this - it is estimated that spontaneous abortions naturally occur in 25% of pregnancies in the first 8 weeks of pregnancy in humans. By age 45, this number rises to about 75%. I don't want to put too fine a point on it, but I can see this as a substandard design. However, substandard design is not evidence for, nor against the existence of a designer. In other words, poor design does not support nor deny the existence of a designer. It is simply an observable fact of nature.

If I had the limitless template of God, I'd make all things unique and designed for their environment in the best possible way. Instead it seems like everything is a variation on a theme: the same amino acids, the same nucleotides throughout, the same homologous structures appearing in vastly different creatures, etc.

Well, I think you hit on a very good point - and one I was trying to make earlier with zoegirl. There is no reason to expect that god(s) would create the kinds of patterns that exist in nature - there is no reason to expect they would do it the way they did any more than any other possible pattern. Why genetic continuity? Why a twin nested hierarchy of life? These facts converge convincingly and overwhelmingly on the notion that all life has shared common ancestry. So for the theists, perhaps that's intentional and you might be able to argue that god(s) found a system that worked and stuck to it. But consider this - suppose god(s) chose to make every life form different in the way they pass on inheritance, and there was no possible way to reconstruct a phylogeny of mammals, much less primates because no pattern exists than unifies them. Now, you could argue that there are good reasons god(s) did not do it this way - but my point is this: if god(s) did do the creating, they are bound by nothing, and there is no reason they had to do it the way they did. And I find it an interesting coincidence that such patterns do exist in nature.

Again, that's just me.

[ARWallace]

For zoegirl:

A God would be above the laws He makes but that doesn't exclude the idea that His laws are predictable.

Again, not to flog a dead horse, but the fact that his laws are predictable is maybe more than a happy coincidence. But there is no reason they have to be. Nor is there reason to believe they will have to operate this way tomorrow. And, of course, we won't entertain that notion that the god you feel created the laws may not actually be the right one. It is the totality of this uncertainty that makes the prospect of invoking supernatural explanations in science fundamentally untenable.

Again, my bedrock assumption is that the *creation* is predictable and testable. I don't feel that the existence of God in no way compromises the ability to test and observe his creation.

And I totally agree. Otherwise, I would never have gone into science. But I continue to maintain that as a scientist, I am bound to observe an assumption that God does not and has not intervened in observable phenomena I am investigating.

I think we must all be careful of making assumptions that cannot be made and naturalism as an argument against the existence of God is one, imo.

Well, unless we have changed topic here, I don't think that methodological naturalism (the philosophy I argue is the foundation of scientific inquiry) does this. Metaphysical materialism does do this, but accepting this idea is not a necessary component of scientific exploration.

[frankbaginski]

ARWallace ,

You say that if A was dropped into the mix we would not find a cause for it. That is not true, the assumed cause of A would allow some to make a bridge to some common parts in some other form like C. Much like when I say that a buick came from a ford because it has similiar parts. Since we know where a ford or a buick came from this logic does not work. It does not work because we are not blind to the truth. In the case of A being in the past there is no such obvious path to the truth. Someone can make a bridge that may or may not be true. If no new data comes along it is considered more and more as truth even though it may not be true. Science is built on many small pieces of data and relationships between them. As you know conclusions were formed on that data no matter how limited. And over time science changed its opinion on many things. They of course are just as sure today as were the scientist of old that were wrong. I will not admit that todays scientist are any more correct than the scientist of old. But we need to work with what we have and we do make our life easier with devices made with our limited understanding. Every generation thinks they have the correct view on the world, ours is no exception.

So if we look at the past and project it into the future then all that we know will be replaced with something else. I accept this and have no problem with it. Science has no hold on the truth. It exist outside of investigation. It is not relative and is unchanging. We can only work with what we have so I have placed post on this board about YEC and defended the model with my understanding of the universe. Since I don't know the truth of the ancient past I place my faith in the only document I trust. So the models I post support a serious almost literal take on the Bible. And to be honest with you as time goes by I think the models will be supported by new finds. This of course is my faith speaking. So when I speak of warping space with mass into a gravity well it is interesting and a challenge to understand but really of no consequence.

