# Side Comments on Ann Gauger's Response to Themelios Review

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-ann-gaugers-response-to-themelios-review/1382>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Created:** [August 26, 2018, 5:49am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-ann-gaugers-response-to-themelios-review/1382 "2018-08-26T05:49:09Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2018, 5:49am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-ann-gaugers-response-to-themelios-review/1382/1 "2018-08-26T05:49:09Z")

</div>

> [@Ann Gauger's Response to My Themelios Review](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/ann-gaugers-response-to-my-themelios-review/1328/2):
>
> Swamidass would say, I think, “Why make life look evolved, if it isn’t?”
> 
> A fair response would be, “Why make life looks designed, if it isn’t?” Josh rejects the label, but I would ask the same question of any theistic evolutionist.

@swamidass,

Your post quoted this text (above).

I trust you were not moved by this comparison. I found that “fair response” to be sort of a “howler”!

My own view would be more like: "If God really wanted design to be obvious, he would have signed His work in our DNA, in Hebrew,:  
“Love, Yahweh”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2018, 6:01am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-ann-gaugers-response-to-themelios-review/1382/2 "2018-08-26T06:01:28Z")

</div>

> [@Ann Gauger's Response to My Themelios Review](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/ann-gaugers-response-to-my-themelios-review/1328/6):
>
> My own view would be more like: "If God really wanted design to be obvious, he would have signed His work in our DNA, in Hebrew,:  
> “Love, Yahweh”

That is actually James Tour’s position too…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ashwin\_s](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ashwin_s/32/4017_2.png) [@Ashwin\_s](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Ashwin_s)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2018, 7:41am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-ann-gaugers-response-to-themelios-review/1382/3 "2018-08-26T07:41:09Z")

</div>

> [@Ann Gauger's Response to My Themelios Review](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/ann-gaugers-response-to-my-themelios-review/1328/6):
>
> My own view would be more like: "If God really wanted design to be obvious, he would have signed His work in our DNA, in Hebrew,:  
> “Love, Yahweh”

That would be assuming God had some special love for Hebrew…  
Why not Aramaic? Jesus seems to have some most of his preaching in that language?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Argon](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/argon/32/3896_2.png) [@Argon](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Argon)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2018, 12:30pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-ann-gaugers-response-to-themelios-review/1382/4 "2018-08-26T12:30:46Z")

</div>

I wouldn’t think choosing an appropriate language or some other, orthogonal mode of branding would be beyond the Creator of the universe.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Patrick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b2d939/32.png) [@Patrick](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Patrick)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2018, 12:41pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-ann-gaugers-response-to-themelios-review/1382/5 "2018-08-26T12:41:52Z")

</div>

> [@Ann Gauger's Response to My Themelios Review](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/ann-gaugers-response-to-my-themelios-review/1328/5):
>
> So, I’m just realizing that after Ann’s next article, there are going to be 7 articles published that reference me at ENV this month. Is that a record? What does it mean?

It means that you are their favorite target as you are a practicing (and respected\*) scientist in evolutionary science and a practicing Christian.

- 
  - respected by scientific groups like professional societies, peer groups, faculty at many universities.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Patrick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b2d939/32.png) [@Patrick](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Patrick)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2018, 12:47pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-ann-gaugers-response-to-themelios-review/1382/6 "2018-08-26T12:47:18Z")

</div>

> [@Ann Gauger's Response to My Themelios Review](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/ann-gaugers-response-to-my-themelios-review/1328/6):
>
> Your post quoted this text (above).
> 
> I trust you were not moved by this comparison. I found that “fair response” to be sort of a “howler”!
> 
> My own view would be more like: "If God really wanted design to be obvious, he would have signed His work in our DNA, in Hebrew,:  
> “Love, Yahweh”

My view as an engineer is that life has been design by the unguided unintelligent common decent process called evolution. To explain evolution in more detail more evolutionary **science** needs to be done. For answers look to science.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ashwin\_s](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ashwin_s/32/4017_2.png) [@Ashwin\_s](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Ashwin_s)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2018, 1:17pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-ann-gaugers-response-to-themelios-review/1382/7 "2018-08-26T13:17:11Z")

</div>

> [@Ann Gauger's Response to My Themelios Review](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/ann-gaugers-response-to-my-themelios-review/1328/9):
>
> I wouldn’t think choosing an appropriate language or some other, orthogonal mode of branding would be beyond the Creator of the universe.

