From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 31/08/2025 3:11 pm, jillery wrote:   
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)