Interesting. Okay, so you are not ID associated. James Tour, however, still is ID associated. Perry was, but no longer is (as I understand it). Also, the articles you linked to are from an ID associated publication by the way. But I’ll take your word for it. Sometime I want to know the story here.
Yup maybe he is.
Not true. I’m the counter example. I have no problem with God’s action in the world. I am not a philosophical naturalist. I even just argued for the de novo creation of Adam. In my scientific work, however, I rely on the long Christian theological tradition of methodological naturalism, though its called the wrong thing. I just know that science is not the whole story.
You work with students. It is critical you help them understand these distinctions, you could lead them into a whole ton of avoidable conflict. It does not appear you read the links I gave you. I hope you do. Three of the key ones:
Do you mind taking a look at those? To be clear, I see your proposals:
Except none of us have the authority to change the rules of science. It seems to be doing just fine as it is.
Except that is not philosophical naturalism.
Except that is not how science works. I can’t imagine how it could possibly do this.
Except, as a scientist, I cannot see how that is the case. That is just not what we do in science.
I know of no agreed upon case that satisfies that criteria.
The viable third option: “we have not yet understood or learned the explanation.” In a word, “ignorance.”
Nope. It is not possible to estimate the odds of an unknown process.
How much do you know about OOL of research? This does not make much sense. Our current “natural setting” is nothing like the “natural setting” billions of years ago on earth. Why would we try and run OOL experiments in the wrong setting?
Not really. I’m just not sure you know how science works. This is not how we do it.
Just ask him directly. He is very optimistic that someone will collect.
Oh, he still thinks DNA is an “information system.” He is wrong, in my view, but he still thinks that. The change is that he now thinks someone will eventually collect on his prize. He thought it was unsolvable, but now no longer.
Methodological naturalism does call abiogenesis an axiom. I’m not sure why you would disagree. In scientific work, we only consider natural processes. We only consider abiogenesis, not God’s creative act. Panspermia, sure, but that just postpones the abiogenesis question, as you rightly pointed out. By definition, no one is around to make that cell but God, and science does not consider God’s action. It is designed to study creation (that which is created) not the Creator.
@Ronald_Cram you seem like a smart guy who is well read. I appreciate that. I just think that science works differently than you know. You may really like the upcoming discussion on Divine Action with @rcohlers (Clinton Ohlers: Two Parables on Divine Action). This may clarify why exactly science can’t give you what you want, and why I’m not appealing to philosophical naturalism. Rather, I’m solidly in a theological tradition. It is the same tradition as Francis Bacon, James Tour, and Blaise Pascal. Maybe you can join us…
I suppose I haven’t come a long way from him. He is focused on Jesus. He sees Jesus as the center to which all tends, and all truth is found.
We know God only by Jesus Christ. Without this mediator all communion with God is taken away; through Jesus Christ we know God. All those who have claimed to know God, and to prove Him without Jesus Christ, have had only weak proofs. But in proof of Jesus Christ we have the prophecies, which are solid and palpable proofs. And these prophecies, being accomplished and proved true by the event, mark the certainty of these truths, and therefore the divinity of Christ.
I’m pretty happy with that view. All those who have claimed to know God, and to prove Him without Jesus Christ, have had only weak proofs. Now that I have the strong proof that God offers in Jesus, I have no need for weak proofs. Do you?