I think a famous academic once said that merely raising your arm was a “supernatural” event. I suppose that claim might turn on what your definition of “supernatural” is, but if it has anything to do with being unable to explain a phenomenon from measurable properties, then raising your arm would certainly fit the definition.
What scientific test or measurement did you use to arrive at this conclusion?
This is mistaken. Science (with a capital “S”) is not at the mercy of measurement or methodology. Like anything else, it is ultimately at the mercy of power and abuse. Just take a sober look at what happened to the design inference - which even the good Christians here at Biologos pounded mercilessly (and often continue to do so). That was not done from measurement or methodology (even though those were often the cover excuses). That was done for positioning.
Science needn’t make exceptions for religion, it needs to stop publicly ignoring the documented history of scientific discovery. To stop actively deceiving the office workers, shopkeepers, book publishers, plumbers, and school teachers would be a welcome change.
The Bible hasnt changed, it is what constituted Scripture that changed with time as more writings were deemed ‘Scripture’.
'In the Bible it says that God knits us together in our mother’s womb. Modern science tells us that fetal development can be explained by complicated genetic cascades and networks. ’
I wonder if those words only apply to babies that are born healthy. What about the many natural abortions that occur every day - did God knit them together? Does that have any implications regarding the whole abortion debate?
I think the answer is yes, or at least in terms of Christianity. All life, especially human life is sacred
Of course, how hands on God is, is as much a debate here as in Evolution. At what point do we claim “random deviation/mutation”? And then relate that to a God who loves all His creation?
Do we humans have the right to veto nature/God?
Is that us fulfilling the role of dominion?
That is a whole different ball of wax. What I was addressing is the idea that finding a natural process somehow disproves the supernatural. As many Christians at this site will attest to, God isn’t barred from nature.
What you are referring to is the problem of suffering which has been a part of theological debate since there was theology.
God, by definition is supernatural and science could be interpreted as understanding God’s creation (assuming He exists).IOW just because you know how does not exclude Who did it. Causality is still unresolved even if the methodology is understood.
But he is, to all intents and purposes, barred from science and scientific explanations.
Except that that there is an accepted answer, even if it is uncomfortable. God does not control the minutia, therefore chance exists. Birth defects are considered the random deviations of Evolution and as such are beyond the direct control of God. Even those of us who accept the principles of evolution do not (usually) claim that God instigates each and every change. We struggle with where God does sit, but suffering and morality are human concepts that cannot be imposed onto God, who clearly states in Scripture that, His ways are not our ways and His understanding is not our understanding.
The problem with the concept of freedom is that it takes God out of a controlling position. If God controls the minutia then we are merely pawns or puppets in some greater story or design. The moment God lets go of the strings you get evil, and suffering and things we would rather God did not allow. Innocent suffering rises to the top of that all too long list.
I fully agree. I don’t think finding a natural cause is proof that God does not exist. I’m on your side on this one.
I don’t view it that way. Science doesn’t bar God from science as a rule. What science does have is a requirement for empirical evidence and falsifiable hypotheses. Also, science does not say that its findings are some Truth with a capital T. All science is saying is that these are the tentative conclusions we can reach if we start with the stuff we can all measure and observe.
It wasn’t my intention to start a discussion on the Problem of Suffering.
There is nothing tentative about scientific conclusions.
It has something to do with the value of facts.
Religious faith is based upon many things, some of which are incorporeal or intangible.
Science is based upon facts. How it uses those facts may, to outsiders, be narrowminded, but the reasoning is based on proofs and solid data.
I hate to hark on about evolution, but it is the only theory where conclusive proof (facts) are unavailable. DNA connections are corroborative at best, but in terms of criminal law there are no eyewitnesses and a scarcity of bodies. But, it is enough for Evolutionist to be absolutely certain that ToE is basically correct ie zero (one cell) to human. There is no doubt. No humility. No possibility of error. The final poof will appear in time. Time being the ultimate builder.
Every single scientific conclusion is tentative. It’s one of the most fundamental rules of science.
Facts and conclusions are two different things. Unapologetically plagarizing Stephen Jay Gould, facts are the world’s data. Theories and conclusions are the models we create to explain and understand that data. Our models are always tentative. They are always open to refinement or complete falsification.
They aren’t unavailable. We have the distribution of physical features in living species. We have the distribution of physical features in fossil species. We have the genomes of living species, and some recently extinct species. It’s all available, and all of this evidence has conclusively proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) that biodiversity was produced through evolutionary mechanisms.
“Outside of a time machine, Darwin could hardly have imagined a more powerful data set than comparative genomics to confirm his theory.”
–Dr. Francis Collins, “Faith and the Human Genome”
There are hundreds and hundreds of independent lines of evidence all pointing to one conclusion, that life evolved. For example:
You aren’t familiar with the DNA evidence or molecular biology in general, so I can understand your reticence. It does take some expertise and background knowledge to understand how all of this evidence works. What I and nearly every biologist will tell you is that the DNA evidence is monumentally overwhelming.
The final proof is here. It’s comparative genomics.
Evolution is no different than explaining the natural processes that cause weather.
The principle here is that finding a natural process for a natural phenomena is cited by some as putting God on the sideline. In fact, there were people who initially had issues with Newton describing gravity as a mechanistic and natural phenomena.
Isn’t that interesting: “It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, “as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion.””
Gravity was once attacked in the very same way evolution is being attacked now.
That is not the point. It has nothing to do with science v religion. It has everything to do with the integrity of the theory.
The weather is goverened by three basic variables: Air pressure, Temperature and humidity. Each can be measured.precisely. Each phenomina can be watched from start to finish. There is no guess work.
Now, compare a hurricane with a tornado. They are both extreme winds in a circular motion. It would seem perfectly logical to think that a hurricane is an enlarged tornado and that it develops from it. There are so many elements in common it is just the scale that seems to differ. The fact is they are not in the least bit related. But we only know this because we can watch them develop from scratch and also see that a hurricane evolves in a different way… A super large tornado is still a tornado, it is not a hurricane, and never will be.
Evolution does not have those parameters. There are litterally millions of factors of which we have only just started to decipher. Familiar DNA testing is very localised. You are talking maybe two or three generations. You are then extrapolating to include thousands of generations. Evolution is based on extrapolation. You start with a basic transition and just expand it to encompass… goodness knows what You cannot witness the transition. You cannot prove the validity of the connections. You do not even have a complete fossil record.
Everything in the weather is both visible, and predictable and provable. Yet we still can’t get a perfect weather forecast! You are making concrete predictions based on extrapolations.not facts. How do you expect to get it right?
We aren’t extrapolating. We are interpolating. We have the end points of evolution which are living species and we are understanding what happened between those points.
False. We start with living species. We then determine what the between points should be if the theory is correct. That’s interpolation. For birds specifically, we determine that at one time there should have been species that had a mixture of modern bird and ancient dinosaur features. Finding fossils with those features is confirmation of the theory, and those fossils have been found. We witness those fossils.
The morphology of living species, the morphology of fossil species, and the genomes of living species are all visible, predictable, and provable. The theory of evolution is also provable (beyond a reasonable doubt) by using those same observations. The theory makes predictions about what we should see in those data sets, and we see those very things.
False. They are interpolations.
The fact that observations match the predictions demonstrates that the theory is correct. That’s how all of science works.