Bill Cole's Case For Design

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Ashwin_s

Who here has claimed this? It is totally false. We do not know all the processes necessary. This is why we do evolutionary science, to discover more processes and understand where they are important.

Doesn’t sound that way when reading the thread.Let me show you an example.Micheal made the below statement… and got an answer from Aquaticus. I am pasting both.

@Ashwin_s

Is a just so story the best response when someone is questioning whether selection can achieve the change required ?

My issue is not with @T_aquaticus who is presenting quite a bit of knowledge that would really benefit from understanding. We can and will start a thread on eye evolution to go into this deeper, but he is not presenting a “just so story.” Rather he is explaining why the jump is not nearly as large as you think.

Instead of making a “just so” dismissal, put forward a more constructive way of understanding God’s work alongside this. You are are not nearly as backed into a corner as you feel. Look, for example, how the exchange on another thread is playing out:

@swamidass

I agree that we know much more than non-experts and polemicists give us credit for. We know quite a bit. However, this statement deemphasizes how much we do not know too. Yes, our knowledge is increasing, but our knowledge also brings light to increasing domains of ignorance. It is not not really valid to present our perception of knowledge and ignorance as a zero sum game. Our increase in knowledge is also increasing our knowledge of our ignorance.

Moreover, take the T-urf13 example. The changes you see are all readily explainable by biochemical mechanisms. This is a strong argument against Axe and most ID arguments about functional information and irreducible complexity. I agree with you there. Honestly, I will probably be pointing people to your excellent work here.

Prove to me, however, that God did not guide any of those biochemical mechanisms? You really can’t. It is very possible that what you call an example of natural evolution is not purely natural. There is really no way to know from science whether or not God providentially did something here. That is a question far outside the bounds of science, a question for theologians, not scientists.

So we cannot really say this is an argument for purely natural processes. It is rather an argument that it “appears” to be natural processes (and that is certainly true), leaving ample ignorance of the total system for God’s action. It is not we know God acted from evidence (we do not). If He did act, He would not be actively hiding Himself, but would still be hidden. We do well to acknowledge that our scientific knowledge is not an argument against God. There is not much room left for ID, but nothing here threatens well through through theological understanding of God.

This argument is just much stronger than arguing they way you guys have been going about it. Science is not going to tell us God designed things, but it certainly does not give strong evidence that He didn’t. Science is silent about God.

Any one who says different either misunderstands God or science, or both.