It does raise major questions regarding the problem of suffering and free will. It makes one wonder if John Calvin was on to something.
If they were actually doing science, it should not matter at all. But it matters a lot if what they are really doing is apologetics.
1 Like
How does he position those prior to the Big Bang?
This is not usually something a Christian worries about. How does God do ANY thing?
Creating āspaceā, and then putting something āinto itā seems pretty challenging already, yes? Then he has to do it for all the energy and matter-equivalents of the Universe? Pretty daunting.
Lenskiās actions were involved in that cloning. Subtle aspects of those actions made a difference to the clonal copies.
Of course Lenskiās actions, including those subtle aspects, were themselves consequences of the original billiard shot setup.
Note that I am just playing devilās advocate here. Personally, I see the billiard shot argument as absurd. However, it is also irrefutable (by design), so itās a waste of time trying to refute it.
1 Like
I donāt follow. The billiard shot is the archetypal design example. In a billiard shot, if properly executed, there is no chance element at all. Natural laws guarantee that the ball intended will fall into the pocket intended. Itās all planned in advance (design), and implemented by the use of natural laws (not random events).
2 Likes
Soā¦ for it to be absurd, you must (then) reject the idea that if we started the Universe over at exactly the same time and placeā¦ that we would probably get a completely different outcome?
Please advise.
I see that as meaningless. I donāt know of any possible meaning of āsame time and placeā which could apply to where there wasnāt any time and place.
Typical atheistā¦ unless I describe processes completely in reference to 4 dimensional space-time of the physical universe, you play stupid.
But even here, when I am talking about a āphysical tapeā of all the events of the Universe, and describe a re-wind and then starting it up again ā¦ you are unable to say whether we will have the same images/events/things produced in a replace of the Universe?
This is not a nefarious or unusual analogy. This is the kind of question that Philosophy 101 professors LOVE to ask their studentsā¦ so that they can slap them around with their own ignorance.
I expected more from you.
I think weāre in violent agreement. 
This whole āfront loadingā or āpre-planningā concept is nothing more than philosophical navel-gazing.
1 Like
Because there is no knowable answer.
I did express an opinion, when I said that I see the billiard shot argument as absurd. But you even managed to misconstrue that.
Most people do not consider the billiard shot argument as absurd. It is a simplification that works whether the Universe is random or non-random.
I guess the way terms are used here, ānatural lawā = ārandom eventsā. At least that is what I take from the fact that ID proponents argue that natural laws on their own cannot overcome the probabilistic hurdles attendant with things like the origination of new proteins, or the OOL, or ā¦
Thus, what I am asking is - what if the design can only be manifest through natural laws (unguided in their trajectories towards instantiation). How does this affect the ID enterprise?
Also, there is no reason to think that ārandom eventsā cannot easily guarantee that āthe ball intended will fall into the pocket intended.ā
1 Like
Well, then, why worry about explaining how he does this āfront loadingā at all, or even claiming that he does?
God could use this experiment to demonstrate that randomness is a feature of this universe
I am making a distinction between WHAT God does ā¦ and HOW he goes about doing it.
Word gamesā¦ not a fan.
I donāt see the importance of delineating āwhat God does.ā If you believe God exists, you just believe nothing can exist without him. Why bother quibbling about details?
Yes, but they usually distinguish three causes:
1 ā natural laws
2 ā chance (including random events)
3 ā intelligent design
And then they (e.g., Meyer) argue that neither 1 nor 2 nor a combination of 1 and 2 could do the trick, so the answer must be 3 (or maybe 3 with a bit of 1 and 2 mixed in). This is where Denton is the odd man out, because he thinks that natural laws could do it, if they were set up to have a certain trajectory from the beginning. That is, Denton suggests the combination of 1 and 3.
We have to distinguish between āconceptually within IDā and āphysically plausibleā (given what we know about how nature works). I think Behe and most people at Discovery grant that Dentonās idea is conceptually within ID, but people like Meyer, Dembski, and Wells think that such front-loading is physically implausible, and so reject it. So for Meyer fresh inputs of information from an intelligent source, beyond any information available at the Big Bang, would have to be injected. Itās possible that Behe thinks the same thing, though heās not as clear about it as Meyer is.
So for me, the answer to the question, āDoes ID theory require miraculous intervention?ā the answer is āNo,ā because in principle one could have a combination of 1 and 3, a sort of billiard shot scenario. But if the question is, āDo most ID theorists imagine some degree of intervention?ā Iād say the answer is āYes.ā And if the question is āDoes Behe imagine some degree of intervention?ā Iād say the answer is āUncertain, but probably.ā
1 Like
Bingo! I think this is the first statement made that all can agree on
2 Likes
Whole Denominations, millions of people, find importance in such details.