The notion of design in the universe is an old one. Many people including myself see design all around in "nature" and appreciate the Creator's attention to detail and beauty. So when I see a spiral galaxy and it matches the spiral of a seed head on a sunflower I acknowledge God. Others are amazed at the number of coincidences in the world. I just remember what the Rabbis say - there are no coincidences

[zoegirl]

I can't think of how it happened, ergo it is the result of supernatural acts". This is an argument from personal incredulity, and it doesn't wash in science.

Absolutely agree!! The God of the Gaps is a horrible arguemnt.

but the fact that his laws are predictable is maybe more than a happy coincidence. But there is no reason they have to be. Nor is there reason to believe they will have to operate this way tomorrow. And, of course, we won't entertain that notion that the god you feel created the laws may not actually be the right one. It is the totality of this uncertainty that makes the prospect of invoking supernatural explanations in science fundamentally untenable.

And there is no reason for them NOT to be. The fact that they are observably predictable supports the concept of a predictable creation, but why that *predictability* MUST be an arguement for the absence of a God is beyond me. You seem to think that a God would *necessarily* be whimsical and decide to change the universal laws.

YOu are perfectly free to believe that they *are* a happy coincidence.

This, of course, is approaching apologetics instead of science, but again, the fact that we can *trust* the "natural" laws does not argue for anything other than, if GOd *does* exist, created and established a trustworthy creation.

I am bound to observe an assumption that God does not and has not intervened in observable phenomena I am investigating.

Don't know why you *must* assume this, or feel *bound* to. Unfortunatley, it has become TOO commonplace to use the God of the gaps argument in arguing for or against evolution. And I COMPLETELY agree that such a simplistic argument that "I don't understand it, therefore God did it" can lead to throwing one's hands in the air and not investiagting. But simply because some scientists are Christian out there does not *necessarily* compromise their integrity in investigation. I believe, and I know many of them do as well, that we *can* investigate the world using the scientific method without compromising the method or our faith.

Again, (not to flog the dead horse to use your phrase) as long as we agree that God has established a predictable and observable and testable creation, we do not lose integrity in investigation.

Well, unless we have changed topic here, I don't think that methodological naturalism (the philosophy I argue is the foundation of scientific inquiry) does this. Metaphysical materialism does do this, but accepting this idea is not a necessary component of scientific exploration.

Sure you do.....you assume that a "naturalistic" process or explanation somehow excludes the supervision or invovlement of a God. you feel bound to assume that God is not involved. You stated it above. I don't think that naturalism can in ANY way be an arguement for the existence or non-existence of a God. There is absolutely no way, after all, to create a control universe without God to see what happens. In essence, we will never be able to exclude the possibility of a God.

(and to some degree, aren't you using a *god of the gaps* arguement with respect to God? You can't possibly understand how a God could have established the world with predictable laws and rules and yet still be a personal God and be involved and therefore it must not be....sounds awfully simplistic to me and VERY similar to the God of the gaps argument for creation and design )

Unless, of course, you *assume* that this God would be whimsically and flippantly changing the laws and rules over the creation. And with that assumption ( ), then of course we can't make testable predictions

Well, I think you hit on a very good point - and one I was trying to make earlier with zoegirl. There is no reason to expect that god(s) would create the kinds of patterns that exist in nature - there is no reason to expect they would do it the way they did any more than any other possible pattern. Why genetic continuity? Why a twin nested hierarchy of life? These facts converge convincingly and overwhelmingly on the notion that all life has shared common ancestry. So for the theists, perhaps that's intentional and you might be able to argue that god(s) found a system that worked and stuck to it. But consider this - suppose god(s) chose to make every life form different in the way they pass on inheritance, and there was no possible way to reconstruct a phylogeny of mammals, much less primates because no pattern exists than unifies them. Now, you could argue that there are good reasons god(s) did not do it this way - but my point is this: if god(s) did do the creating, they are bound by nothing, and there is no reason they had to do it the way they did. And I find it an interesting coincidence that such patterns do exist in nature.

Forgot about this and needed to edit my post. And here I do agree that there is amazing unity even within all of the diversity out there. But I don't think, again, that you can rule out a creator, simply because of the goofiness of the heirarchy or patterns.

