As Denton says, the basic idea is that the form (structure) of modern organisms is a property of the laws of physics and chemistry and not something that evolution discovered. He would argue that if you replay the tape of life you will always get species that look pretty much like the species we see today because the basic forms (Baupläne) are the inevitable consequences of the underlying physics.....To someone like Denton, this is confirmation of his view that God created the universe and endowed it with all the properties (laws of physics and chemistry) that would inevitably produce humans.
|The Spongeam as a 3D Metaphor|
So, I can't really take sides on this subject: Denton is far too strong on the subject of physical determinism and evolutionary repeatably. In contrast Moran is far too weak on the subject and seems unaware of the important role that front-loaded information would have to play in conventional evolution, This must be a classic example of debate polarization. As for myself I think that the existence of the spongeam is unlikely.
There are a couple of odd features of this debate that I would like to point out.:
1. The de-facto IDists seem to be taking Denton's side: That's interesting because as far as I'm aware they don't like the idea that physics contains a enough information to render evolution probable: Does that mean that they are prepared to accept that "natural-forces-did-it" after all? But having said that I realise the de-facto IDists are often happy with anything that vandalizes current evolutionary theory!
2. Micheal Denton's Wiki page says:
Denton's current interests include defending the "anti-Darwinian evolutionary position" and the design hypothesis formulated in his book Nature’s Destiny. Denton describes himself as an agnostic......He describes himself as an evolutionist and he has rejected biblical creationism
Compare that with Larry Moran's statement above. Also here's what PZ Myers says about Denton:
Larrry Moran has heard the words of Michael Denton, and has come away with a creationist interpretation of structuralism. I have to explain to Larry that Denton, as you might expect of a creationist, is distorting the whole idea. Here’s the Denton/Intelligent Design creationism version of structuralist theory......
My work on the Spongeam can be seen here:
Larry Moran On Denton:
PZ Myers on the Structuralism debate: