Nonsense.
I am merely explaining what you should have learned in science class: that "science" as such deals only with natural causes of natural phenomena.
So, by definition, if you introduce some super-natural explanation (i.e., God), then it is no longer "science" and now becomes some other subject such as theology or philosophy -- and those are not matters that science, by definition, can speak to.
But I can speak to them all day long, and will if you wish to debate them.
ARFAR: "As long as God is defined as a guiding intelligence, sciencists can look for evidence of intentional vs unintentional design in evolution."
Then it would be an exercise in theology, or philosophy, but not science.
Indeed, remember this: there is no scientific hypothesis of "Intelligent Design" which can be tested or falsified, so any such assumption must be an act of faith, which of course falls outside the realm of science.
ARFAR: "Things that are difficult to explain by mechanistic process leave room for believing in an intelligent designer.
Things that are proven impossible to occur, (or at least unlikely to the point of astronomically high odds against it) actually do prove, statistically, a hidden, intelligent designer. "
All analyses along these lines that I've seen are bogus to the max -- and insults to the intelligence of readers.
And the reason should be obvious: if we say of everything we don't yet understand, "God did it", then every new discovery -- and every new explanation -- pushes God further and further away from the here and now.
But the real Truth of the matter is that regardless of whether we think we understand the natural causes and effects of any particular phenomenon, God is still the Creator of all, still the Reason for all, and still the Purpose Giver for everything we see.
So, God's role in evolution is independent of whether we think we understand just precisely how He accomplish any particular miracle of life on Earth.
Indeed, you have to suppose that God has a great sense of humor, and hugely enjoys watching our little scientists noodling and scratching their heads over some new mystery that God left for them to figure out.
And like any good Father, God must celebrate every time His children score well on a test, or graduate to the next grade.
ARFAR: "As to the statistical likelihood of mutations producing healthy, viable new species, I am in serious doubt.
However, that's a question, precisely the central question now at issue. It is ongoing as we speak. "
No it's not. There's no debate on this, not amongst scientists.
And the reason, I've tried to explain now many times is: in nature itself, there is no such thing as a "species".
The word "species" (and all such: breed, sub-species, genus, order, family, etc.) is strictly a scientific construct intended to help us understand what nature does.
But in nature itself, there are only various populations of creatures, some of which can interbreed and others which cannot.
If one sub-group gets somehow separated from its main population and for many generations begins to evolve on its own, then they will eventually reach the point where they can no longer successfully interbreed with their original group.
I've mentioned some well known examples -- from zebras, donkeys and horses, to brown and polar bears, to elephants, mammoths & mastodons.
The case of horses and donkeys is particularly interesting, because here we see evolution "caught in the act", so to speak, of changing a sub-species which can interbreed into a separate species which cannot.
ARFAR: "In the absence of a scientific demonstration of just how that DNA molecule arose, or could have been created solely by natural forces, I say the hypothesis of an intelligent creator is the most rational explanation. "
It is certainly not, and for several reasons, including:
First and foremost, it makes God's role in nature dependent on whether or not some scientist can discover a natural mechanism -- it means that every new scientific discovery pushes the unknown and God further and further away from the here and now.
And that should be ludicrous.
Second, the issue is never "did God do it?", but always "how did God do it?".
Does God intervene on a daily basis to put things back on course, or did He design the Universe from the beginning to produce the results we see?
I believe the latter.
I also think (contrary to what Einstein said) that God is a great gambler who loves the actions of seemingly "random" events, but for whom all the decks are stacked, and all the dice are loaded to produce the results He intended from the beginning.
ARFAR: "The same applies to the formation of new species, although the case for an intelligent designer is much weaker, since mutations are known to occur, and thus the possibility (but not the likelihood) of natural selection may account for all the billions of species that exist and have existed on Earth."
And that is just the mind-set I'm trying to steer you away from.
God's role as "Intelligent Designer" has nothing to do with whether mutations and natural selection alone can account for "all the billions of species that exist and have existed on Earth."
Can't you see it?
God designed the system perfectly, from the beginning, to produce the results we see today.
There is no need -- unless He wants to -- for God to, in effect, "get His hands dirty" by mucking around in the day-to-day wanderings of DNA mutations.
Remember, God is in no hurry -- if it takes a million years, or a billion years, to accomplish His purpose, that's all the same to Him.
So, the Universe is designed to produce us, and now some 14 billion years later, here we are!
Thank God!!
:-)
Thank God!!
It is clear that we have argued far too long over very little. You believe God's role in evolution was similar to the Aristotelian Prime Mover. I, OTOH, am very disposed to believe that God intervenes in the development of life on Earth. I admit it hasn't been proven, but I will not back down from my position that it is cognizable in scientific terms as long as one is careful in describing God as an intelligence that designed and continues to intervene in the formation and diversification of life on Earth. And I expect that evolutionary science will not be able to devise models of a purely cause-and-effect nature to explain all that we know.
It is interesting that for most Christians God certainly did intervene miraculously in the virgin birth of Jesus. Or if, like myself, you doubt the literal meaning of the story, it is still a kind of meddling with the natural course of events for God to place a Divine spirit which is ONE with Himself in the body of mother Mary. Either way, God intervenes in human affairs, hence in nature. The God of the Bible is personal, performs miracles, and is most definitely NOT an impersonal Prime Mover.
It has been a good learning experience to hear your honest thoughts on a complex, baffling subject like this. But I believe we should end the dialogue at this point, with no bad feelings on either side.
In praise of our Divine Father/Mother/Creator,
-- ARFAR