Not what happened at all.
First, MN is not attendent to evolution. It is misnamed, but was most clearly seen by me in Christian theology from Bacon and Pascal. These were early scientists that certainly did not affirm evolution. MN is better understood as an important type of methodological revelation-driven-theism.
Second, God explains everything. That was never the problem when I was a YEC. The bigger problem was that I was willfully misreading Scripture and looking to human effort instead of Jesus. I had to turn from that idolatry to see the world clearly.
Third, scientifically what changed my mind was learning science actually taught about evolution, and seeing the evidence for itself. All of this is “explained by God”, but I had been lied to about evolution. Evolution explained the data as well as gravity explained the motion of the planets. It was not the whole story, but it was very very close.
Okay, but I think God works through evolution. Even if science gets it right here, it does not have the whole picture. Even when its right, I do no think any scientific explanation is adequate.
No I do not think this. Evolution and natural processes is not a complete explanation of biology. That is an entirely unscientific claim that directly contradicts MN. I do not claim in any way that science gives complete explanations.
That is not what I am saying. Rather, I am saying there is overwhelming evidence pointing to the descent of life to common ancestors. The evidence I know best is in the form of quantitatively verified predictions made by neutral theory about genomes. God could have made us with genomes that proved evolution false. He did not. Why not? Finding no contradiction between evolution and Scripture, I posit that evolution is how God created us. That is why.
This isn’t your call. ID is not scientific conclusion. It violates the rules of science to even ask the question. It deviates wildly from the way how science works. Neither you or I or Meyer or Behe can change this.
Think what you want in your heart, but science is not in your heart. It is a community of discourse in the real world. Even if I did not like them, I could not change them for you. Even if I wanted to. A better way to make sense of this is to learn how science works without trying to hard to redefine it. You do not have the authority to do this. As long as you are trying, you will remain confused.
That is not what he says. Rather, he says that science has not figured out the mechanism of abiogenesis, but he thinks it might exist. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to wonder if this is a place that God’s action was required.
This is not a claim about natural causes. it is a claim about the status of scientific knowledge of these causes. Even if a process were found, we would embrace it as “they way God made the first life.” We would see this an example of God’s wise design in the world, even as Meyer’s arguments for design crumbled. I do not point to the “inadequacy of natural processes” as evidence of design. This is too often an idol.
That is not his claim. This is Meyer’s claim.
One can use scientific data in philosophical and theological reasoning. That is not a bad thing to do at all. For example, look what I wrote in another thread…
See how I am using scientific information in a theological argument? Scientists are allowed to do this as much as we want, as long as we are clear that these reflections are not science themselves. That’s the rules. Collins plays by the rules. So do I. We do not make the rules, but we follow them.