Replies

Michael Denton:

"It is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies."

SirLinksalot:

That does not make him a non-skeptic of evolution.

LOL.

Among other things it means he accepts abiogenesis as a natural phenomenon.

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!