Yes, certainly. But it’s equally important not to confound the two questions – what Behe means, and whether or not we agree with it. I had been addressing the question what Behe meant, and George seemed to me to be suggesting that Behe couldn’t have meant what I thought, because science can’t detect design. But Behe doesn’t accept the premise that science can’t detect design, so he could easily have meant what I thought.
But now, rereading George’s post, I realize that though I thought I understood it, I now can’t follow it very well, so I may have misunderstood him, and I’m content to drop the charge for the time being.
I think you are trying too hard to quarry Jon’s answers for particular points that you can fit into your own model. That’s why you are having trouble understanding him – not everything he is saying is meant to address your particular model of evolution. Much of what he says is for the purpose of clarifying the basic issues for everyone.
Regarding the question of perfect pool shots, I think he is saying that “the natural order will not cooperate” in the sense that natural things, especially living things, aren’t like billiard balls, which have only one possible response to being struck by another billiard ball. He gives the example of the creature which turns right rather than left and dies as a result, which changes many evolutionary outcomes down the line, outcomes which depended on the survival of that creature’s genes. It’s hard to believe that even God could set up the Big Bang so as to force Eagle X to turn left rather than right at a particular moment 3 million years ago. That level of specificity isn’t contained in the information the universe started with.
Do you believe that even with a computer of unlimited calculating ability, one could design the Big Bang to force a not-yet-existent eagle to turn his head left rather than right, 14 billion years later, on planet Earth, at a particular spot on the planet, on a particular day, with its eye on a particular rodent? Do you believe that mechanical interactions of atoms and subatomic particles set in motion at the Big Bang lead to detailed future events at that level of precision? I’m highly skeptical, even if we don’t take into account quantum indeterminacy, and even more so if we do. That’s why I think the pool shot analogy, though useful in a crude way, to give a rough idea of “evolution through natural causes that is still part of a plan”, isn’t the best formulation of front-loaded design. Denton’s account in Nature’s Destiny is more plausible.
You write: “I think you are trying too hard to quarry Jon’s answers
for particular points that you can fit into your own model. That’s why
you are having trouble understanding him – not everything he is saying
is meant to address your particular model of evolution. Much of what
he says is for the purpose of clarifying the basic issues for
everyone.”
So why is it that I understand what Dan writes, but sometimes I have
no clue what @Jongarvy is writing? I think the difference is, Dan is
a little more grounded in the “here and now”, while Jon is always
eager to explore the “what ifs”. This is a noble and commendable
inclination.
But it starts going a little sideways when Jon attempts to translate
the “what if” into the “probably is”, or even once in a while into “it
has to be”.
Let’s look at your own (inscrutable) defense of an assertion made by Jon:
“He gives the example of the creature which turns right rather than
left and dies as a result, which changes many evolutionary outcomes
down the line, outcomes which depended on the survival of that
creature’s genes. It’s hard to believe that even God could set up the
Big Bang so as to force Eagle X to turn left rather than right at a
particular moment 3 million years ago.”
If a creature has Free Will, it will do what it chooses. If a
creature doesn’t have Free Will… it is part of the causal chain of
events. You yourself said that Behe’s Pool Shot Model only applied
up to, but not including, the arrival of Humans (who have Free Will).
I accepted your suggested limitation on the use of the Pool Shot Model
as described by Behe. That seems fine to me. If you feel that you
should include other creatures as having “choices” (by whatever
metaphysical options are available to you, Eddie), that poses no
problem to me. The Behe model up until the first arrival of such
creatures.
If you have read my recent posting on “Gold Balls” (Gold pool balls
indicating agents with Free Will) to my own personal revision of the
Pool Shot Model, then you know that I am interested in accommodating
Free Will in a universe filled with natural lawfulness.
You are interested in promoting Denton’s own model for presenting a
Universe with natural laws and free will agents. Eventually, I will
get to the book you recommend. In the meantime, feel free to offer
some broad strokes of the Denton model. No analogy is perfect. If
there is a way to improve on the analogy, I’m eager to hear about it.
But only as eager as you are eager to share your personal insights
into the Denton model.
I have followed all the subsequent discussion, but …
Until there is a theory of design that can separate itself from TOE, all there can be is speculation (or belief). We don’t need a second name for evolution.
Now that i know your position, all i need is to know exactly how you meant it:
do you consider
“Unguided-Evolution”
(versus)
“Guided-Evolution”
to be the use of TWO (2) names?
Or is it the use of ONE (1) name, with undesirable or un-wanted qualifiers?
If Geneal.Adam is a group of scenarios designed to explain the best way to formulate a Theological stance on Evolution, do you agree that we need the qualifiers?
If you reject the use of such qualifiers, what would be your recommendation for how to proceed with Creationists - - who reject scientific ToE because it lacks a theological dimension?
Im all ears!.. channeled right through my android screen!
I look forward to knowing whether im perfectly on point, or if, in your opinion, i need to use a different term.
When this has come up before, and i expressed interest in using a different terminology, I was disappointed by the answer: “call it Creationism”.
I think you will agree that this is not a helpful solution. If i were to use a different term, it needs to be tersely distinctive enough that:
[1] it is easy to use in sentences, and yet
[2] its meaning is grasped relatively intuitively!
I was watching the end of Daredevil season 3. Suspence was killing me more!
Do you really have to tag Joshua for everything? It’s like you want to tattle on me for being agnostic or something … (Pretty sure he already knows)
In the context of science no qualifier should be necessary. TE generally isn’t making sciencific claim, so I don’t have much to complain about that qualifier. Likewise for Geneological Adam.
If Creationists (specifically YEC) reject scientific ToE because it lacks a theological dimension, this is a theological problem, not a scientific problem. We need to educate them about science, OR educate them about theology, perhaps both.
All the @moderators seem to support it 100% as much as I’d expect them too. I don’t care if they personally believe it. They all think it is an important and legitimate option for the public to consider. Nothing else is required of anyone.
You wrote: “OK, but let me think about it for a year or two …”
Wow… everyone is being so cute this evening.
So you are going to leave the bomb ticking away on the floor? If you
have a recommendation for how to distinguish the theological
description of Evolution from the purely scientific description, now
is the time to share it with me.
Hmmm… so that’s why I kept putting Joshua’s link into my posts.
I have ZERO understanding of where some of your comments come from. You seem immensely fair and sincere… but when you talk about not making enemies out of Atheists … how am I supposed to understand what you mean? I have YECs knifing me in the back with their rhetoric, and you are worried about what Atheists will say?
When I was recently on an Atheist/Theist group on Facebook, it took me three times to explain each feature of Geneal.Adam before they could suddenly see that I wasn’t a crackpot bible thumper.
From your particular third-party perspective, is there any peer of yours that would be interested in “bending” the YEC mind-set towards science - - without also wanting to strip him of his religion? You can see that this is not an Atheist program, right?
Behe has stated outright that he believes the designer is the Christian God. It isn’t a stretch to say that Behe is putting God forward as directly causing these mutations.
This contradicts his claims that seeing an IC system evolving in the lab would falsify Intelligent Design.
If we are talking about the Pool Shot scenario then there is nothing stopping the bacterial flagellum evolving in the lab.
