I have to admit I was quite tired of seeing you persist in pressing an inapt analogy (C4 functionality as implemented in old-school, monolithic software systems) while you, by all appearances, were ignoring the biological data that are not cited in ID books.
I have read a lot of YEC and then ID literature in my life, and I used to subscribe to those viewpoints quite enthusiastically. Then I started reading the scientific literature a couple of decades ago, and realized that I had been ignoring the counsel of Proverbs 18:17. When I started to really pay attention to the hard work being done by an intelligent scientific community–many of them devout Christians–I realized that I needed to include biology in the maxim that all truth is God’s truth.
Some of the people who are in this discussion with you have spent literally decades reading the peer-reviewed literature in biology. So, yes, this is a big task. Godspeed on your journey! As you read through the links and resources that have been offered to you in good faith, you will probably have some questions. You could come right back to this forum and get some answers from trustworthy friends like @sfmatheson, @glipsnort and @Bill_II who have passed that way before you.
This is what a discussion about science should do, don’t you think?
I actually discussed this at great length in my previous post. If there was something unclear in my presentation, I would welcome your pointing it out so we can communicate more effectively.
I have not seen you mention anything about evolutionary algorithms, microservice architectures and refactoring changes. Or did I miss something?
Also, your analysis of backwardly compatible changes was basically that they have limitations in the context of old-school, monolithic architectures. Now who’s thinking in a circular manner?
If you mean to ask whether I discern that God is at work in all of creation, including biology, then I affirm that I do.
He is at work in every drop of rain that falls–would you agree with me?
And yet every time I glance at a weather forecast, I also acknowledge the science of meteorology. Now meteorology, I think you would agree, provides a theory of rainfall based entirely on natural forces.
Does this mean that believing the weather forecasts means I reject God’s hand at work? No, I claim; by faith I see God’s providential hand at work in rainfall.
How about you, Raymond? Do you look at weather forecasts, or do you think that faith in God requires you to reject predictions of rainfall that do not explicitly mention God’s hand at work?
Likewise for electromagnetism: The notion that there is a gradient of potential energy available at an electrical outlet, and that electrons will flow across it to my laptop when I plug it in to the outlet, requires no faith in God. And yet by faith I see God’s providential work at hand in electrical currents.
Do you think it is a rejection of God, Raymond, to express belief in Maxwell’s equations by plugging in my laptop to an outlet–even though those equations make no mention of God?