Again and again, I see you resting your argument on this idea of flippant, illogical, almost non-caring GOd. It seems *you* have a preconceived notion of what Gods would be like. Is it *really* so hard to imagine that a loving caring thoughtful and logical God would establish a trustworthy creation for His creation? Your idea that a God is not *bound* by anything forgets that a God would be bound by His own personality and nature. Yes, a whimsical, non-caring God, wouldn't care about those living on His created world and therefore would not care if the laws He changes would affect His creation. But a God bound by love could not create a world where there were not consistent physical rules and laws to govern the creation.

why wouldn't a God who loves order and beauty create a world with a simple unifying code and trnsmission of genes, and keep this consistent throughout the creation?


I would say you assume a LOT...

[Jad]

Um when you talk about "JAD", are you referring to me?


"JAD's hypothesis of NS preventing changes from occurring is true"

"I point you to JAD's reference for expansion."

"Environment pressures demand change but the supply isn't there and evolution remains at a dead hault, as JAD and his references believe it has been for quite some time now. According to JAD, evolution has reached its final stage, atmost there have been little quirks, far from formation of new species."

I'm very tired right now and it's been a while since I last posted here so I may have forgotten a few things hehe. Some things sound familiar but seem out of context. For example I don't think evolution remains at a dead hault, if you are talking about micro-evolution that is. If you are referring to macro-evolution then I would say it has never occurred. God's stopped creating 'new' species when He rested, of which He is still doing. Variation of currently known species is still occurring yes (micro) but there have been no new 'kinds' since day 6 of creation, be it 24 hour days or long periods of time.

Again I could be reading everything out of context in this tired state, even to the point that "JAD" could have nothing to do with me in particular lol. I'll make a preemptive strike and apologize now. BTW I'm enjoying your dialog ARWallace. You seem very well versed in the sciences yet humble. Again it could be my tiredness hahaha. Just Kidding

[zoegirl]

I agree about your dialogue, ARWallace and meant to include it in my posts. IT has been a pleasure to be invovled.

[ARWallace]

Again I could be reading everything out of context in this tired state, even to the point that "JAD" could have nothing to do with me in particular lol. I'll make a preemptive strike and apologize now.

Well, I did a little research - and some folks on this board have posted a link to a thesis written by John A. Davison - (i.e. JAD) - a physiologist professor emeritus at the University of Vermont. I had rather forgotten about him - he is a rather strident anti-evolutionist and has written fairly extensively on what he feels are inadequacies with the ToE. I confess to only have skimmed his work in the past - I recall it rather lacking in evidence, but I'll have a second look. If you search around the internet, you'll see that his form is rather aggressive, and he has been banned from countless internet forums for poor conduct. He seems to rather wear it as a badge of honor.

TW I'm enjoying your dialog ARWallace. You seem very well versed in the sciences yet humble.

Nah. It's just your tiredness... *grin*

[ARWallace]

For zoegirl:

You guys can just call me Al, or Wally or Russ or whatever. The AW Wallace nom de plume is is honor of one of my personal science heroes - Alfred Russel Wallace (bonus points to anyone who knows who he is without consulting wikipedia).

We seem to be moving in ever tightening circles. Let me see if I can just back up and make some general statements. In the end, we may be quibbling over nuances and we might just agree to disagree, but I suspect we may not be fundamentally opposed on some subjects.

1. I don't have any preconceived notion about how god(s) should behave. Indeed, it is beyond human comprehension to understand much less predict the motives, behavior and actions of a god. We can gain some insights through divinely inspired scripture, but in the end it pretty much boils down to god moving in mysterious ways. So imagine how difficult it would be to understand our natural universe if he intervened regularly in ways that were inconsistent with the laws we understand govern our universe today. I am not saying he/she would, or does, or has given us reason to believe they might. I am simply saying that they would be so empowered, and if they did intervene it would be up to their jurisprudence as to whether they chose to act in accordance with natural laws. But this is all rather moot and not totally relevant to why MN is a necessary tenet of scientific inquiry.

2. I agree that being a scientist does not exclude belief in god(s) - rather vehemently, in fact. However, I do believe that regardless of one's personal theistic beliefs that they do not introduce them into explanatory models and call it science. So if you (well, not just you - "you" in the collective sense) want to advance the notion that the god to which you pray invented the bacterial flagellum, I'm totally fine with that. But I stop short of saying "yeah, that's a valid scientific explanation". It's just a different explanation.

