That is more explicit evidence of the attitude of some evolutionists. When the simple words of "God did it" are used, the retort is, "You have no argument". When an argument is presented, no matter what that argument is, the retort is "That is a lot of words to simply say god did it."
This:
‘Or could it be, rather, a master code that decrypts all the relevant information needed by the particular living organism being transmitted to it by a nonphemomenal, extra-spatial, extra-temporal source; i.e., a source existing outside the four-dimensional spacetime of normative human experience?’
isn’t an argument - it is the plot to a science fiction movie.
[[”That is a lot of words to simply say god did it.”]]
Which is usually followed by “Which means it isn’t science but religion”
However, when asked why God can’t be a part of a scientific equation, they have no answer- just more petty character attacks. Nature, if it is to be the ONLY answer for scientific enquirey, MUST rule out the possibility of any other menas of life, yet those hwo support Natural Macroevolution can’t do so. I find it particularly funny htough that they can sit htere and say “Because you beleive God did it, you are not practicing ‘science’ Yet their only answer to the severe gaps in Macroevolutionary evidences is to say “Nature-did-it” without giving ANY evidence to support.
And, these aren’t just minor gaps that can be filled in with highly plausible scenarios evidnet in nature, but they are huge gaping holes that require serious twistings and assumptions in order to link dissimilar KINDS, all the while ignoring hte biological differences and pointing to moot few homological similarities, and ignoring the fact that science can’t explain how NEW ifnormation gets introduced into species as they supposedly make hteir way up thje non existent species ladder. Yet their ‘science’ isn’t, in their minds’ a religious belief- oh no- it’s pure sicence because as we all know, science demands natural explanations- despite hte fact that the eivdneces point strongly toward non natural explanations.
Macroevlutionists never once stop to concider that their lengthy evidenceless diatribes attempting to explain some minor Macroevolutionary scenario amounts to nothign more than “A lot of words to declare “We don’t know how ‘just yet’ but Nature-did-it” Irregardless of the fact that the biological evidneces simply do not support the assertion.