Replies

...and none yet which require the invocation of the supernatural.

This way of putting the matter would seem to demonstrate one's subjective philosophical presuppositon --and it's mistake. Natural sciences are about natural sciences are about natural sciences. Some say and I agree that science infers the existence of God. But all should say that it is impossible for science to obviate Him. Even if evolution theory were tight, from A to Z, it does nothing to God, who would have devised it. So, do you have an argument against God? You cannot disprove Him, though stacks of various kinds of evidence exist for Him.

For just one example, if you need something that a scientist's mind would tell him that the supernatural is to be inferred and don't believe you find it in natural origins, I suggest you talk to people who have undergone changes in their bodies that are outside of the realm of natural phenomena (e.g., miraculous healings).

It may be depressing to hear, but ultimately, creation doesn't care what the processes were that got it to where it is now. It literally cannot give a damn. What matters are the implications (ramifications, consequences) that exist for a person because of the Person who made him // had him made, whatever details were involved.

It is ouside of the boundaries of science to even touch upon this.

As per origins theories, however (and destinies theories) both the science and the witness and testimony-based matters of experiences and relationships with that which is outside the bounds of science, must be treated. Such matters are very publicly attested to and corroborated, deeply, intimately personal as they are, deeper still than intuition.

But in addition to being about God, foremost, this is not about science. It is about the scientist.

(Ping for acknowledgement of prior posters. Enjoying this thread's 1300's+. A-G may be "particularly" entertained if there is the time.)

My reference to the supernatural was directed at the presupposition, witbout evidence, that an Intelligent Designer is required to explain the origin of species. I fully agree with you that the matter of God is out of bounds for science. Science has no comment one way or another, and certainly cannot include God as an integral part of any scientific theory. Since the Designer is either deliberately undefined or identified as the God of the Christian bible, the Intelligent Design hypothesis falls short of the requirements of a theory.

On origin of life, again, science must exhaust every possible natural explanation. Personal beliefs may be very powerful for the individual, but support for those beliefs is often rather sketchy, and science demands evidence.

Scientists collect a bunch of observations, wrap an explanation around them, and the try to find more observations to confirm or deny their hypothesis. When one uses God to explain the natural world, one starts out with a predetermined explanation. There are two problems with that approach: First, that opening step in the process is tends to be skipped and second, contrary evidence tends to be ignored. The God explanation is assumed to be true so all energies are directed towards confirming it. Science directs its energies towards finding the one bit of evidence that will show the explanation to be wrong.

Thank you so much for your post! Indeed, I’m quite interested in the subject!

For a long time now I’ve suggested that scientists are too quick to throw up their hands and assign fine tuning anomalies to the anthropic principle. The complaint about creationism, after all, is that saying “God did it” would keep scientists from looking. Neither is acceptable to me. IMHO, we should always be exploring.

My efforts to unravel these mysteries were documented last July on this thread where we are collecting all the various points of views on origins.

There is much to be discovered. My sense is that harmonics lie at the inception of the physical realm, that m-theory will explain dark energy and dark mass (to arrive at omega of one.) I believe the BOOMERANG study reinforces that view and the Scriptures:

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. – Psalms 33:6

Even if evolution theory were tight, from A to Z, it does nothing to God, who would have devised it. So, do you have an argument against God? You cannot disprove Him, though stacks of various kinds of evidence exist for Him.

Exactly right. Many of us believe in God, as a matter of faith, and also believe that the weight of the scientific evidence supports evolution. Many (no, not all, but a lot of the anti-evolution people who post on these threads) seem to reject evolution less because of the scientific evidence than because they are afraid that it undermines faith in God. Such people are, IMHO, misguided (as are, IMHO, those who trumpet evolution as a way to reject God).