In 1999 Denton participated in a symposium in which the participants discussed Darwinism, theistic evolutionism and creationism. It was there that he clarified his beliefs about evolution. He writes “that both Darwinists and creationists for their own reasons found it convenient to read ‘evolution’ for Darwinism’ in Evolution a Theory in Crisis…” He goes on to confess that he might have contributed to the confusion by entitling his first book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, when he should have entitled it Darwinism: A Theory in Crisis. “The book,” he continues, “was intended to be an attack on the Darwinian claim that all evolution can be plausibly explained by the accumulation of successive, small random mutations… However, the book was not intended to support special creationism.” (Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins, Regent College Publishing,1999. P142)

I find that very surprising, having had several debates about common descent with people quoting Denton's book at length to support their claims.

Also, see this ID site which says:

In August 1998, Denton’s eagerly-awaited second book arrived: Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe (Free Press, 1998). Readers expecting a continuation of the arguments of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, however, found a line of argument markedly different from the earlier book. <bAlthough much of Denton’s skepticism about neo-Darwinism remained, gone were the challenges to the theory of universal common descent–i.e., the common ancestry of all terrestrial organisms–which had made Evolution especially controversial with mainstream biologists. In their place was an unstinting advocacy of common descent, and a notion of “directed evolution” in which the historical unfolding of life on earth was “built into” the universe from the start.

Indeed, Denton makes this clear in last paragraphs of the first chapter of, Evolution. He writes that that the world bears “ no trace of the supernatural drama that genesis implied” and creationism was “irreconcilable with the fundamental aim of science to reduce all phenomena to natural explanations.”

Then I must admit to some confusion about Denton's position, and I do not think I am the only one to judge from trhe comments ARN I quoted above.

If you think like him, you should try reading his books. Whether or not you agree with his interpretations or conclusions, they do contain a lot of very good science.

Actually, your comments have convinced me that he must be a very poor presenter of his own ideas if his two books give such seemingly different theories and yet he has not changed his position.

Paul Davies writes: “one may find it easier to believe in an infinite array of universes than an infinite Deity, but such a belief must rest on faith rather than observation.” (God and the New Physics, p174)

Either belief requires faith. That does not imply either is self-consistent, but does say that we should acknowledge our ignorance, and admit we cannot (as yet) say between the two.

I have not read his books, so I may well be wrong here, but I believe that Denton originally rejected even common descent in Evolution a Theory in Crisis. the reasons he gave for doing so were erroneous, and (to his credit) he seems to have taken that on-board (though creationists still cite his book as refuting common descent, curiously). As far as I can tell his current view, as expoundd in Natures Destiny, s perfectly compatible with MET. emember that many Christians accept MET, so I would say that yes, MET is indeed open to such a view.

In 1999 Denton participated in a symposium in which the participants discussed Darwinism, theistic evolutionism and creationism. It was there that he clarified his beliefs about evolution. He writes “that both Darwinists and creationists for their own reasons found it convenient to read ‘evolution’ for Darwinism’ in Evolution a Theory in Crisis…” He goes on to confess that he might have contributed to the confusion by entitling his first book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, when he should have entitled it Darwinism: A Theory in Crisis. “The book,” he continues, “was intended to be an attack on the Darwinian claim that all evolution can be plausibly explained by the accumulation of successive, small random mutations… However, the book was not intended to support special creationism.” (Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins, Regent College Publishing,1999. P142)

Indeed, Denton makes this clear in last paragraphs of the first chapter of, Evolution. He writes that that the world bears “ no trace of the supernatural drama that genesis implied” and creationism was “irreconcilable with the fundamental aim of science to reduce all phenomena to natural explanations.”

That doesn’t sound like a creationist to me. Neither does it sound like any kind of mea culpa.

Notice that Denton made these comments in 1999 after he had written and published, Natures Destiny. In other words, he has always accepted common descent and there was no shift in his position from the time he wrote Evolution and the time he wrote Natures Destiny. He has also been consistently critical of the neo-Darwinian synthesis.

If you think like him, you should try reading his books. Whether or not you agree with his interpretations or conclusions, they do contain a lot of very good science.

