Magic has nothing to do with it!
Science — as presently constituted — can only deal with things “mechanical.” But that doesn't make God the Great Mechanist, or the Creation mechanical at its root. Science LIMITS itself by the ironclad presupposition that the universe ultimately "bottoms out" in particles. These teensiest hard-bodied "billiard balls" of the Newtonian mechanistic picture are thought to be the ultimate "parts" of the universe.
However, awareness is growing that the universe bottoms out, not in the particles per se, but in the relations between them and with the system they constitute. This view (emerging in the fields of system theory and information theory) holds the information/communication relations (so to speak) as preeminent.
Such relations are not "material" in any way; they are not "physical." What they are, is: Phenomenal (i.e., are capable of being modeled and evaluated on the basis of evidence). And as such, seem like proper subject matter for science to me. Provided there is a willingness to slip out of the straightjacket of the "mechanistic model" for a time, if only hypothetically....
Until/unless biologists are willing to do this, a prediction: The creation of a living organism from non-living matter will remain the pious yet ever elusive pipedream of doctrinaire Newtonians.
JMHO FWIW.
Science that “steps out of the straight jacket” of dependence upon physical causes to explain physical phenomena needed to be in a padded cell and IN the straight jacket, as such is the domain of kooks and quacks and charlatans who have accomplished NOTHING of any value.
snip, “So if creation was a “mechanical assemblage of parts”, somewhat knowable and predictable by scientific means; that diminishes God to you more so than if it was a magical assemblage of parts?”
Spirited: In order that the “mechanical assemblage of parts” be “knowable and predictable” the “cosmic machine” must be guided by an immaterial ‘something rational.’ Additionally, in order that this ‘rational’ knowing be intelligible and rational to the chemical processes and firing synapses in the material ‘brain,’ there must as well be ‘something rational,’ an unseen ‘ineffable force’ if you will, operating within the chemicals and synapses, which by themselves are irrational.
Now either this ‘rational something’ is a rational Creator who exists beyond the reach of men, their irrational firing synapses, and their microscopes, or this ‘rational something’ is not rational at all, for if all that exists is Nature, and nature is irrational-—as all of us know it is-—then, in order to be consistent with the tenets of Darwinism, we must not speak of rational ordering and predictability.
As well, an assumption of free will underlies the claim of ‘knowing’ while the use of personal pronouns, ie, ‘you,’ bespeaks one individual ‘choice-making’ individual spirit reasoning with another.
Additionally, in order for there to be ‘predictability,’ there must exist a history of past and similar occurances (patterns). Only through comparison of yesterdays’ patterns with todays’ occurances can we know something about predictability.
All of the foregoing not only shows the glaring contraditions inherent in Darwinism, but its’ need for magic-thinking and self-delusion.
Such relations are not "material" in any way; they are not "physical." What they are, is: Phenomenal (i.e., are capable of being modeled and evaluated on the basis of evidence). And as such, seem like proper subject matter for science to me. Provided there is a willingness to slip out of the straightjacket of the "mechanistic model" for a time, if only hypothetically....
Until/unless biologists are willing to do this, a prediction: The creation of a living organism from non-living matter will remain the pious yet ever elusive pipedream of doctrinaire Newtonians.
Historically, some biologists sought to make biology an island of scientific investigation - as if to isolate themselves because they did not accept the relevance of physics and especially, mathematics. To paraphrase Pattee, "we have the facts, we don't need the theory."
Information Theory, btw, is a branch of Mathematics - and Mathematics is not a Science.
Even so, Physics and Mathematics image each other, e.g. Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics (Wigner)
As the "biology is an island" mentality gives way to the big picture (and I believe it must) - then I do expect the biologists' Newtonian paradigm to give space to Quantum Field Theory and Relativity - and the biologists' physicality to give space to mathematics especially information theory (Shannon), geometry (form, mirror imaging et al) and theories of complexity.
We already see this in the successful application of Shannon's theory in pharmaceutical and cancer research.
I don't believe it will be long before the biologists become as interested in the rise of autonomy, form (geometry), semiosis and complexity as the mathematicians and physicists.