Replies

“doesn’t address TOE”...Yup, I know it, you know it and so does Kalamata;...the Atheists have made a running jump off the rails of the scientific method and they do claim that it does address the origin of life, pushing forth a kind of abiogenesis notion of how the whole shebang got going.(billions of years, water, protein and amino acid chemical soups, add some lightning, heat and cold and by gum, Frankenstein’s evolution monster arises with the clap of lightning bolts to the cries of “its alive(!!!) from lifeless matter!”

Thus, since the Scopes trial, they have have had a desperate strangle hold on “TOE” and how it was to be presented in the vain hope that something from science can put an end to this “God business” once and for all. These certain folk act as the new inquisition seeking to banish from academe any who veer from the true atheist faith of Abiogenesis forming “somehow” the simplest of life forms and then “magically”, with out any outward transtemporal divine interference, life just “evolves” to what we have today.

If there is anything at all to be considered important from what is argued, I think a process of “de-evolution” has been going on; the whole of creation “groaning under the curse” as the Bible says. I think the patterns evulutionists cite are being read backward....we aren’t springing from the simple, we are falling from the formed into the simple, almost a description of one of the laws of thermodynamics where everything without energy input falls into entropy and decay.

The weakness of your position, even if you hold to “TOE” as one of God’s mechanisms for creation is that you still hold to a faith tautology. The High poohbahs of the Evo world would still view you and Kalamata both as fools because you both brought “God” into the argument and for them it’s just like bringing up Hitler or Nazi to buttress an argument. Once you do so, the argument is is over and you’ve lost.

mdmathis6 to bwest: "The weakness of your position, even if you hold to “TOE” as one of God’s mechanisms for creation is that you still hold to a faith tautology.
The High poohbahs of the Evo world would still view you and Kalamata both as fools because you both brought “God” into the argument and for them it’s just like bringing up Hitler or Nazi to buttress an argument.
Once you do so, the argument is is over and you’ve lost."

Right, by definition of the term "natural science", it is strictly bounded by natural explanations for natural processes.
If you bring God into it, then you are "thinking outside the box" of science, and that, again by definition, is non-science.

However, from Enlightenment times "natural philosophy", today's science, was intended to be a methodological not ontological or metaphysical assumption.
It was then intended that we study natural processes to learn how God's creation works, not to find ways to deny God's existence.

The important point here then is to maintain clear distinctions between methodological assumptions on the one side and ontological=metaphysical=philosophical=atheistic assumptions on the other.
Consider: a valid religious complaint is that atheists have hijacked methodological naturalism (aka "science") to promote their own agendas.
But that cannot justify a theological counter-hijacking of natural science to promote a religious agenda.
That's because, between such hijacking and counter-hijacking traditional ideas of God & nature would all but disappear.

Now our FRiend Kalamata here has addressed this issue by claiming, astoundingly, that God Himself and His miracles are "natural".
I've never before heard such a claim and doubt if it would withstand even theological scrutiny, much less pass scientific muster.
So we are left to defend the traditional idea of methodological naturalism and oppose ontological=metaphysical=philosophical=atheistic naturalism.