What part of
Do you not understand?
Richard
I do not understand how you would teach it, how you would recognize God in it.
You are still conflating science and theology. Science does not not recognize God, it just has no means to detect him.
1 Like
???
why would I teach it
God is not in it.
It is a scientific theory.that you claim I do not understand.
Why are you trying to fit God into a scientific theory? That contradicts your own rules.
Richard
Clearly you did not read what i wrote.
Therefore it assumes that God is not there. And does not include Him.
What is your problem?
Richard
How would you teach your ‘version’ that includes God? How is he ‘there’?
I can not. There is no formulated version.
Richard
that’s true of any science, from geology to cosmology. Your position boils down to maintaining that Christians should not do science, whether you recognize that or not.
But then it’s not true anyway, because TOE does not exclude God; like any science it can’t exclude God because science lacks the tools for doing so. Once again we’re back to the requirement for a divinometer for your position to work: science can’t exclude God because it can’t measure divine action or presence.
As I’ve noted before, even the Christian biology professor who started off each week with a verse from the Psalms didn’t mention God when teaching biology for the simple reason that he was teaching science, not theology.
Except it doesn’t because TOE can’t tell how most mutations occurred. Mutations can be the result of cosmic rays or natural background radiation and science can’t tell the difference; all they know is that one “letter” in a genome got changed. Your position is like looking at a broken clay disc used for target shooting and decreeing that since it could have been broken by being dropped then no one actually shot it – and in fact decreeing that broken sporting clays are never the result of someone shooting them.
You’re making the common mistake of confusing instrument with agency. Oxford mathematician John Lennox does a good job of describing that difference, though I’d have to hunt a bit to find a good video sequence to link. Science addresses instrument, not agency, and when the instrument behind mutations can be chemicals, heat, radiation, copying errors, etc. that doesn’t tell the agency behind those – it may be able to point to a mechanism whereby it happened, but it can’t declare that there is no agency behind that mechanism.
No, it’s an opinion that comes from muddled thinking as described above. God could be the author of every single mutation and science wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between that and a whole string of accidents. Even Richard Dawkins at one point conceded that evolution can’t exclude divine action because science cannot measure or test for God.
3 Likes
That’s not been listed as a rule in any science course I ever took, from botany to volcanology.
No, it doesn’t assume any such thing. This is like saying that because someone with a form of color blindness can’t see red as a distinct color then they must believe that red does not exist, or like saying that because the scientific instruments in a middle school can’t detect the presence of say chromium at anything less than one part per million then there is no chromium present when all it actually means is that if there is any chromium present then it is less than one part in a million. All that science says about God is that the instruments they have cannot detect Him or measure His activity – concluding that thus He is not there is a grade school thinking error.
4 Likes
It is not about hw they occur, it is about the control mechanism.
Richard
That. However you want to inject God into scientific reality, Richard, he is already there theologically, The Ground of All Being at the least, if you will. There is no such thing as the legitimate teaching of any science according to you, because “God is not in it”, meteorology or evolution.
2 Likes
Saying it one more time, you conflate science and theology, and anyone (other than you) reading this ridiculously long thread will recognize that in effect you are denying the existence of all legitimate science.
1 Like
Explain that for us please, how the mechanism physically works.
In other words you’re confusing instrument with agency.
2 Likes
Especially since even if scientists directly observed a gamma ray striking a DNA sequence and altering it, they have no way of knowing if that gamma ray had traveled across lightyears to impact that DNA or if God created it just above the atmosphere and aimed it just so.
3 Likes
I wonder how you can convince someone of the applicability of that last clause and get it, the error, corrected. You’ve given good examples though that should help.
Forget it.
You beeive what you wish
It is you who conflates science and theology not me. You insert it invisibly and then don’t tell anyone. You talk to scientists as if you are on their side. You proclaim scientific evolution. You argue when someone tries to claim that TOE (without God) cannot achieve what it claims, all the while believing that TOE is controlled by God. Any deception here is yours not mine.
And this stops now
Richard
God is invisible to science. And I tell everyone that God is the sovereign reality behind everything (I do it with my moniker with every post, for goodness’ sake!): that is theology, distinct and not conflated with science. But don’t pretend that you can teach or do any science, methodological science, and include God in those methods unless you have a divinometer. And you still think evolution is somehow different than meteorology with respect to God’s involvement. Go figure. (I wish you could.)
Meteorology is a red herring. Always has been
You deflect so as not to confront.
I am not trying to teach evolution. I just dispute that scientific TOE can achieve what it claims. You should agree but instead you argue possibly because it is me.
You automatically include God so you obviously do not think TOE is not achievable without Him either. So why do you argue with me?
Richard