Welcome to Terrell Clemmons: Questions on Methodological Naturalism

[DaleCutler]

Picking up on Josh @swamidass’ remark elswhere,

@swamidass

We do not infer divine design because God is not susceptible to scientific inquiry.

and this one earlier, above,

@swamidass

Many (most?) theologians argue that it is a distortion of the doctrine to think it implies we should be able to objectively demonstrate Gods involvement. To insist otherwise may be a departure from this doctrine.

This is not to preclude the possibility of objective demonstrations at times, but to reject that this the normal or expected way in which God’s providence is manifest. [emphasis added]

I find some contradiction inherent between those two. Not arguing from the ID theorists’ camp that design should be able detected scientifically (not that I wouldn’t be glad if it could be ), but using the loving father’s gift to a child analogy from earlier (Welcome to Terrell Clemmons: Questions on Methodological Naturalism - #390 by DaleCutler), and the legitimate – and I maintain, objective – inferences that can be drawn from that, design can and should be inferred in God’s providential sovereignty over his creation.

That would include the cosmos and all the miriad factors that make the earth unique and habitable for advanced civilization and its technologies (including its designed moon ), but in the biological realm as well. The secularist says “Evolution would not happen the same way twice.” Why cannot the Christian say “Evolution happened precisely under the jurisdiction of God’s providence.” The details of God’s providence cannot be predicted, but his M.O. can be, and it can certainly be recognized in retrospect.