Replies

LOL, you quote his 2000 statement and then ignore the following statement he makes in his 2002 book :

"All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology--that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact."(p. 389)

I mentioned Denton because HE IS A SKEPTIC OF EVOLUTION. I did it in response to a question asked --- ARE ALL SKEPTICS OF EVOLUTION CHRISTIANS OR RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ? to which I said --- NOT NECESSARILY. I gave Denton and Berlinski as examples.

Denton's latest could almost be seen as a sequel to his first major critique of Darwinian Evolution, "Evolution a Theory in Crisis." In that book he devastates the Neo-Darwinian paradigm with evidence from various fields of biology, and concludes that life does appear to be designed. But then he does not follow the conclusion to a Designer, but remains a confirmed agnostic ( WHICH IS MY POINT --- NOT ALL SKEPTICS OF DARWINISM ARE THEISTS). Apparently to resolve this peculiar stance of his, he writes the second volume, "Nature's Destiny". In it, he dives into a full-fledged purpose-driven (teleological) view of life and the universe. Or more accurately, what he proposes is a thoroughly deterministic view of life, based on the inherent physical and chemical constants in the laws of nature. While I by no means subscribe to his evolutionary conclusions regarding the evidence he propounds, I found the evidence and research he presented pointing to design to be fascinating.

What I find ironic is that here we have evidence - that is, an increasingly clear view of the fundamental essences of cellular structure and function - we have almost universal acknowledgement among leading biologists that these things ‘appear’ designed - and yet Darwinists cling to stochasticism!

Why do so many refuse to let go of materialist assumptions when the simplest explanation is design?

It is as if nature shouts “Planned!” from the cosmos down to the micros - yet so many prominent minds refuse to even entertain the idea - why is that?

I see no other explanation than a pre-existing commitment to a philosophical view, one adherants hold is superior to the metaphysical superstitions of the ignorant masses while refusing to admit its own metaphysical nature!

"All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology--that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact."

So what's your point? That's just a fancy statement of the anthropic principle, something dreamed up by physicists.

I don't resist religious thoughts unless they contradict the findings of science, or -- much worse -- get used by the anti-science crowd to oppose research.

What I find ironic is that here we have evidence - that is, an increasingly clear view of the fundamental essences of cellular structure and function - we have almost universal acknowledgement among leading biologists that these things ‘appear’ designed - and yet Darwinists cling to stochasticism!

The origin of diversity in life is pretty much settled, and it is stochastic. The constraint being that stochastic variations have to survive and reproduce.

The question of original life cannot be settled by sitting on your ass and thinking about it. Its a matter for research.

I ask you if quantum theory could have been invented by people thinking about first principles, or could have been decided without the two slit experiment.