Thank you so much dearest sister in Christ for your kind words of support!
Yet I imagine there may be people who do not feel that way. Possibly they think I'm dense, I don't see what they're getting at, I just don't get their point: that God made everything, and He made it in a way that science can grasp; and so if He chose to work mechanistically, or if He used Darwinian evolution as a tool to manifest biological life, then what's the problem? A Christian can be a scientist too. Just keep "God out of the picture."
I can see all that, and very largely agree with it. But that's not what I've been trying to get at. To me, the real question isn't whether or not to leave God in the picture. (That's not a scientific question.) I see a larger problem, and it goes straight to the epistemological root of contemporary science. And that is the Newtonian formalism has become the tail that wags the dog. So much so that it is inconceivable to many people nowadays that something could be "science" that isn't premised on this particular formalism. I.e., Newtonian Paradigm = Science.
What I have been arguing is the Newtonian Paradigm does not provide a model that can cope with living systems. Period. Increasingly people are aware of this, inside and outside the scientific community. But resistance to other ideas is amazingly strong — in academe, in the journals, in the popular science writers. Meanwhile, it has been observed that not only biology but physics itself is "in crisis."
Now that would be fun to discuss further. However I don't know the level of reader interest in this topic....
What I have been arguing is the Newtonian Paradigm does not provide a model that can cope with living systems. Period.
And I think it is extremely helpful to keep returning to that central point.
Also, I believe such a debate ought to be very open as this one has been because some of our correspondents "shut down" when a sidebar turns to philosophy; others, physics; others, math; others, theology.
Nevertheless, the central issue that the current paradigm is inadequate to investigate living systems can be seen from any of these perspectives.
Only one with fingers in his ears, humming, stomping, gritting his teeth and thus refusing all insights could possibly miss it.
[[God made everything, and He made it in a way that science can grasp;]]
Science does grasp it: Information present in all species screams the need for an intelligence behind the design, and it’s a case where science can and indeed does come to a ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ conclusion based on the evidences present. IF nature isn’t chemicaly, or biologically able to produce the irreducible complexity, to move species informaiton beyond it’s parameters/limitations to produce NEW non species specific informaiton to create new non species specific organs, features, traits etc, then there must be another answer besides naturalism- mutaitons are credited by naturalists with miraculous supernatural capabilities that somehow beat all odds against it, and leapt over biological and chemical roadblocks as though it were superman, and supposedly ceated organs and features via mutaitons, which, as we know, can only work on info that is already present- it can’t create the necessary new non speices specific info needed for moving species beyond hteir own kinds.
Bottom line, not only is science able to scientifically grasp the need for an intelligence behind species, it can and does show it as well as show nature simply isn’t capable of creation- it’s only capable of modification, and modifications can not create the necessary new non species pseicific info-