3. I agree that there is an impressive degree of continuity in life at many levels. And I understand why to some this seems to imply a common designer that chose a common theme and went with it. However - and herein lies the rub - this creator is bound by nothing. They could invent diversity of life with completely different modes of genetic transmission - and do it in ways that left a nature that operated every bit as harmoniously as the one on Earth today. This would not be whimsical nor flippant - just different. To me, this is why creationism fails as a scientific idea - it can explain everything no matter what that "everything" is. You could point to any pattern in nature and say "this is evidence of a creator" - and in the latter case, the pattern would be totally inconsistent with the ToE. I guess that is the point that I was trying to make - albeit circuitously.

4. I am digging in my heels a little on the "methodological naturalism precludes the existence of god" idea. All the principle says is that if god(s) do/es exist, that they don't intervene in natural events. And so I guess that our point of difference here is that you think he may intervene (correct me if I am wrong). Nevertheless, MN does not claim he doesn't exist - only that he doesn't intervene...so I guess you have problems with both methodological naturalism and ontological materialism which effectively states that god doesn't exist.

I guess my question to you would be "at what level(s) do you think god intervenes in natural events"? He exercises total authority over the workings of the natural universe? Just during keystone events like the origin of life? Sometimes? Once a trimester? I am not being flippant - just curious.

[ARWallace]

For Frank:

You say that if A was dropped into the mix we would not find a cause for it. That is not true, the assumed cause of A would allow some to make a bridge to some common parts in some other form like C.

Well, this is actually pretty similar to the existing evolutionary explanations for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum - that a structure was somehow co-opted from somewhere else where it performed another (likely different) function. And you would expect to find evidences like homologs that exist in other organisms that could have been the flagellar precursor. But I guess my response here would be that there is no a priori reason to expect that the designer would fashion an IC structure in ways that link it to other organisms - or even in ways that could be understood by science. This designer could, for example, fashion a flagella de novo and insert the genetic information to direct its development from scratch. In this case, there would be no way to detect how it came about. Demski even concedes this point (from No Free Lunch) "Please note that I am not offering a theory about the frequency or intermittency with which an unembodied designer imparts information into the world. I would not be surprised if most of the information imparted by such a designer will elude us, not conforming to any patterns that might enable us to detect this designer...". And so I return to my original question - what if structure A doesto meet the criteria of an IC structure but really came about through natural selection? I think this is why we must always assume that a natural explanation exists - because if a single IC structure is shown to have natural origins, this implies that any or all do.

Every generation thinks they have the correct view on the world, ours is no exception.

Well, I think it is safe to say that in general each generation has a more informed view of the world.

Since I don't know the truth of the ancient past I place my faith in the only document I trust. So the models I post support a serious almost literal take on the Bible. And to be honest with you as time goes by I think the models will be supported by new finds.

I have deep admiration for people who have faith in scripture, and I respect your views on the origins of biodiversity. I have found from personal experience that this approach was, for me, rather limiting. That is to say I found it difficult to erect evidences around an idea rather than simply following where those evidences took me. I am not implying that you, or anyone else here does that - it was just my own journey. Now, I will say that from what I know about science (admittedly limited) that I don't share your optimism about what existing evidences - or even evidences we are likely to find in the future will offer in the way of support for a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis.

The notion of design in the universe is an old one. Many people including myself see design all around in "nature" and appreciate the Creator's attention to detail and beauty.

As well it should be.

I just remember what the Rabbis say - there are no coincidences

Silly Rabbis, Trix are for kids! (if you're not at least 30 years old, you likely won't get the pun...showing my age here).

[zoegirl]

For zoegirl:

You guys can just call me Al, or Wally or Russ or whatever. The AW Wallace nom de plume is is honor of one of my personal science heroes - Alfred Russel Wallace (bonus points to anyone who knows who he is without consulting wikipedia).

From straight memory, wasn't he the one who also came up with the theory of natural selection? (or am I mixing up names?) He wrote DArwin himself asking him to check up on his logic and thoughts. Aren't there some who consider him to be the orginal theorist behind the theory of natural selection?

We seem to be moving in ever tightening circles. Let me see if I can just back up and make some general statements. In the end, we may be quibbling over nuances and we might just agree to disagree, but I suspect we may not be fundamentally opposed on some subjects.

