From: nospam@buzz.off   
      
   On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 09:21:12 +0100, the following appeared   
   in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran   
   :   
      
   >On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 19:22:22 -0500, sticks    
   >wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   >[...]   
   >   
   >>I first heard of this group to my surprise in a book I was reading.  I   
   >>found E-S did carry it, and I have been trying to read the well over   
   >>3000 posts they carry to get a feel for what gets discussed here, and   
   >>the value of subscribing.  The control documents explain the group as this:   
   >>   
   >>"The newsgroup talk.origins is meant as a venue for discussion of the   
   >>scientific, religious, and political issues pertaining to various   
   >>theories of the origins and development of life and the universe.   
   >>Within such basic guidelines, wide-ranging discussions over a large   
   >>number of topics are covered, all relating back to the main purpose of   
   >>the group."   
   >>   
   >>That sounded fine, so I started trying to catch up on posts.  The   
   >>charter documents also claim that the discussion here is "(sometimes   
   >>hot!)."  That's also fine, as most of Usenet is nowadays.  But after   
   >>reading the reply above, I realized I could have written it myself.   
   >>I've read almost the same thing over and over again in the posts I've   
   >>read, and I'm only a small way through them.   
   >>   
   >>What I find interesting in the reply above is what appears to be this   
   >>posters usual tactic of disregarding the issue and turning it into a   
   >>religious attack.  The original post by Mark had nothing to do with   
   >>religion.  It was from a scientist who has found some very real problems   
   >>in his years of work regarding Naturalistic OoL, even though he   
   >>initially began his adult life accepting most of the Darwinian Evolution   
   >>he was taught.  Though he does speak of the very big problems science   
   >>has to overcome in OoL research, he is kind enough to offer an   
   >>explanation of how he thinks evolution minded scientists should proceed   
   >>in the future.  Where progress might be found.  He seems fairly   
   >>controlled and even-tempered, and certainly open-minded.  Exactly what a   
   >>good researcher should be.  Peltzer gives example after example of   
   >>naturalist failings, which the reply above completely ignores and goes   
   >>off on the usual rant.  I don't find that unexpected, but I do find it   
   >>rather boring and irrelevant.   
   >>   
   >   
   >You have to understand the context and history around Mark's previous   
   >posts on this subject.   
   >   
   >Anyone who knows anything about OOL know that there are major gaps in   
   >scientific explanation of how OLL came about and indeed many   
   >scientists think we will probably never find adequate answers. Mark   
   >keeps pointing out these gaps without offering any suggestion as to   
   >how they might be closed as if repetitively reminding us of the gaps   
   >is significant progress in itself. The reality is that he is simply   
   >reinforcing his own belief that these gaps somehow strengthen the case   
   >for God.   
   >   
   >I am a committed and practising Christian and I have many times   
   >defended my beliefs in this group. The case for God, however, cannot   
   >be based on gaps in scientific knowledge; it has to be based on   
   >positive arguments about how belief in God deals with the stuff that   
   >science *has* explained. Never mind, RonO and his obsession with ID,   
   >as a committed Christian, I have challenged Mark to tackle this   
   >question of how his understanding of God deals with this but he has   
   >repeatedly declined to discuss it, insisting that the simple existence   
   >of gaps is enough to show that God (aka the Intelligent Designer)   
   >*must* have done it.   
   >   
   ...which is precisely why it's called "God of the Gaps". And   
   while the gaps get smaller all the time as further research   
   is done, they will almost certainly never disappear   
   altogether, and the Gappers will thus never be satisfied.   
      
   Scientific knowledge and religious belief are orthogonal,   
   which is something else those who claim to be "believers"   
   but try to apply science to their claimed beliefs (unlike   
   yourself) will never "get".   
   >   
   --   
      
   Bob C.   
      
   "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,   
    the one that heralds new discoveries, is not   
    'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"   
      
   - Isaac Asimov   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)