Jean Staune said (emphasis, red numerals and tags by me):
But my point was to show that a non Darwinian theory on evolution could be a perfectly natural one with no « supernatural » dimension, only influence of unknown NATURAL forces which ”drive” evolution toward stable forms or archetypes1. So the analysis of Vekris show by itself that I « made my point» 100%2.
I agree with vekris that appeal to unknown natural forces when there are enough signs supporting there existence is not unscientific.
The situation with meteorology on Pluto and with the Darwinism theory on earth is exactly the same3, there is not needs to introduce any supernatural causation (that is exactly the point where I differ from Intelligent Design4 people !!)
1) We have enough data5 to show that there must be unknown forces which act on […] the evolution on life on earth
2) But the phenomenon is still weak6 and the data don’t convince the mainstream scientists because they said that we couldn’t imagine what the unknown forces could be so they say that […] the Non-Darwinists claims on Earth are unscientific.
I isolated this part of Jean Staune‘s discourse and edited reference to Plutonians […]. It isn’t meant to cover what Jean Staune said, the in extenso reaction is still in place.
Let’s see what Jean Staune is talking about :
- something, some natural force could drive evolution toward stable forms; no proof, no mention of the nature of the « natural force »
- so, for the moment he didn’t made his point 😉
- No possible parallel between an hypothetical science on Pluto, a science-fiction construct or a parable, name it as you like, and a well documented scientific theory able to answer non-darwinians dilemmas, as they are unable to do so by themselves.
- As far as I know the Intelligent Designer isn’t clearly defined as supernatural, but God is. Jean Staune is one of Templeton’s Foundation champions, working to introduce supernatural causation in science, by redefining science’s definition if necessary; this is the point where UIP and his founder, Jean Staune, is alike with Discovery Institute. Different methods, same aim.
- Show them, don’t spend your time with parables. And let’s talk evolution.
- Aha ! the phenomenon is weak… Can I translate by we only have hypothesis to propose without any proof and/or method to propose that could (in)validate them?
if my translation isn’t correct, please explain yourself, there is plenty of space here and a lot of people will be able to read you. As a well trained scientist please be precise.