Welcome to Terrell Clemmons: Questions on Methodological Naturalism

[T_aquaticus]

@Eddie

But you do resist the idea that Jesus rose from the dead, that he fed five thousand, that he healed lepers etc. instantly , that Moses parted the Red Sea, etc. How do you explain the “selective” scientific rigor of the TE leaders, when they pooh-pooh the idea of invoking a miracle to explain the first life, but aren’t phased at all by miracle claims which would involve equally great disruptions of the causal nexus?

There is a difference between events that leave no evidence and events that do leave evidence. Evolution left tons of evidence, but the Resurrection did not. That’s the difference.

As to the origin of life, I think Dennis Venema has some solid reasoning on that front:

Hopefully, the scientific problem with this approach is by now obvious – unsolved problems at the frontier are expected, and the natural result of a productive theory. Of course, there is also an apologetics problem with this approach: should a hypothesis at the frontier find experimental support, it will shift towards the theoretical core over time. If an apologetics argument is based on the expectation that such a hypothesis is false, then that argument will lose even what meager force it may have once had, to the detriment of the apologetic it was designed to support.
At the Frontiers of Evolution: Abiogenesis and Christian Apologetics - BioLogos

They think it is a bad idea to pin your beliefs on the hopes that science will not discover something.