From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/30/2025 11:49 AM, sticks wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   You are both wrong.  There are not just two completely different world   
   views involved.  There are a lot of Biblical creationists that do not   
   care how these gaps are filled.  God-of-the-gaps denial is pretty   
   minimal in this group.  I would belong to this group.  Saint Augustine   
   would have likely been this type of Biblical creationist.  You also have   
   Biblical creationists like Denton (a current fellow with the ID scam   
   unit at the Discovery Institute) that has deistic views where his god   
   only got the ball rolling with the Big Bang and the rest unfolded into   
   what we have today.  Denton doesn't care if any god fills the origin of   
   life gap.  Denton has claimed to be an agnostic, but he isn't what is   
   normally considered to be agnostic.  Denton seems to be agnostic about   
   other peoples religious beliefs, but he definitely has his own religious   
   beliefs in his Biblical God.  There was was an ID perp news article   
   where they were making fun of Denton's past agnostic claims and he   
   admitted to being basically Christian.  The article even stated that   
   Denton had a "sly twinkle" in his eye when he was talking about his   
   agnostic claims.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   >   
   >> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)