Replies

Thank you oh so very much for your encouragements, dear YHAOS, and for your questions!

From a Materialist’s perspective would not a “miracle” be viewed as an unexplained natural phenomenon?

Yes, indeed. I believe betty boop will confirm that our correspondents over the years often replied to unexplained phenomena with remarks such as "a naturalistic explanation would be forthcoming in a few decades." That of course is a statement of faith though they protested it was not.

Are there not, a great number of unexplained natural phenomena?

Certainly! Earlier I mentioned the rise of autonomy, syntax and semiosis and the temporal non-locality of maintenance/repair functions (final cause.) There is also no materialistic explanation for the beginning of space/time, inertia, information (successful communication, Shannon) and so on. The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences (Wigner, Vafa et al) also defies explanation.

One such example being the Cambrian Explosion? A very large example?

Does not the Cambrian Explosion offer the prospect of a falsification of the Theory of Evolution? Subject as always, of course, to further discovery?

Would not the term “a sudden burst of evolution” amount to a contradiction in terms?

It was taken quite seriously. The reaction however was to revise the 'gradual change over time' model to allow for sudden bursts followed by stasis (punctuated equilibrium.) And of course, the appeal that invertebrates do not leave fossils.

But as yet there is no adequate explanation for why body plans arose in the Cambrian but new body plans did not arise in periods following large extinctions. In other words, if the circumstances were right for the Cambrian Explosion - they should have been right again after mass extinctions.

Could not the hostility of Science to the term “miracle” be explained as a negative reaction to the suggestion represented by “miracle,” that Science can’t reasonably claim that it holds the promise that ultimately nothing is beyond its comprehension?

Absolutely.

Indeed, the most theological statement to ever come out of modern science (Jastrow) was back in the 60's after the mounting CMB measurements. The measurements showed there was a beginning of real space and real time. In other words, space and time do not pre-exist but are created as the universe expands.

This not only put all steady state theories in the archives but sent the physical cosmologists into a tailspin attempting to obviate the obvious: God the Creator of the beginning.

But none of the physical cosmologies offered since (multi-verse, multi-world, ekpyrotic, cyclic, imaginary time, etc.) were able to explain the beginning of real space and real time.

In the absence of space, things cannot exist.

In the absence of time, events cannot occur.

Both space and time are required for physical causation.

So in effect, evidently to keep the religious at bay the physical cosmologists popularized variations of the multiple universe theories, e.g. this universe was spawned from a previous one which was spawned from a previous one and so on. The theories amount to nothing more than "moving the goalpost" - relegating the issue of the beginning of space and time to some prior universe.

The issue does not go away, but it makes it easier for the atheists to ignore.

Atheism requires the plenitude argument, that anything that can happen, did. They lost the steady state universe model but must have hope in an infinity past in order to consider themselves bright in denying God the Creator.

It's a shell game. We are not fooled or amused.

By the way, we see similar goalpost moving in the reaction to the unexplained phenomenum of information content of DNA. Here they appeal to panspermia. In effect, if it cannot be explained by material/efficient cause on earth then appeal to alien seeding for final cause. IOW, they are saying that "aliens are ok in a clinch, but the word "God" is obscene and not to be mentioned in public..."

Are not alternative explanations (be they “miracles” or something else) consequently a threat to Materialistic orthodoxy?

There does not appear to be a problem proliferating alternative explanations providing those explanations do not entail the possibility of a supernatural cause. For instance, several different explanations for a geological formation may be entertained as long as God need not be mentioned.

Thanks, Alamo-Girl, for the comeback. It’s nice to know that I’m batting around 700 in one of my few excursions into Science.

“It (the “sudden burst of evolution” hypothesis) was taken quite seriously. The reaction however was to revise the 'gradual change over time' model to allow for sudden bursts followed by stasis (punctuated equilibrium).”

An example, I take it, of what you call a ‘just-so’ story. A narrative, unverifiable and unfalsifiable, but held to be valid, contradicting a theory that likewise continues to be held valid.

“The theories (multiple universe) amount to nothing more than "moving the goalpost" - relegating the issue of the beginning of space and time to some prior universe.”

Another ‘just-so’ story about which, no evidence exists, I presume?

“There does not appear to be a problem proliferating alternative explanations providing those explanations do not entail the possibility of a supernatural cause.”

I take your point. Nevertheless, I foresee a threat posed by any emerging explanation. Accommodations must be proffered. Accommodations threaten upsetting the existing apple cart. The Cambrian Explosion, for instance.

...I believe betty boop will confirm that our correspondents over the years often replied to unexplained phenomena with remarks such as "a naturalistic explanation would be forthcoming in a few decades." That of course is a statement of faith though they protested it was not.

Oh yes, dearest sister in Christ, I can testify to that! Certain Darwinist correspondents always absolutely refused to see what was patently obvious to others: That their confidence in the success of science in some (possibly remote) future to explain the (so-far) unexplainable IS a "faith statement." Such folks were true believers, accolytes of an ersatz-religion, Darwinism. At bottom, all their claims rested on faith, the principle claim being that there is no-God, either to begin or sustain the natural world in any way, shape, or form.

That is, they constantly propounded the idea that our world and the entire Universe can be exhaustively explained on the basis of naturalistic principles alone. The Supernatural is denied on principle.

Evidently such folks do not even bother to inquire into the authority on which those same naturalistic principles must rest for their own validity. They simply do not ask this question. Which to me simply provides additional evidence that their entire quasi-religious edifice is grounded in pure faith.

Atheism requires the plenitude argument, that anything that can happen, did. They lost the steady state universe model but must have hope in an infinity past in order to consider themselves bright in denying God the Creator.

It's a shell game. We are not fooled or amused.
By the way, we see similar goalpost moving in the reaction to the unexplained phenomenum of information content of DNA. Here they appeal to panspermia. In effect, if it cannot be explained by material/efficient cause on earth then appeal to alien seeding for final cause. IOW, they are saying that "aliens are ok in a clinch, but the word "God" is obscene and not to be mentioned in public..."

In the absence of space, things cannot exist.
In the absence of time, events cannot occur.
Both space and time are required for physical causation.

So in effect, evidently to keep the religious at bay the physical cosmologists popularized variations of the multiple universe theories, e.g. this universe was spawned from a previous one which was spawned from a previous one and so on. The theories amount to nothing more than "moving the goalpost" — relegating the issue of the beginning of space and time to some prior universe.

If one's "doctrine" requires one to deny God, then I suppose any substitute will do to fill in the resultant Void. Why not space aliens? Yeah, that's right! LOLOL!

Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your extraordinarily illuminating essay/post!