Kornbelt:

I suspect that John doesn't see supernovae as a primary basis for a Creator of the Universe. I suspect he accepts a Creator for more fundamental reasons, and supernovae are powerful supporting evidence. The value he places on supernovae is endowed with the value he has for mankind, including himself. Something else tells John he has supercosmic value, and therefore the supernovae are very important to that value system since they are important for the existence of mankind.

All I meant was that Supernovae are a necessary link in the causal chain that has led to, not only our existence, but, the existence of all life. While, Supernovae are a necessary link in that causal chain they are not sufficient cause. In other words, other causal links are required to explain how we got here. Supernovae have nothing to do with my value system even if they are super.

Kornbelt:

Both views are self-consistent, I believe. And I think it's pointless to argue about such things when there is foundational metaphysical disagreement. Science cannot answer such questions. If there are answers, they have to come from somewhere else.

Paul Davies writes: “one may find it easier to believe in an infinite array of universes than an infinite Deity, but such a belief must rest on faith rather than observation.” (God and the New Physics, p174)

Denton actually talks a lot about “directed evolution” Something that is directed implies something else that is directing it. (A director, perhaps?) For example, on page 275 of Natures Destiny he writes:

That is, I wuld say, a refinement of fine-tuning; claiming that the laws of the nature were set up to direct evolution.

In my opinion the idea that evolution is directed just drives the question of design deeper. If evolution is directed, why is it that way? Is it perhaps because is designed to be that way?

If evolution is directed, then, yes, that would imply the system was designed that way.

Actually Denton in both his books, Evolution a Theory in Crisis, and, Natures Destiny, is very critical of, what he terms as Darwinism, or the modern neo Darwinian synthesis. He clearly rejects the idea that evolution, as Darwin and his modern disciples teach, is an unplanned, unguided and undirected process. Is MET open to such a view? I think not. On this point he and Behe, as well as many other ID’ists are in agreement.

I have not read his books, so I may well be wrong here, but I believe that Denton originally rejected even common descent in Evolution a Theory in Crisis. the reasons he gave for doing so were erroneous, and (to his credit) he seems to have taken that on-board (though creationists still cite his book as refuting common descent, curiously). As far as I can tell his current view, as expoundd in Natures Destiny, s perfectly compatible with MET. emember that many Christians accept MET, so I would say that yes, MET is indeed open to such a view.

Basically, the fine-tuning argument. What I find fastinating about Denton's theory is that it is hardly ID at all. Perhaps I should say it is cosmic ID, rather than the usual ID, because if Denton is right, then there would be no evidence in biology that points to a Designer…

Denton actually talks a lot about “directed evolution” Something that is directed implies something else that is directing it. (A director, perhaps?) For example, on page 275 of Natures Destiny he writes:

“Today the whole situation with regard to the possibility of directed evolution has been dramatically transformed. There is first growing evidence, presented in the previous chapters, that the laws of nature, rather than being viewed in the nineteenth century as insensate , mechanical and lifeless, give every impression of having been preordained for life as it exists on earth. The concept of directed evolution is therefore no longer an anomaly in a nonbiocentric world. On the contrary, it is merely a logical deduction from a rapidly emerging new teleological worldview.”

In my opinion the idea that evolution is directed just drives the question of design deeper. If evolution is directed, why is it that way? Is it perhaps because is designed to be that way?

there would be no reason to suppose modern evolutionary theory (MET) is wrong (and most of ID is about trying to prove MET wrong). If Denton is right, IC is wrong.

Actually Denton in both his books, Evolution a Theory in Crisis, and, Natures Destiny, is very critical of, what he terms as Darwinism, or the modern neo Darwinian synthesis. He clearly rejects the idea that evolution, as Darwin and his modern disciples teach, is an unplanned, unguided and undirected process. Is MET open to such a view? I think not. On this point he and Behe, as well as many other ID’ists are in agreement.

I actually find Denton's theory appealing. It is closer to my position that [than?] theistic evolution (and Dembski assures us theistic evolution is no friend of ID). I prefer multiverse, but that is just my "philosophical biases". I can see no objective reason to pick one over the other.

