Have the challenges to naturalism increased or decreased with the progress of science?  Has the evidential warrant for the design inference increased or decreased with the progress of science?
 
 
 

Consider the distinction between origin and operation of the natural world:
 

The difference between origin and operation has to do with information.  The principles which describe the operation of an automobile are not sufficient to account for its origin.  Its origin lies in the process of imposing information onto matter by the designer.  Biology involves the study of machines far more intricate and complicated than automobiles.
 
 
 

Note the lack of such a distinction in the following quote:
 

"Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air pending the outcome.  And human beings evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."

S. Gould "Evolution as Fact and theory", in Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, pg 254.

 
 
 
 

Is belief in a cause beyond nature supported by or in conflict with the progress of science?

 

One view:

 
"One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious.  We should not retreat from this accomplishment."

S. Weinberg, Skeptical Inquirer, Sept./Oct. 2001 pg 68.
 

"The naturalist postulate has been extraordinarily successful, representing the most incisive and fecund concept bolstering the human urge to understand.  It has spawned a revolution in physics and cosmology and in biology.  It stands behind the most dramatic advances ever made in human knowledge."

Christian de Duve, The Nature of Nature conference, Baylor University, April 12-15, 2000.

 
 

An alternative view:
 

While the progress of science has led to a dramatic increase in knowledge of the natural laws that govern the operation of the universe, the challenges in accounting for origins through natural law have also increased dramatically.

 

  Intro-7

 
 
 

Consider the following knowledge that has been revealed with the progress of science:
 

a) comprehensibility of the universe  -  existence of simple laws that govern nature
 
 

"the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible"

A. Einstein, referenced in Prof. Delaney's chapter

"The universe is ordered in a meaningful way, and scientists seek reasons for why things are the way they are. If the universe as a whole is pointless, then it exists without reason. In other words, it is ultimately arbitrary and absurd. We are then invited to contemplate a state of affairs in which all scientific chains of reasoning are grounded in absurdity. The order of the world would have no foundation and its breathtaking rationality would have to spring, miraculously, from absurdity."

Paul Davies, The Guardian, Jan 23, 2003.   view article

 

b) anthropic coincidences or the "fine-tuning" of the universe
 
 

c) the beginning of space-time in a singularity where the laws of physics break down
 
 

d) biology:
 

intractability of naturalistic origin of life
 

intractability of naturalistic origin of specified complexity
 

irreducible complexity
 

- of certain organs (what good is 5% of an eye - S. Gould)
 

- of certain biochemical systems (Darwin's Black Box - M. Behe)
 

- in development (the marching band problem - Paul Nelson)
 

- in the origin of life (DNA-RNA-protein basis of life)
 
 

 e) paleontology:
 

Cambrian explosion - coincident appearance of nearly all phyla (body plans)
 

lack of evidence for gradual transformation in the fossil record

 

 Back