What divides Christians from "mainstream science"?

[Tony]

@johnZ

That the watch is part of the maker and the maker is part of the watch seems to sound better. That the watch is in the maker and that the maker is in the watch is more descriptive though. If you have read some of my other comments, in other threads, you probably know where I am coming from with this analogy. Specifically where panentheism states that—“The cosmos exists within God, who in turn “pervades” or is “in” the cosmos.”

"Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) “all”; ἐν (en) “in”; and θεός (Theós) “God”; “all-in-God”) is a belief system which posits that God exists and interpenetrates every part of nature, and timelessly extends beyond as well. Panentheism is distinguished from pantheism, which holds that God is synonymous with the material universe.

In panentheism, God is not exactly viewed as the creator or demiurge but the eternal animating force behind the universe, with the universe as nothing more than the manifest part of God. The cosmos exists within God, who in turn “pervades” or is “in” the cosmos. While pantheism asserts that God and the universe are coextensive, panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe and that the universe is contained within God. Panentheism holds that God is the “supreme affect and effect” of the universe."

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Panentheism

If you are interested in understanding why I make these claims, a specific and lengthy discussion was had on these matters beginning here Fine Tuning and Teleology and continuing here Panentheism vs. Theism

“If I swallow a watch, it is in me, but still external to my being. It can only really become part of me, by no longer being a watch.”

In relation with God… God is pure energy. Pure energy occupies all physical matter. All physical matter is what makes up the periodic table of elements. The periodic table of elements consists of all the different known types of atoms in the physical universe. All the known different types of atoms in the physical universe are occupied by pure energy (God). The mass-energy equivalence known as Einstein’s equation E=MC2 states that mass and energy are two sides of the same coin. One does not exist without the other—all mass is energy, and all energy shows evidence as mass. Hence I believe your example, “If I swallow a watch” is not realistic, since the watch is made up of atoms (energy and matter) and, so is your body made up of atoms (energy and matter). So, your statement “If I swallow a watch, it is in me, but still external to my being. It can only really become part of me, by no longer being a watch” is not applicable to the relationship between God and the universe. In relation to God and the universe—all energy is in matter, and, all matter is in energy. In your example—some energy and matter (the watch) is in some energy and matter (your body), however—the energy and matter (the watch) is still external to your being because (the watch) and (your body) have individual distinct being. This individualism does not change the fact that all energy contains matter and all matter contains energy. Another way that this can be described is to say that the watch has being and has energy, and your body has being and has energy. And one thing that has being (the watch) is inside another thing that has being (your body), thus, one thing (the watch) is still separate from the other thing (your body). However, the universe, as a whole—has being and has energy. The universe, as a whole, is not separate from any other thing, and, no other thing, as a whole, is separate from the universe, because there is no other thing. Everything is in God, and God is in everything—even though some things are inside other things.

“Is God in the watch. Yes, perhaps like I might be in a house I build. But that really doesn’t say how I have built the house, or whether I am still building it, or whether it is building itself, or whether I am simply observing the contractors I have hired. It doesn’t solve the problem, nor simplify the answer.”

“An analogy helps to explain an idea, but it doesn’t prove the idea, nor does it give evidence for the idea.”

These questions were dealt with, above, in the post to Roger:

@Tony

“In vitalist philosophy, before phenomena move toward certain goals of self-realization they are initially guided by mechanical forces.” In this deterministic context, the definition of teleology implies that “final causes exist.” The definition of teleology also implies that “purpose and design” are a part of or are apparent in nature. Therefore, “final causes” can have different forms, and levels, of consciously intentional “purpose and design”—the universe is “conscious” in an anthropomorphic sense. However, that “final causes” exist [should not] unquestionably suggest that they have “purpose and design,” in that conscious intention is involved. Final causes can also have “purpose and design,” in that they are influenced and determined, or, given direction or tendency to by mechanical forces. (Note that the reference to different levels of conscious intention necessarily includes the primitive “instinctive behaviors” of earlier, or baser, forms of life). The origin of life clearly presents the borderline between strictly deterministic mechanical forces and different levels of consciously intentional “purpose and design.” We should rest assured and be of the opinion that [this] is the intimate point where intelligent design should be considered to have emerged—with the formation (creation) of life on earth, through deterministically directed mechanical forces, [life itself] becomes intelligent to design and evolve itself into the various species of our world.

During the Dover Trial on intelligent design evidence for irreducible complexity was presented before the court and shown to be myth. According to Behe’s reasoning, if any one part of the bacterial flagellum “motor” was missing it could not function. He therefore believed it could not have evolved, but rather, was designed fully assembled. However, this was found to be a false assumption. As part of his testimony Behe also wrongly attributed biologist David DeRosier’s statement in the 1998 “Cell” article, entitled—The Turn of the Screw: The Bacterial Flagellum Motor, that the Bacterial Flagellum Motor was designed. In the journal, David DeRosier writes—“More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human.” DeRosier later affirms, “What I wrote was that this machine looks like it was designed by a human—but that doesn’t mean that it was designed—that is by intelligent design.” He said, “This, more, has the earmarks that it arose by evolution.” It’s interesting, isn’t it, that even DeRosier feels compelled to distinguish between—designed (determined mechanical forces) from designed (intelligent design).

“So you say that God started creation, he is not blind, he maintains it? Concretely, then, how is God’s presence different from his absence in this situation? Is there evidence that God is still present? Are the mutations not random then? How do we know?”

God’s presence is different from his absence in that with his presence we can experience existence. Without his presence we would not experience existence. Descartes stated, “I think therefore I am.” This is supportive evidence that God is still present, since we can experience existence. The mutations are only random within the stochastic process that they engage in. We know this because all the evidence points to the fact that we live in a cause and effect universe—the universe is rational and intelligible.