Without even laws of nature? You could give some examples of this if you wish, but I will always come back to the propostition that we would not even be able to perceive such self-organization if it did not have attributes that can be apprehended by intelligence, and thus demonstrate a certain aspect of intelligence themselves, namely meaning. There is simply too much to infer from this to discard the question of how/whether intelligence is operative in these processes.
I question the certainty with which your sentence is declared. We do not yet know for certain there is "no external intervention whatsoever," for example. Your perceptions and intelligence are no more an "infallible probe of the Universe" than anyone else's, even if you were cloned six times over.
Some people would like to ask, "How do you know?" Dogmatic evolutionists would prefer to deny an inquiring mind the right to even ask. And THAT is the crux of this controversy. Not which world view is worthy of doing science, but whether both (and more) can be the subject of honest inquiry. Scientific inquiry is not reserved for evolutionists alone, as #104 bears out clearly.
Well, we need to get our definitions down so we don't keep speaking past each other. It requires reaching back into the assumptions we make about facts, truth, and knowledge. Meanwhile I appreciate your willingness to let my ideas bounce of your opposite point of view. Yes.
Even if we remain in disagreement over the subject, I hope we will understand why we disagree. And no, I do not count myself or the author of this essay to be the ultimate authority on what is "real" and what is not.
-------
"Science is a way of seeking principles of order in the universe."
I agree with this statement. Do you?
"Science, as an intellectual activity, encompasses observations about the natural world that can be measured and quantified, and the ideas based thereon can be tested, verified, falsified, or modified."
I agree with this statement. Do you?
"Scientists, when speaking about scientific finding, do not speak in absolutes as is done in the name of religion."
I agree with this statement. Do you? And let me be frank at this point. It is exactly here that I have a real problem with DOGMATIC evolutionists, and I'm not just talking about people who have stupid dogs. With respect to the possibility of even a single intelligent being having repsonsibility for the creation and sustenation of the known universe, scientists, to be faithful in their quest for ALL the facts, must leave this as an OPEN QUESTION. The word "impossible" is an absolute, is it not?