that’s good to hear[quote=“Swamidass, post:39, topic:17521”]
Second, the God I find in scripture does at least occasionally intervene by first cause in this world (e.g. the Resurrection)
and that is good to hear as well[quote=“Swamidass, post:39, topic:17521”]
Third, science is very far from demonstrating that the origin of life by exclusively natural mechanisms is possible.
Right[quote=“Swamidass, post:39, topic:17521”]
Nonetheless, just as James Tour explains, I do not feel anyone has demonstrated that the origin of life by exclusively natural mechanisms is impossible, either. So we are facing a mystery here.
However, even though he refuses to embrace ID, Tour does present compelling evidence from the field of synthetic chemistry that we can all consider. He clearly demonstrates that the advances we have been able to achieve have been accomplished only by goal oriented focus, diligence, and meticulously careful manipulation of resources and conditions. He makes the point that the sort of efforts that can only come forth from intelligent agents (and never from purely natural processes) are essential in achieving even the modest thresholds of success that we can claim to this point.[quote=“Swamidass, post:39, topic:17521”]
in “science” we do not consider non-natural causes of things.
Sure we do. In historical sciences. archaeological science and forensic science are all about determining whether the past cause of a particular physical effect is due to intelligent agency or purely natural causes. We can observe the physical effect in question, but we must determine the cause. I will leave it to philosophers of science to hash out whether such enterprises can said to be science or not (it seems to me that they can be). But OOL science is an historical science and the methodology that applies to other historical sciences should also apply to OOL science. If you do not wish to call it science, fine. However, the process of following the available evidence to determine the cause that can adequately account for the physical effect in question is the only method available to historical sciences.[quote=“Swamidass, post:39, topic:17521”]
Not at all contradicting or denying these affirmations, in “science” we do not consider non-natural causes of things. So science never speaks of these possibilities
By this definition, Joshua, you handcuff OOL science in a way that other historical sciences are not constrained. You are effectively saying that when it comes to OOL science, unlike other historical sciences, we must take the a-priori position that a purely natural cause exists. Our consideration of the evidence takes an axiomatic position that life can be explained by purely natural causes, and the only task for OOL researchers is to discover how natural processes brought forth life. Any OOL research program which rules out agent causation a-priori is not an example of simply methodological naturalism (as others have inferred elsewhere), it is clearly a case of metaphysical naturalism.[quote=“Swamidass, post:39, topic:17521”]
Now, what are the two definitions of IC? And which one do you use?
I know you have been chomping at the bit for my answer to this question. In Darwin’s Black Box, Behe defines IC:[quote=“deliberateresult, post:37, topic:17521”]
a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.
Now I know you can’t wait to provide the “other” definition for me…