What I “get” is that you have totally bought into the concepts introduced during the European so-called “Enlightenment” that crowded God out of science. In the actual “Day One” Theology was dubbed the Queen of the Sciences.
The Western belief in a beneficent rational creator led directly to the scientific advances of the last 1000 years. Western science, whether it wishes to deny the past or not, is standing on the broad shoulders of those in the past who were exploring God’s creation engaged in a process of reverse engineering; i.e., examining and marveling at the DESIGN.
BTW: Why don’t you drop the snarkiness? I have given this quite a bit more than a “little thought” and I “get” quite a bit more than you might think.
Please, you need first to remember that the United States, our Founding Fathers, their Declaration and Constitution are the very crown jewels of the Enlightenment.
There are no greater Enlightenment figures than men like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and John Adams.
Without the Enlightenment, there would be no United States of America, and so I'm telling you: don't be slapping the Enlightenment around.
Second, all of our Enlightenment Founders were Christians or Christian-deists, meaning they all believed in God, in one sense or another.
So the Enlightenment did not "crowd God out of science" in any way, shape or form.
the_Watchman: "In the actual “Day One” Theology was dubbed the Queen of the Sciences."
Sure, in the Middle Ages before there was any serious philosophically-scientific enterprise, Christian Universities dubbed theology, "the Queen of the Sciences."
And theology was not dethroned as Queen by Mathematics until the mid-1800s Romantic era.
So yes, the 19th century Romantic and 20th century Modern eras certainly did dethrone theology and "crowd out God", but not our Founders' Age of Enlightenment.
They viewed God as central to everything, including our Natural Rights -- for them, no God = no Rights.
And on the relationship of Philosophy and Theology, according to St. Thomas Aquinas:
Philosophy takes as its data the deliverances of our natural mental faculties: what we see, hear, taste, touch, and smell.
These data can be accepted on the basis of the reliability of our natural faculties with respect to the natural world.
Theology, on the other hand takes as its starting point the divine revelations contained in the Bible.
These data can be accepted on the basis of divine authority, in a way analogous to the way in which we accept, for example, the claims made by a physics professor about the basic facts of physics."
So, if you wish to see the world through theological or teleological eyes, that is your right and privilege.
But science (a branch of philosophy) cannot, and must not, do so.
Science can only look for natural explanations of natural processes.
That's why a key to understanding (which you clearly do not) is to see that science is the handmaiden -- the servant -- of philosophy.
Oh, oh, oh, you endlessly whine and complain: science has become our wicked master, subjecting philosophy and theology to its evil intentions! Woe are we! The world is at an end because science has run amuck!, you say.
Hogwash!
Science has only the grip on your mind that you give it, and if you make it your master, to the exclusion of more important faith, then you cannot blame science, but only yourself.
Even the wine of the Eucharist will kill you if you drink too much of it, so don't.
the_Watchman: "Western science, whether it wishes to deny the past or not, is standing on the broad shoulders of those in the past who were exploring God’s creation engaged in a process of reverse engineering; i.e., examining and marveling at the DESIGN."
As it still does, and as has been acknowledged by most of our greatest modern scientists, from Albert Einstein & Max Plank to Stephen Hawkins.
Of course, God to any scientist tends to look more like a Super-Scientist than a Figure who so loved the world He sent His only begotten son.
But I don't know that they can help it, and don't necessarily hold it against them...
As for those scientists who claim there is no God, they have simply taken the methodological assumption of naturalism and promoted it to the higher philosophical level.
It's their right, of course, but any such claims are, by that same definition I keep mentioning, not scientific, and can be disputed with all the normal philosophical & theological arguments demonstrating God's existence.
But I don't know why people even argue the point, since it's not a matter of debate, but rather of experience and faith -- we chose to believe, very often, as Abraham Lincoln famously said:
the_Watchman: "BTW: Why don’t you drop the snarkiness?
I have given this quite a bit more than a 'little thought' and I 'get' quite a bit more than you might think."
And yet, somehow you've arrived at mistaken conclusions, so just maybe I can help with that...
;-)
Watchman, you are exactly right. Helping anyone who observes these gears and still believes that a naturalistic process could have formed them is beyond our pay grade. LOL Bob