"Agreed. And a lot of evidence has been offered over the centuries to support the existence of God (and the inerrancy of Scripture) which I find convincing. Are you asking me to list the reasons I believe in God? (I'm happy to do so if you are.)"
Your are right when you say that e-mail can confuse nuances. I have tried to make it very clear throughout our discussion that we are discussing the scientific issue of whether ID is even an adequate, much less a superior, explanation of natural history. You have made the claim that the values of the physical constants are specifically tuned for our type of life. You have claimed that this combination of values is too improbable to have occurred by chance. You therefore conclude that this is evidence for the universe having been designed. Pim and I have tried to point out that this is not necessarily so, but when I ask your for evidence to back up your two initial claims all you offer is your belief that the universe is special because God created it to be a temporary home for man. (Yet you believe this because of the physical constant values, resulting in a circular argument.) Anywho, when I press you for evidence to support this latest claim, you ask me if I am asking you why
you believe in God. What I want is (scientific/hard/physical/empirical) evidence for these claims, the kind that would stand up to scientific inquiry (you choose the descriptor from the above list that you believe best fits this definition), not philosophical or theological arguments and certainly not personal belief. Even though I had not used these exact words, I had tried to make clear that since we were having a scientific discussion I expected scientific evidence, but I must have miscommunicated.
Therefore let me be perfectly clear (and forgive my bluntness): do you have any valid unambiguous scientific evidence for any of the following statements --
1) The values of the physical constants are specifically tuned for our type of life;
2) this combination of values is too improbable to have occurred by chance; or
3) the universe is special because God created it to be a temporary home for man?
"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.
"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, 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 and one that works. The odds are that, if the phenomenon can be scientifically investigated, one day it will find that answer.
"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. 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. Such people simply lacked the imagination to see beyond what we currently know to what we could conceivable come to know. 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.
"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.
"So then, this would be a theological argument against the ID argument?"
No, it was a rhetorical attempt to counter your claim that the universe is special because it's the only one.
"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?
"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.
"If the latter, then I would certainly disagree. If the former, this brings up the question of whether or not facts that have been established extra-scientifically (like historical facts) can be used in scientific
research?"
They cannot, though historical facts that are collected scientifically would be appropriate.
"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"?
"Okay, but does it qualify as just-plain-evidence?"
Yes, but just-plain-evidence is not valid scientific evidence.
"_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. As such, we should be able to understand how God it, though not why. That's what theology is for.
"It seems to me that it is at least POSSIBLE for science to legitimately be led to consider extra-scientific explanations for certain phenomena."
Science can be led to consider any explanations, 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.
"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.
"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.
"I'm not very aware of the current state of research into the functioning of the mind (man, you sure know a lot about a lot of areas!)..."
I'm a biochemist; it's what I do.
"...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.
"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. It's that other universe, the spiritual one where God comes from and where I expect to go when I die, that cannot be explained except by faith.
"I wasn't trying to base anything on the fact that you might be wrong. What I was trying to say (and not very well) was that, from the scientific perspective, it is at least POSSIBLE that the constants were not changing during the Planck Era."
I agree.
"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.
"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 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?
"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.
"If science explains the values of the physical constants through the laws of the universe then I would wonder why the laws are as they are."
They are the way they are because of the nature of the universe they are part of.
"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.
"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, 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.
"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.
"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