It wouldn’t be beyond his capabilities… though there is no need to expect the same. Especially if he is the only creator around. People sign stuff because there are a lot of people around.  
It’s anthropomorphic expectation.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2018, 4:08pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-ann-gaugers-response-to-themelios-review/1382/8 "2018-08-26T16:08:49Z")

</div>

> [@Ann Gauger's Response to My Themelios Review](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/ann-gaugers-response-to-my-themelios-review/1328/9):
>
> I wouldn’t think choosing an appropriate language or some other, orthogonal mode of branding would be beyond the Creator of the universe.

> [@Ann Gauger's Response to My Themelios Review](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/ann-gaugers-response-to-my-themelios-review/1328/12):
>
> It wouldn’t be beyond his capabilities… though there is no need to expect the same. Especially if he is the only creator around. People sign stuff because there are a lot of people around.  
> It’s anthropomorphic expectation.

The point is: why didn’t he? What ever evidence we think we see in nature, God could have been clearer. So why wasn’t He clearer?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2018, 4:54pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-ann-gaugers-response-to-themelios-review/1382/9 "2018-08-26T16:54:37Z")

</div>

> [@Ann Gauger's Response to My Themelios Review](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/ann-gaugers-response-to-my-themelios-review/1328/8):
>
> That would be assuming God had some special love for Hebrew…  
> Why not Aramaic? Jesus seems to have some most of his preaching in that language?

@Ashwin_s

My point is not based on the specific language. My point is that Design might be perceived by the human mind … but far from demonstrable by objective science.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ashwin\_s](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ashwin_s/32/4017_2.png) [@Ashwin\_s](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Ashwin_s)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2018, 5:11pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-ann-gaugers-response-to-themelios-review/1382/10 "2018-08-26T17:11:10Z")

</div>

> [@Ann Gauger's Response to My Themelios Review](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/ann-gaugers-response-to-my-themelios-review/1328/13):
>
> The point is: why didn’t he? What ever evidence we think we see in nature, God could have been clearer. So why wasn’t He clearer?

This comment could be made irrespective of how clear the evidence is… there is always hypothetical room for the evidence to be clearer.  
However with science, it’s a case of intentional blindness as much as anything… you can’t decide to strictly stick to methodological materialism and then claim you didn’t find any evidence for God. That’s like a man with his eyes closed sharing he didn’t see anything.  
I frankly don’t get how anyone can look at the complexity and beauty of life and miss that there is a creator. It can’t be more obvious.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2018, 6:03pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-ann-gaugers-response-to-themelios-review/1382/11 "2018-08-26T18:03:03Z")

</div>

> [@Ann Gauger's Response to My Themelios Review](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/ann-gaugers-response-to-my-themelios-review/1328/15):
>
> However with science, it’s a case of intentional blindness as much as anything… you can’t decide to strictly stick to methodological materialism and then claim you didn’t find any evidence for God. That’s like a man with his eyes closed sharing he didn’t see anything.

Almost everyone here agrees with this.

> [@Ann Gauger's Response to My Themelios Review](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/ann-gaugers-response-to-my-themelios-review/1328/15):
>
> I frankly don’t get how anyone can look at the complexity and beauty of life and miss that there is a creator. It can’t be more obvious.

I also agree with this. It is obvious, but just not in the language and tools of science.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ashwin\_s](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ashwin_s/32/4017_2.png) [@Ashwin\_s](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Ashwin_s)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2018, 6:18pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-ann-gaugers-response-to-themelios-review/1382/12 "2018-08-26T18:18:20Z")

</div>

> [@Ann Gauger's Response to My Themelios Review](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/ann-gaugers-response-to-my-themelios-review/1328/16):
>
> I also agree with this. It is obvious, but just not in the language and tools of science.

How does this apply to expectations of an actual signature in Hebrew in the cell?  
Or claims that scientists don’t see it because God could have given more evidence.  
I am reminded of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. When the rich man said his brothers would believe him if he was allowed to go back from the grave and testify tot he truth… He got an unexpected reply. If they don’t believe with evidence of Moses and the prophets. They won’t believe even if a dead guy comes back from the grave… history is witness to how that proved to be true post Jesus’ ressurection. The problem is not lack of evidence. It’s a heart issue. If science has a language with no place for God… it’s a choice … not a necessity.

Again we come down to philosophical compulsions.  
I keep thinking of the claim that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. Who decides what is an extraordinary claim? The only thing that can decide that is a philosophy. This is why practically no evidence is required to assume unbelievable things happened by accident, whereas saying “God did it” is an extraordinary claim that cannot be entertained.  
That’s a wrong philosophical view which I reject outright.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2018, 6:21pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-ann-gaugers-response-to-themelios-review/1382/13 "2018-08-26T18:21:12Z")

</div>

> [@Ann Gauger's Response to My Themelios Review](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/ann-gaugers-response-to-my-themelios-review/1328/17):
>
> How does this apply to expectations of an actual signature in Hebrew in the cell?  
> Or claims that scientists don’t see it because God could have given more evidence.

