All of physics, for starters – everything proceeds from the values of the universal constants. That gives rise to chemistry, of course, and then astronomy and geology. So no one had to design a water molecule; its form and behavior is implicit in the universal constants. So also no one had to design a quartz crystal; its form and behavior come from the same place.
Set the constants, an the universe unfolds as we find it – the work of an immensely brilliant and wonderful Mind.
Which is why those in our informal university intelligent design club had no time for those who held that God designed and made things one at a time; any half-competent Mesopotamian deity would have been capable of that – but to select a small set of constants and let it unfold like a sort of cosmic flower, that demands a Designer!
There are some deposits (including many of the ones that Tuomey would have been examining) that would likely take more like 5 minutes–ones that include a fair number of specimens that broke in place after burial or complex layering with no simple size or one-way depth pattern. Less fossiliferous ones would take longer.
Meditate on it. Specifically referencing Mark’s Gospel and the Divine secret.
Its called the Holy Spirit. Science can;t see it…
But really this divinometer of yours is just a diversion to prevent you having to confront your faith while doing science
The fact is you do include the invisible aspects of God in your views of ToE but still insist on including all of the Scientific ideas even though they are actually incompatible.
Then again you have never been hot on principles only workings.
What you don’t see is the message you are giving out.
That God set the creation in motion and retired immediately be it the weather, or Evolution or any other aspect that science measures. I guess you don’t pray much. There is no point, God is just watching from afar.
I watched a delightful movie on Netflix last night: Skater Girl. Among the things Prerna feared but accomplished was a “drop-in” from the edge of the skating pit down into the pit.
Briefly, the difference between a human and a rock, IMO, is that a human can drop into a skating pit voluntarily, rocks can’t and don’t.
The situation at this point in this thread seems to me to be that some folks are trying to get a “rock-like” human to “drop in”, which the human just ain’t going to do. He just doesn’t know how to do so. Unless and until he figures out how easy it is, I, for one, think some folks are engaged in a Sisyphean task.
One other way in which mutations are “random” is more in the sense of unguided or unpredictable rather than mathematical probability. Organisms cannot try to mutate in a particular way that would be advantageous. They can have particular DNA being likely or unlikely to mutate, but cannot say “Make this mutation - I need to grow a longer neck” or “I need to be able to metabolize lactose.”
That actually got discussed. The consensus was that it would depend on the amount of “direct attention” given and what it was given to. Specific attention to certain significant details (like making humans) could be a mark of personal value given by God; a lot of attention to gobs of details would make it seem as though God did a poor job and needed to patch things up.
The result of that one friend who concluded that God only had to intervene with seven mutations to get to humans from the first cell was appreciated for the elegance it suggested; here was a recipe He meant to get “just right”.
Nonsense. The Divinometer concept is to make it clear that science cannot take faith into account because what it cannot detector measure cannot be considered.
They’re no more incompatible than examining a painting down to each brush stroke and not taking into account the painter – the existence of the painter is assumed because the painting exists, but is not necessary to think of in the analysis process.
The message I am giving out is that God is such a profound artist and designer that He set in motion a system that yielded stars and planets and creatures on at least one planet. That’s what people when I was at university responded to, not to a deity who had to make each thing individually like a pre-teen using molds to fashion farm animals.
Who says He retired? If He retired, there would be nothing – who do you think sustains the universe by His will? As my one professor said, Creation is present tense (though in some ANE languages it would be a continuing imperfect, the past having been made and the present being made).
You have no proof of that, scientific or otherwise. Apparently God cannot be seen, so you do not know he is doing anything.
ToE not only does not see God it does not need God. All the mechanics are there in place. nature makes itself, which contradicts Genesis.
Unfortunately the mechanics don’t work (Without God). ToE cannot explain all the intracasies. ID and IC are still a factor let alone the intertwining of Ecology. Plants rely on mobile creatures. Many insects need a host to procreate. Ecology needs mechanisms to dispose of and recycle dead material. The balance between prey and their predators belies chance. In fact it is the uncertainty factor that ultimately kills ToE (without God)
You really don’t understand how ToE works if that is your analogy.
It is the difference between Premium Bonds and a savings account. With a savings account the interest is guaranteed. With a premium bond you only make money if the number comes up.
The “control” of ToE is survival. It is not the creation of variety.
ToE cannot just create something to fill a void or opportunity. And more often that not, when it deviates that deviation is either fatal, or inappropriate, unless…
There is an intelligence behind it. Science cannot see that intelligence even if you think you can. Science doesn’t see the need for that intelligence (anything is possible given enough time!) and there lies the problem.
Perhaps “mocking” is taking it too far, but I would suggest that you familiarize yourself with the philosophical limits of science and scientific theories. No theory in science says anything about God, for example. If you are claiming that the ToE excludes God, then you aren’t talking about the theory used in science.
It is not about what science can or cannot see. I wish you would understand that. Neither is it about the scientific method or the legitimacy of science or scientists.
It is about whether God would use chance (exclusively) to create. There are almost certainly some elements of chance but not as the main driving force
All I claim is that science has not got it all. I don’t want to use the word “gaps” because that has a specific meaning in ToE. But, because science cannot “see” or identify God, it has to give an alternative methodology that doesn’t need Him (excludes Him). ToE claims to be complete. I just claim that it cannot, because it cannot identify the parts that include God, and, it cannot identify the fact that it cannot work as it is .(without Him).
Time is not the ultimate maker, God is
(We have been down the road of the inadequacies of ToE and I know you cannot see them, or even seem to accept the possibility of them existing)
The same would apply to weather. Someone could come along and claim that the science of meteorology has not got it all, and it uses an alternate methodology that doesn’t need God. This person would insist that you can’t accept the science of meteorology, and are thus a theistic meteorologist.
Not all Christians think the ToE is inadequate like you do. They think the natural mechanisms listed in the theory are adequate to produce what we see, and that God is acting through those natural processes.
It is relevant, which is why I am talking about it.
False. It is about all of science because the ToE uses the same methodology and approach as all theories in science. If you think the ToE excludes God, then all of the other scientific theories do as well.
It is relevant to your argument as well, especially this part:
“Someone could come along and claim that the science of meteorology has not got it all, and it uses an alternate methodology that doesn’t need God. This person would insist that you can’t accept the science of meteorology, and are thus a theistic meteorologist.”
If someone rejected the science of meteorology for the same reason you reject the ToE would they be justified in saying that you must also reject the science of meteorology and be a theistic meteorologist?