Replies

RE: Instead, science will continue exploring to find some — any — natural explanation, be that “random occurrences”, “dark energy” or some other such place-holding name which essentially means: we don’t know what the h*ll it is, so will give it a natural-sounding name.

I am not against Scientists doing just that. However, I am also open tot he fact that science will have its LIMITATIONS, *IF* the REAL explanation is that SOMEONE actually CREATED what scientists observe. If that is the real explanation, then you can give it any name you like, it is still intelligently designed.

RE: So, many scientists practice scientific (methodological) naturalism while remaining philosophically theistic.
They are not contradictory.

Let’s put it another way, if as a scientist, I try my best to find a naturalistic explanation for something, but I find that it has a LIMITED explanation, then I have to exercise some sort of “faith” for want of a better word, that there is an explanation beyond the bounds of naturalistic explanations.

RE: Evolution is a strongly and frequently confirmed scientific theory. Several competing hypotheses have been tested and falsified, so Evolution remains as the only scientific theory left standing.

Why should we accept this “last one standing” idea?

The way I am seeing it Evolution, especially defined as simple change, makes no predictions; it becomes so pliable and vacuous as to fit all observations. If the evolution model were true, we would expect to see it in action. We could expect to see new elements, new stars, new species of plants and animals, etc.

There is no way to test evolution and creation because they are both reconstructions of unobserved history. We weren’t there; the scientists weren’t there.

A “model” can neither be proved nor disproved scientifically, but it can be evaluated based on its ability to explain the scientific data. Therefore, the model that explains the greatest number and variety of facts, with the smallest number of modifications is the one most likely to be true.

RE: Swimming in Codswallop, drinking the Codswallop koolaid, chose your own metaphor

As long as you cannot explain why that word describes what I said, that is simply it — a word (in your case, adopt). It’s a nice word to throw around but personally, it does not impress unless there is a good explanation for why the adjective fits, it is just that — A WORD.

Much like “racist”.

RE: “Irreducible complexity” is a nonsense term which has been debunked in any number of examples, leading to the logical conclusion that no living feature is “irreducibly complex.”

Debunked? Really or simply dismissed?

Just because you say it is nonsense doesn’t make it nonsense.

Some criticism is valid, others are not.

I am not one who accepts wholeheartedly IC as valid, yet, I am not one to dismiss it as nonsense (your word, not mine ) outright.

I would say that Some of the biological examples which proponents cited early on appear now to be reducible. This does not nullify the concept itself (AT LEAST NOT YET), nor does it negate actual examples of irreducibly complex biological systems.

irreducible complexity is an aspect of an OBSERVATION that argues some biological systems are so complex and so dependent upon multiple complex parts, that they could not have evolved by chance. Unless all the parts of a system all evolved at the same time, the system would be useless, and therefore would actually be a detriment to the organism, and therefore, according to the “laws” of evolution, would be naturally selected out of the organism. While irreducible complexity does not explicitly prove an intelligent Designer, and does not conclusively disprove evolution, it most definitely points to something outside of random processes in the origin and development of biological life.

I WOULD NOT DISMISS IT OUT OF HAND, JUST YET. It is at this point in time, still a VALID argument to look into.