Ironically, it was Denton’s first book, Evolution a Theory in Crisis, along with Thaxton, Bradley and Olsens, The Mystery of Life’s Origin, that sparked the modern ID movement back in the mid 1980’s. It is sad that his ideas have not received more attention.

Dembski’s hot headedness sometimes does not serve him well. He talks about a big tent but if the tent doesn’t include a diversity of views, like TE, is it really a big tent? On the other hand, I do know that Dembski knows and apparently respects Denton. He and Denton have even lectured together.

I’ll respond to Kornbelt’s comment a little later.

In his book , Natures Destiny: How The Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe, Michael Denton begins with a discussion about the significance of Supernovae, which leads though out the remainder of the book with an in depth exploration of this chain of cosmic coincidences.

Basically, the fine-tuning argument. What I find fastinating about Denton's theory is that it is hardly ID at all. Perhaps I should say it is cosmic ID, rather than the usual ID, because if Denton is right, then there would be no evidence in biology that points to a Designer; there would be no reason to suppose modern evolutionary theory (MET) is wrong (and most of ID is about trying to prove MET wrong). If Denton is right, IC is wrong.

I actually find Denton's theory appealing. It is closer to my position that theistic evolution (and Dembski assures us theistic evolution is no friend of ID). I prefer multiverse, but that is just my "philosophical biases". I can see no objective reason to pick one over the other.

kornbelt

I suspect that John doesn't see supernovae as a primary basis for a Creator of the Universe. I suspect he accepts a Creator for more fundamental reasons, and supernovae are powerful supporting evidence. The value he places on supernovae is endowed with the value he has for mankind, including himself. Something else tells John he has supercosmic value, and therefore the supernovae are very important to that value system since they are important for the existence of mankind.

I suspect you are right, but John can choos to support his claim how he wants, and I am going to respond to what he types, rather than wht I think he believes.

Both views are self-consistent, I believe. And I think it's pointless to argue about such things when there is foundational metaphysical disagreement. Science cannot answer such questions. If there are answers, they have to come from somewhere else.

That is my point.

I think you are missing the point here. I am not saying that because the tree fell down by accident it therefore implies that supernovaes are accidental, I am saying that the use of "purpose" is ambiguous (and perhaps you agree, as you say "there are different levels of cause and purpose").

I think your point would be stronger, Pixie, if we were only talking about Supernovae. Afterall, like falling trees they certainly appear to be accidental. But they are accidents that appear though out the universe at the right rate. If they occurred too infrequently, for example, there would not be enough heavy elements for the formation of “rocky” planets. On the other hand, if they occurred too frequently life would probably be destroyed soon after it got started. But it doesn’t end there, because there are other accidents, indeed a whole chain or accidents or “cosmic coincidences” that have to occur for life to have gotten its start.

In his book , Natures Destiny: How The Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe, Michael Denton begins with a discussion about the significance of Supernovae, which leads though out the remainder of the book with an in depth exploration of this chain of cosmic coincidences.

He writes, “If the cosmos is to be a home for life, then the flickering of the supernovae must occur at a very precise rate and the average distance between them, and indeed between all stars, must be very close to the observed figure.”

In addition, Denton continues, “it turns out that the production of the key elements for carbon based life not only requires the enormous energy levels within the interiors of stars but is also critically dependent what appears to be another set of very precise conditions in the nuclear structure of certain atoms 8^berylium, 12^carbon, and 16^oxygen. These energy levels affect the manufacture and abundance of carbon , oxygen, and other heavier elements essential for life.”

Actually, I believe that Denton is mistaken here, because he leaves out helium. Astrophysicist Hugh Ross give us a more accurate description in an essay he wrote for, The Creation Hypothesis. He writes that:

“The degree of fine-tunedness for many of these parameters is utterly amazing. For example, if the strong nuclear force were even 0.3 % stronger or 2 % weaker, the universe would never be able to support life. More astounding yet, the ground state energies for ^4He, ^8Be, ^12C and ^16O cannot be higher or lower with respect to each other than 4% without yielding a universe with insufficient oxygen and /or carbon for any kind of life.” (The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer, J.P. Moreland, ed. P163)

In other words, it is a quartet of elements that is critical to the existence and emergence of life. Denton only describes a trio.

