From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 11:49:38 -0500, 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.   
   >   
   >> 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    
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)