[[Indeed, the remarks regarding homochirality in his article strongly suggest that such molecules are already “prepped” in a special way for life.]]
The origins of life macroevolutionists will deny this, claiming it still ‘could have happened’ by chance (and we;ll get soem long-winded drawn out ‘explanation’ of how al lthe right elements ‘could have’ aligned themselves and seperated themselves from the wrong types, so that nature could ‘do it’s magic’
Of course, we’ll not get an ‘explanation’ as to how these molecules were purified before they miraculously aligned themselves, and seperated themselves before the whole ‘natural process’ began
[[Yet this does not appear to affect the teleological status of meta-information: Because it points to purposes, goals, in nature, we can speak of it as meaningful.]]
I can appreciate scientists wishing to opine strictly with scientific responses, but my goodness- when enough information points to intent, design, and intelligent assembly, it simply becomes silly trying to further the arguement on a purely scientific/Naturalistic level.
For instance, if I and several peopel were to uncover 1000 intricately carved urns which had symbols and wording on them in a consistent maner fro mvase to vase, two lines of forensic hypothesising could be taken- one natural including causation, the other intelligent causation.
I could argue that naturem given enough time, ‘could have’ formed these urns in a purely natural manner- making hte case for just one urn- I could hsow that tremendous winds worked the clay into hollowed out vessels, while at hte same time the clay was rolling around, it somehow managed to result in ‘primitive’ symbols markings, and that bird droppings hitting hte vessels, resulted in ‘primitive’ look-alike symbols on the outside of the urn. I could then argue that a cataclysmic heating event solified the clay, and the result was a ‘proto urn’. I could point to events in nature that ‘under hte right circumstances’ produce ‘similiar looking’ hollowed out vessels of clay, and clai mthat since lower levels of ‘information and ‘assembly’ exist, then it can’t be argued that hogher levels of informaiton and examples of IC in 1000 uncovered urns are infact IC.
However, since there is an abundance of ID and IC invovled in the 1000 urns, it would be silly to try to argue that nature did all this by some uncontrolled forces of nature, so we MUST then argue both the scientific evidence AND the implications, just as forensic science must argue for intelligent causation vs unintelligent causation when examining a crime scene or scene of investigation.
Of course we’re not talking static objects, but dynamic living systems which are subject to manipulation via mutaitons, however, once again, it all breaks down into the base points of informaiton, and whether this can arise naturally, and if not, then there is only one other alternative, intelligent causation- so again, it is not a case of ‘going beyond science’ to argue intelligent causation, but rather it is a mandatory arguement for intelligent causation when there is enough evidence to suggest this, and I beleive the evidence of informaiton, especially metainformation, is a very strong arguemtn for hte need for intelligent causation, and should NOT be excluded, and that doing so would infact be as unscientific as my argument that the 1000 clay urns must be naturally caused. Arguing from a purely naturalistic viewpoint in such matters renders the arguement, in the face of overwhelming evidnece to the contrary, unscientific. It makes such arguemtns pure apologetics.
I could argue that naturem given enough time, ‘could have’ formed these urns in a purely natural manner-
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear CottShop!
Indeed, CottShop. The epistemelogical foundation of the purely naturalistic view point is indistinguishable from the one that asserts the creationist view. In both cases, we start with a presupposition that controls the identification and qualification of evidence. If we seek only natural causes, only evidence conforming with that expectation will be selected. Same thing for the creationist presupposition. It seems both start with a conclusion, and then seek support from evidence after the fact. "Non-conforming" evidence is disregarded. Given this procedure, the presupposition infallibly ends up being the conclusion. Under the circumstances, one wonders why anyone bothers to justify either exercise as a legitimate mode of inquiry in the first place.
I'm with you, CottShop: Let the evidence speak for itself, and then follow the trail wherever it leads. Don't "torture" selective evidence into saying whatever it is we want it to say. For as you note, then we've left the precincts of science and are doing apologetics instead.
I think a little humility is called for on both sides of this debate. Etienne Gilson's insight strikes me as a sound way to put these matters into a proper perspective:
If the scientist refuses to include final causality [e.g., inversely-causal meta-information] in his interpretation of nature, all is in order; his interpretation of nature will be incomplete, not false. On the contrary, if he denies that there is final causality in nature, he is being arbitrary. To hold final causality to be beyond science is one thing; to put it beyond nature is something completely different. ... Explanations which rely on final causality have often been ridiculed, but mechanistic explanations have often been ridiculed also, and this does not disqualify the legitimacy of either point of view. — From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again, John Lyon, tr., Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984, p. 26.Sounds about right to me!
Thank you so very much for your excellent essay/post CottShop!