These are legitimate theological questions that Scripture answers. The hiddenness of God is an important theological discourse that began long before science, and is vividly engaged in the Book of Job, Esther, and Nehemiah.

Do you remember what Jesus taught about this?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ashwin\_s](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ashwin_s/32/4017_2.png) [@Ashwin\_s](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Ashwin_s)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2018, 6:22pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-ann-gaugers-response-to-themelios-review/1382/14 "2018-08-26T18:22:28Z")

</div>

> [@Ann Gauger's Response to My Themelios Review](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/ann-gaugers-response-to-my-themelios-review/1328/18):
>
> Do you remember what Jesus taught about this?

I mentioned one thing Jesus taught on this from the parable of Lazarus and the rich man…  
That it’s not the evidence that is lacking…  
I am sure you referring to some other point.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2018, 8:06pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-ann-gaugers-response-to-themelios-review/1382/15 "2018-08-26T20:06:15Z")

</div>

> [@Ann Gauger's Response to My Themelios Review](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/ann-gaugers-response-to-my-themelios-review/1328/15):
>
> This comment could be made irrespective of how clear the evidence is… there is always hypothetical room for the evidence to be clearer.  
> However with science, it’s a case of intentional blindness as much as anything… you can’t decide to strictly stick to methodological materialism and then claim you didn’t find any evidence for God.

@Ashwin_s (@swamidass),

And again we are being hijacked into the sideshow of ID’s position that God’s presence is detectable to science.

It is not.

However, if God wrote something coherent in my DNA… that would be enough for me to change all my views.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ashwin\_s](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ashwin_s/32/4017_2.png) [@Ashwin\_s](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Ashwin_s)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2018, 8:14pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-ann-gaugers-response-to-themelios-review/1382/16 "2018-08-26T20:14:59Z")

</div>

> [@Ann Gauger's Response to My Themelios Review](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/ann-gaugers-response-to-my-themelios-review/1328/20):
>
> However, if God wrote something coherent in my DNA… that would be enough for me to change all my views.

You are a unique living being… that’s not coherence enough?  
Wow.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2018, 8:27pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-ann-gaugers-response-to-themelios-review/1382/17 "2018-08-26T20:27:16Z")

</div>

> [@Ann Gauger's Response to My Themelios Review](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/ann-gaugers-response-to-my-themelios-review/1328/21):
>
> You are a unique living being… that’s not coherence enough?  
> Wow.

@Ashwin_s

I can be personally convinced of some thing… without presuming to say SVIENCE has convinced me.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ashwin\_s](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ashwin_s/32/4017_2.png) [@Ashwin\_s](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Ashwin_s)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2018, 8:39pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-ann-gaugers-response-to-themelios-review/1382/18 "2018-08-26T20:39:25Z")

</div>

> [@Ann Gauger's Response to My Themelios Review](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/ann-gaugers-response-to-my-themelios-review/1328/22):
>
> I can be personally convinced of some thing… without presuming to say SVIENCE has convinced me.

Sure…  
But science involves interpreting data. And you. An say, that you see the data pointing to God even though scientists don’t interpret it that way. And that is not a presumption.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2018, 8:41pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-ann-gaugers-response-to-themelios-review/1382/19 "2018-08-26T20:41:59Z")

</div>

> [@Ann Gauger's Response to My Themelios Review](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/ann-gaugers-response-to-my-themelios-review/1328/23):
>
> An say, that you see the data pointing to God even though scientists don’t interpret it that way. And that is not a presumption

@Ashwin_s

& @swamidass

I think it is. I think it is intuition… not Science!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Michael\_Callen](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/michael_callen/32/897_2.png) [@Michael\_Callen](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Michael_Callen)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2018, 8:52pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-ann-gaugers-response-to-themelios-review/1382/20 "2018-08-26T20:52:24Z")

</div>

Here’s one @Ashwin_s :

> John 14:10-11 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; _or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves_.

Jesus admitted that to consider that he could be God and God could be him was a very difficult and challenging concept. So, he continued, we should see what he does to prove that he is God and then we know that we can believe what he says about his, and God’s, nature.

So, Jesus, it seems to me, was big on evidence! I think that this fits quite well with the scientific method and discussions herein. If I can see zero to eyeball occur, materialistically, then it is easy enough to extrapolate the rest. But Jesus set the bar very high when he said to “believe on the evidence of the works themselves.”

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-ann-gaugers-response-to-themelios-review/1382.md?page=2)