[continued from previous message]   
      
   Laws of Thermodynamics and basic logic and answer the question.  They   
   cannot open the door to anything supernatural, so they have created the   
   greatest brute fact of all time in that the stuff that went bang has   
   always existed.   
      
   The metaphysical answer has always been the same.  No matter how many   
   theories, or death and rebirth events you imagine, you MUST get to an   
   initial state.  Thus, that there is anything at all is proof of the   
   existence of God.  The materialist would of course never accept that,   
   hence "It has always existed."   
      
   If you can agree on this logic, not the result...the logic, then the   
   relevance of how science builds theories and experiments is apparent.   
   For me individually, if the consensus of how the universe began starts   
   with a faulty premise, an unscientific one at that, I must look at   
   everything else they say under a microscope.   
      
   >>> As noted above, your classification of anyone who accepts science as a   
   >>> materialist is badly founded.,   
   >>   
   >> I didn't do this, but I'm sure you will continue to accuse me of it.  I   
   >> consider that odd, and more importantly, dishonest on your part.   
   >   
   > See what I said above about materialists and scientists. You also need   
   > to learn that when people misunderstand what you're saying, that is   
   > more likely to do with the way you explained it than them being   
   > dishonest.   
   >   
   > […]   
   >   
   >>> That review is still available on Google Groups; I'd really  love you   
   >>> to read it and tell me what in it you disagree with,   
   >>>   
   >>> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/z8Yq7lvkAfU/m/um8mt8MDAgAJ   
   >>   
   >> You appear to have the same idea of Intelligent Design and people who   
   >> might think it is evident in creation as Mr. O.  I am not one of those   
   >> people.  But, I will try and make time to read what you've asked.   
      
   I did come across the book mentioned before, but didn't get it at the   
   time, I believe because some of the reviews also claimed it was a rehash   
   of ideas.  I did just buy it and it is in the library now, but I have   
   several things I have to get through first.   
      
   As far as your review and what I disagree with, until I actually read   
   the book, I really don't have much to say.  Just two things.  First I   
   kind of agree with your feelings on the God of the Gaps attacks, but I   
   disagree with your statement, "what seems to be the standard ID argument   
   that 'nothing else works so it *must* be an intelligent designer'   
   without any suggestion as to how or why that designer did the things   
   they did."  In fact, the two things seem to contradict each other in   
   your writing, but it is a small point.  I just don't think these people   
   are saying nothing else works.  They are saying the evidence is not a   
   gap, it's a closed door.   
      
      
   > Until you get time to read it, I will ask one of the questions that I   
   > posed in it.   
   >   
   > I'm assuming that like myself, you believe in God someone with whom we   
   > can have a personal relationship. How do you get from someone tweaking   
   > with atoms and particles to that type of God, the one shown in the   
   > Bible, how does it improve your understanding of God?   
   >   
   > I have posed this question to several religious believers who support   
   > ID and reject the Theory of Evolution; none of them have made any   
   > attempt to answer, hopefully you might.   
      
   Before I could answer a question like that I would have to know exactly   
   what you mean by "tweaking atoms and particles."  I have a feeling it is   
   going to mean things we might not agree with about what is accepted or   
   consensus.  Explain further if you wish.   
      
   > […]   
   >   
   >>> No, I'm not making any judgement at all about how clever you are; on   
   >>> the contrary, I highly respect anyone who has prepared to question and   
   >>> challenge rather than just accepting what they are told. I do however   
   >>> think you're coming to conclusions on very limited understanding and   
   >>> need to broaden your thinking, possibly by broadening your reading.   
   >>   
   >> You were doing ok, right up to the end.  I will give you the benefit of   
   >> the doubt and accept your explanation, though.   
   >   
   > I gave you several examples of wholly committed religious believers   
   > who fully accept what science has to say both in regard to cosmology   
   > and to the TOE and have indeed made significant direct contributions   
   > to science. At least three of them - Collins, Polkinghorne and Miller   
   > - have published books, articles and interviews explaining their views   
   > and how they have no difficulty reconciling science and religious   
   > belief. How much of their work have you read or work of others   
   > explaining how the believe science and religion can be reconciled?   
      
   Let's just say I am familiar with them all, though I don't think I have   
   read Polkinghorne.  I have found it to be harmful that anyone with a   
   Theistic or Design background will immediately get blacklisted and their   
   work either banned or ignored.  But, that appears to be changing, and   
   rather quickly it seems.  But, I suppose that's just a personal opinion.   
     It is always going to be a problem for creationists in our "modern"   
   culture trying to convince anyone that there is a supernatural anything.   
     It's just the world we live in.   
      
      
   --   
   Science doesn't support Darwin.  Scientists do.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)