From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/31/2025 5:41 AM, MarkE wrote:   
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)