Denton continues his discussion by quoting Fred Hoyle who described this coincidence as a “put up job”

“If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis,” writes Hoyle, “these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just about where these levels are actually found to be… A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”

Denton makes a couple of conclusions. First, he observes, “the formation of the chemical elements for life, and planetary systems capable of sustaining life and evolution over millions of years, are only possible if the overall structure of the universe are almost precisely as they are.”

And second, this has resulted in a teleological view “within modern physics , cosmology, and astronomy which is…strikingly out of keeping with the anti teleological tendencies that have come to be universally associated with advances in scientific knowledge for most of the recent past.” (pp11-16)

Pixie: Sure, past supernovaes have served a purpose for us, but that does not imply that the purpose of the supernova was to make heavy elements, or even that there was any purpose behind them at all.

The Weak Anthropic Principle.

What this is is an event that has no intelligent agent was necessarily involved in it, but the aftermath is then subsequently useful to intelligent agents who were not even around when the event happened.

John apparently hears the Strong Anthropic Principle when he considers supernovae. You do not. You accept they are a contingency for earth life. John sees them as a contingency for earth life! (Yes, the last two sentences are the same except for the emphasis and an exclamation.)

I suspect that John doesn't see supernovae as a primary basis for a Creator of the Universe. I suspect he accepts a Creator for more fundamental reasons, and supernovae are powerful supporting evidence. The value he places on supernovae is endowed with the value he has for mankind, including himself. Something else tells John he has supercosmic value, and therefore the supernovae are very important to that value system since they are important for the existence of mankind.

Both views are self-consistent, I believe. And I think it's pointless to argue about such things when there is foundational metaphysical disagreement. Science cannot answer such questions. If there are answers, they have to come from somewhere else.

I think that kind of a question is on the order of Last Tuesday-ism. I wouldn't know, but I probably wouldn't care. After all, I don't really know anything except that I'm conscious and have experiences. If some super-being showed up and took credit for certain controversial things (like the origin of earth life), it would probably boil down to whether I trust him/her/it/them or not. After I changed my shorts. An ability to re-produce or demonstrate "exceedingly stupefying facts" about such things might lend to trusting them.

Which goes to show how imprecise intent of language can be.

Sorry I was not more clear, hopefully every can understands my point now.

"…we have no way of telling"
No way scientifically. If the Creator Himself told me or you, then that might be "a way of telling." But I guess I should assume that's not within the scope this discussion.

John has made the claim: "But if reality itself is fundamentally rational and logical then that also implies that there is some ultimate meaning and purpose to it all." I am guessing he does not mean that the Creator Himself told him this. I assumed he had some logical and/or scientific rationale behind the claim, and that is what defines the scope of the discussion. My feeling is that we do not know, and that given the current state of our knowledge of the universe we have no way of telling.

By "we", I mean me and John, just to be clear. I would not rule out the possibility that we, the human race, might find some way of telling.

Certainly, I would be very interested to hear what the Creator Himself told you about this issue, even if it is not specifically relevant to my discussion with John. However, that would open a whole new set of issues: How would you know that this was indeed the Creator Himself, and not some elaborate hoax for a TV show, or some superpower alien with delusions of grandeur?

Zachriel: Now, can we find scientific evidence that supports a claim that there was a purpose for the tree falling as it did?

kornbelt888: Probably not in most cases. But science is only one way to possibly answer a question.

Agreed.

Zachriel: Can we find evidence that the tree fell due to contingency (of decay, wind and gravity)?

kornbelt888: Probably.

Agreed.

kornbelt888: But proximate causes can't answer whether or not there was any foresighted purpose to the felling. If God wanted to fell a particular tree for the benefit of some humans or animals without it looking like he did, it seems like a rather easy thing to do.

Sure. And we might go so far as to believe that everything is for a purpose, but we just want to be careful when others use the term with a somewhat different intent.

I think we're in agreement.