This entire discourse was a theological one all the way, I have no illusions with regards to that. I am a scientist after all and I know the difference. Theology and philosophy are always lacking in utility compared to scientific explanations. That should to be taken for granted. It was my suggestion in the other thread that we should even abandon the idea that religion is really about explanations at all, especially for the natural world.
Scientists are not reductionist simply because they explore the composite element of causality. Avoiding reductionism does not require one to turn a blind eye, but only to recognize that the whole is more than its parts. There is Aristotles 4 causes approach that simply looks at things from all of the angles: effective (time-ordered), final (intentionality), material (composite), formal (emergent). When someone is theoretical physicist (as I am) you cannot blame them for looking at the composite causal connection because if there is no opening in the causal network then it is impossible for them to see how theism (rather than Deism) is even viable.
Thanks for the mention of NIODA and Bob Russel, I will look into it in order to compare notes.
I wasn’t comparing you to a two-year old or even refuting a query about how God does things, but only your fixed plan of repeating your question endlessly – which you have to admit means you are presupposing that no explanation will ever satisfy (to the admittedly low standards of theological explanations), which is not reasonable. Unless you are the one confusing theology with science from the other direction.
I was being facetious because your comment struck me as a little funny and so I was suggesting that you needed to make your suggestion more obviously magical like, “why couldn’t God have just made Adam out dust in a day,” instead of mixing it with the scientific explanation in way that failed to make your point. After all, I quite agree with your point, that if one is going to resort to divine magic explanations and an appeal to “God can do anything” then in for a penny you might as well be in for a pound.
Which I did with quantum physics, which is everywhere and all the time. But then that is taken care of by your predisposition to reject all explanations no matter what. The only thing more lame than that in my opinion is an insistence on clinging to the medieval appeal to mystery which just the mindless “Goddidit” explanation in another form. I am not buying the non-overlapping magisteria mentality which doesn’t allow science to inform your religious thinking, just so you can keep one foot firmly planted in the dark ages as if there were any merit in that period of history whatsoever. That is a stubborn conservatism which does not appeal to me at all.