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.
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?
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.
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.
Almost everyone here agrees with this.
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.
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?
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.
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.
You are a unique living being… that’s not coherence enough?
I can be personally convinced of some thing… without presuming to say SVIENCE has convinced me.
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.
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.”
Yes but he offered only one sign to skeptics. What was that sign?
Well, sir, he beat death!! (See the nails in my hands? Put your finger into my side… it is me! The one whom you saw dead and buried three days…)
That’s pretty darn compelling!!
Yes that is true, and consistent with the one sign he offered. Do you remember what he taught?
He said, “Destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days.”
Yup but do you remember where he called it a sign?