"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker
Duane Bozarth wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
"Duane Bozarth"

...

IOW, does this "nonaccident" have consequences that aren't explicable by
known physical laws?

The problem is that known physical laws don't account for the physical
world's existence, the mind or life in general.

I don't think that's yet proven. It's an assertion.

What's an assertion? That the laws of nature don't account for us
being here? The math doesn't work out for the big bang's beginning.

You're about 20 years behind, it sounds like. Have you been reading on
current research areas? That has been known from early cosmological
theories that there is an infinity in some formulations. Prime areas of
current research are in fact, fundamentally concerned w/ finding ways to
handle them. It's from this area that such things as string theory have
been found to be potentially useful.
^^^^^^^

You misspelled hopeful.

That's what science is---one certainly is hopeful that one's area of
research will turn out to be fruitful. It's never certain a priori, but
there has been much progress and I see no reason to think it will not
eventually reach fruition.


True, but we don't teach that string theory will explain everything
any more than we should teach that everything will have a
materialistic answer...someday...hopefully.



Is it done yet? No. Will it eventually succeed? Too early to tell.
Is it guaranteed to fail? That, too, we don't yet know.

In other words, the math doesn't work out yet.


See above...that's what physics is. Remember that Newtonian physics
"didn't work out yet" when pushed beyond certain limits--but it works
pretty darn well for most ordinary daily purposes. Why is current
cosmological physics required to be so fundamentally different in your
mind?

It isn't. I made a statement of fact, the math doesn't work out yet.
You affirmed it while taking issue with me. I don't get it.



That's why the above is an assertion--it isn't yet known where continued
research will lead, but it certainly hasn't yet reached an absolute
impasse.

Who said it did?????


Your argument has that as a logical conclusion when you imply there
becomes a point at which physical processes can not _possibly_ explain
the mechanisms we observe--


When exactly did I make that argument? My belief is that we can never
explain, with certainty, the creation event. You can speculate that we
eventually will but that isn't certain and it isn't science, it's a belief. So we
shouldn't leave students with that impression, we should be honest and
say we may never be able to explain it with science, some think we will
but some leading scientists see evidence for deliberate design. Then
the student can decide, if they even want to decide. All parties should be
happy. If a 'materialistic answer will be found' dogma is taught, it is
doing so unethically, unscientifically and unscholarly. It is instead indoctrinating
students with a secular system of beliefs.

which is the crux of what I'm understanding
you to believe.

The math also doesn't explain how life formed or why it happened
so quickly. Even if the assertions of a natural causes are true, there
doesn't seem to be sufficient time, the last I heard life happened as
the earth cooled enough to support it. It isn't ignorance that guides one
to the possiblity of ID and it isn't scientific facts that lead them away from it.

"Doesn't seem to be enough time" for whom? I thought in general the
problem was that folks who are opposed to natural evolution seem to
think it's proposed that it took too much time...

Do you mean literal 6 day creationists? Are they the only ones who
don't agree that life bubbled up on its' own? Never the less....

http://calspace.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/litu/02_2.shtml
Some scientists have suggested that the origin of life is such an improbable
event it is hard to believe that it could have happened in the early youth of the
planet, in the relatively short period of several hundred million years.

One possible solution to the conundrum of improbability is the idea that Life
came from outer space. In this scenario, named "panspermia" by the famous
Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius, life forms are traveling around in space,
frozen within rocks, until they happen to hit a planet environmentally ready to
take on the task of hosting living things.


Which simply transfers the question to where/how did those forms get on
the bus?


Yes, but should that be taught and not the possibility of an Intelligent Designer?