1. I don't have any preconceived notion about how god(s) should behave. Indeed, it is beyond human comprehension to understand much less predict the motives, behavior and actions of a god. We can gain some insights through divinely inspired scripture, but in the end it pretty much boils down to god moving in mysterious ways. So imagine how difficult it would be to understand our natural universe if he intervened regularly in ways that were inconsistent with the laws we understand govern our universe today. I am not saying he/she would, or does, or has given us reason to believe they might. I am simply saying that they would be so empowered, and if they did intervene it would be up to their jurisprudence as to whether they chose to act in accordance with natural laws. But this is all rather moot and not totally relevant to why MN is a necessary tenet of scientific inquiry.

COnsidering what I have bolded, my only response is that we will never be able to tell if this IS what happened. What is what we are examing with regard to historical evidence DOES reflect a personal involved God? Would you EVER be able to prove otherwise?

2. I agree that being a scientist does not exclude belief in god(s) - rather vehemently, in fact. However, I do believe that regardless of one's personal theistic beliefs that they do not introduce them into explanatory models and call it science. So if you (well, not just you - "you" in the collective sense) want to advance the notion that the god to which you pray invented the bacterial flagellum, I'm totally fine with that. But I stop short of saying "yeah, that's a valid scientific explanation". It's just a different explanation.

For myself, I don't like resting on the "God did it" for the explanation, but not, perhaps, for the same reason as you.....I believe He DID create and design the bacterial flagellum but I personlly love examining HOW He did it. FOr that, I think scientific explanations are awesome....it's what I love about biology.

However, saying that, I also have no problem with examining and challenging conclusions....because, let's face it, they were gleefully generalization that the flagellum evolved *before* finding possible pathways.

3. I agree that there is an impressive degree of continuity in life at many levels. And I understand why to some this seems to imply a common designer that chose a common theme and went with it. However - and herein lies the rub - this creator is bound by nothing. They could invent diversity of life with completely different modes of genetic transmission - and do it in ways that left a nature that operated every bit as harmoniously as the one on Earth today. This would not be whimsical nor flippant - just different.

Ah, ok, ....I thought you were claiming that a God would not create a world with predictable rules, that they would decide to change the law of gravity from one day to the next.

I agree that there could be a different world with different rules and laws, hard as it is to imagine it!!

For now, my biggest concern was this idea that seemed to be cropping up that "naturalistic" explanations are sufficient to rule out God. The idea that a proposed pathway clinches an argument that it is without God just bothers me.

4. I am digging in my heels a little on the "methodological naturalism precludes the existence of god" idea. All the principle says is that if god(s) do/es exist, that they don't intervene in natural events.

But HOW in the world can you even ASSERT this as a testable hypothesis? You could NEVER be able to test that God DOESN"T intervene and therefore cannot, with any confidence, state that its a valid principle. All you could ever say is that you don't THINK God intervenes.

Hey I;m not saying that this is an apologetic that would persuade you....I just don't see it as a necessary *assumption* for science. (considering you could never prove it true).

And so I guess that our point of difference here is that you think he may intervene (correct me if I am wrong). Nevertheless, MN does not claim he doesn't exist - only that he doesn't intervene...so I guess you have problems with both methodological naturalism and ontological materialism which effectively states that god doesn't exist.

I just simply have a problem with this idea that you can assert with ANY confidence that a god does not intervene when in reality you could never prove this to be true or false. You can map out the development of the bacterial flagellum and claim this is naturalistic, without the intervention of God, but you could never prove it. How could you?

I guess my question to you would be "at what level(s) do you think god intervenes in natural events"? He exercises total authority over the workings of the natural universe? Just during keystone events like the origin of life? Sometimes? Once a trimester? I am not being flippant - just curious.

Oy, now there's a question for the ages As you stated earlier regarding the mysteriousness of a creator, I think we will never fully understand the integration of a personal God with HIs creation.

Bear in mind that I am coming at this from a Christian perspective, so my scripture states that God was involved during creation (btw, currently OEC and progressive creationist) and accomplished what He willed. He established the creation and stated it good, fit, proper....

In the New Testament we see scriptures pointing to a creator that sustains and holds creation. COlossians 1

15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross

Just a sampling....not sure I could ever delineate HOW this happens. But there is a integration of God's sovereignty with His creation.