From: wolverine01@charter.net   
      
   On 8/29/2025 7:41 PM, MarkE wrote:   
      
   > My approach is to avoid conflating science and theology. Therefore, I   
   > generally discuss the science only. My theological beliefs are not   
   > relevant to interpreting science.   
      
   I would agree with you Mark on this, with a caveat that obviously there   
   are two completely different world views in this discussion, and both   
   should be considered.  The evidence can have completely different   
   interpretations depending on which view you are using to analyze it.   
   Excluding one view or the other is being less than honest, IMO.  Where a   
   result might make no sense in one view, it would make total sense in the   
   other.  That doesn't mean it is proven, it means it should be considered.   
      
   > All the same, I'm happy to discuss my faith and have done so here. So to   
   > reiterate my approach:   
   >   
   > In my opinion, growing scientific understanding of the functional   
   > complexity of even minimal life is leading to deepening problems with   
   > abiogenesis. As a consequence, consideration of a supernatural   
   > explanation becomes increasingly warranted as a rational response to   
   > scientific evidence.   
      
   Supernatural comes off as a scary word.  It's also the second part of   
   this.  I don't go right to claiming this must have been of supernatural   
   origins per se, though it may lead to that.  I first decide if what I am   
   seeing is reasonable or if it requires information and intelligence to   
   have happened.  My response is thus not it must have been supernatural,   
   rather it appears to require some kind of intelligence and it appears to   
   have been designed.  I go from there and think most people do.   
      
   > It's not an either/or; it's not a suggestion to abandon science. Keep   
   > doing science, but don't rule out supernatural explanation. Moreover, do   
   > so with these in mind:   
      
   Nobody wants to say religion has all the answers and science can be   
   abandoned.  I find it's quite the opposite and not only don't fear   
   science, I eagerly await new findings.  Ignoring the suggestion that ID   
   is a possibility is not science, it is religion.   
      
   > - don't be too hasty to appeal to the supernatural -- that is the god-   
   > of-the-gaps error;   
   > - recognise the boundary of science, i.e. that science cannot, by   
   > definition, tell us anything about a hypothesised supernatural cause.   
      
   No, it certainly can't.  But it strikes me as dishonest that the   
   naturalism die-hards attack so many things with this God of the Gaps   
   rhetoric, when for example they've been unable to successfully answer   
   some real problems like with Big Bang theory and came up with the   
   Multiverse Theory.  To me that's a parallel type of solution and similar   
   to what they accuse in the God of the Gaps attacks.   
   > Some will only consider natural explanations because science has no   
   > access to the supernatural, or an erroneous belief that science is the   
   > only possible source of knowledge. That's akin to a child putting their   
   > hands over their eyes and declaring you can't see them.   
      
   I don't care if there are people who dismiss anything they consider   
   supernatural.  It is quite an amazing and difficult thing to actually   
   consider it might exist.  As someone who does think this is designed, I   
   find I certainly do have doubts and questions because it is such an   
   incredible thing.  Of course, thinking life arose on a non-living rock   
   is similarly incredible to me.  I look for answers in science.  Then I   
   weigh the results and move on from there.  I get the feeling the   
   naturalist community doesn't think we honestly look at things and just   
   accept whatever our Theological doctrine tells us.  Of course this is   
   not the case, but is ironically the exact thing they do, only in reverse.   
      
   I do notice though that those who do are often the loudest voices in the   
   crowd, for some reason.  What bothers me is those who do think they have   
   the high ground and choose to deceive others into believing the ID   
   proponents are things they are clearly not.  Protecting our kids from   
   hearing anything that implies anything crazy like the supernatural is   
   the usual motive, but people on the design side think similarly and   
   would just like a fair shake.  To be able to honestly show the problems   
   and limitations of evolutionary theory.  Thus we get to the Katzmiller   
   v. Dover case Ron so often brings up as totally refuting the whole ID   
   viewpoint.  He would have us believe all is lost in the ID circle   
   because of the actions of a handful of people involved in it.  I don't   
   find that to be the case.  If similar treatment was given to evolution   
   scientists, people would be outraged.  Fortunately, judges usually don't   
   rule on whether or not a researchers intentions are scientific or not.   
   Of course the case was not appealed as all the pro board members were   
   ousted and the new board president wanted nothing of it.  Though, I   
   personally think the original intent seemed reasonable and that Judge   
   Jones certainly stepped outside the normal lines of judicial behavior, I   
   personally don't really care if ID is taught in the schools, though it   
   would seem obvious the theory of evolution and it's shortcomings should   
   be part of the course.  In the end, you find people, like some of those   
   here, who just like to muck up any topic with this constant reference to   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)