Even though it's not a theory of the origin of life. Interesting take from a minister

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/6458 ... tian-dogma

Even after 150 years, Darwin's theory is causing aftershocks. Paradigm shifts don't happen overnight. Anyone with an open mind, willing to look at the facts, will see the light as this minister has, but there are still those who simply don't want to look.

Remarkable. .

I couldn't help but think of this...,

"all we wish to do is marvel at nature's beauty and simplicity. We have seen and tasted the beauty, simplicity and universality of our latest theories - We are now trying to uncover more of that. It is our belief that these is more"

Gerard't Hooft


and this...,

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Hebrews 11:1


Alas.., man is always attempting to understand his environment and his place in it better than his understanding of yesterday.
We all weigh the evidence to explain the natural world differently.
The elasticity of evidence seems problematic, for it all depends on context.

"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and domination of an intelligent and powerful Being" - Sir Isaac Newton

Of course Newton said that because he was pressured by "the default view" of all people in his day, including absolute geniuses. When a view contrary to our own is held by a genius of the past, create a narrative to sweep it under the rug. Newton said that because it was the default view! It says so right here (where?)!

And of course the naturalists' conclusions that design is an illusion because all the evidence is in (or is it?) is NOT a narrative, or a metaphysical conclusion - it's science because science said so.


Just thinking out loud here

I am perfectly willing to concede that very smart people (an understatement for Newton) can believe in God.

But Newton also didn't say, "I have a theory of the universe -- God did it. See Genesis." He was doing science, because religion didn't help to explain any of it.

Newton also believed in alchemy -- we don't put much weight on that for determining whether we should too. If you can't explain and don't have the evidence, science leaves you behind.

So your problem is with the Bible and religion, not the possibility of a Creator behind creation.., is that correct?

Can you reference a biblical passage(s) that attempts to set forth an apparatus to explain the mechanistic workings of nature?

Thanks

As the author of the article argues, evolutionary theory is inconsistent with claims of the Bible. Evolution has lots of evidence. The stories in the Bible about the nature of original sin, etc. have none. Is there even a debate about this?

The author isn't very bright. And this entire argument by atheists regarding the Bible vs Evolution is an absolute strawman.
The Bible has virtually zilch dealings with natural phenomena. It is a work about the relationship between god and man.

Stop propping up the strawman for a bit and give my question an honest shot.

Really, the Bible doesn't make any claims about what happened in history and how the world works?

Answer my initial question to you, please;

Can you reference a biblical passage(s) that attempts to set forth an apparatus to explain the mechanistic workings of nature?

"What happened in history" is your red herring of the day.

No thanks.

Bible makes claims, no evidence for claims. The end.

Nice maneuver there, Houdini!

I think your line of thought here is that because science is able to outline the mechanics of certain natural phenomena, that it in turn explains away the origin of life/nature itself. I guess that might be a sort of Atheist Happy Meal - get more on your plate at a discounted price.

Sure the Bible claims a divine intelligence created the heavens and the earth. That is a claim of origin and nothing else.
The bible is packed with stories of the nature of man, his relationship with god, his reaction to dilemma and sin, etc. Perhaps if you familiarized yourself with what you are being critical of it might help in the future.

I guess for some it is enough to be critical to join the Critical Thinkers Club.

Science as a process has helped to illuminate the mechanics of many natural phenomena. If it illuminates the mechanics that lead to life, that does not mean it "explains it away". It's clear that our universe follows specific rules of operation. Those rules of operation account for the emergence of life. If science illuminates those rules in a fashion that makes it seem like fast food to you, maybe you don't understand science?

It's like getting angry at a flashlight because it revealed a plastic bag rather than the ghost you thought it was.


About the bible explaining things... you don't get it ant. Some people don't care. You won't force them to care by re-emphasizing your questions. It's obvious it's a man-made book, whose tales do not sync with reality. You're itching to continue that debate, but in the minds of many people here, it isn't a debate. You're not going to force people to answer questions about how 2+2=5. Even if you have a valid point, the direction you mean to take it is a well worn road.

Doesn't this qualify?

Don't the 10 Plagues also qualify?

"The mechanistic workings of nature" set forth in the Bible = God did it. Perhaps you are correct so far as that supernatural explanation does nothing "to set forth an apparatus to explain the mechanistic workings of nature".

That's a stretch don't you think? I don't see anywhere in these passages that indicates the cause of these types of phenomena to always be "god's will."
This actually is a presentation of miracle and not even close to an attempt to explain the regular mechanistic occurrences of natural phenomena (snow, rain, tornadoes, etc) These passages indicate a singular, miraculous event. Whether said miracles actually happened, there is no way reconstructing the past to find out. He are stuck with a historical claim.

No it's not a stretch. The Bible clearly states sometimes it is indeed God's will. They are not one time miracles, these things happen routinely throughout that document. To this day hurricanes and tornadoes are attributed to God's Holy Wrath against Gay Pride Parades. I don't know exactly how it is determined which natural events are actually supernatural and which are not. Presumably those involving the destruction of homos are supernatural and those (like the following, too close to home) involving lightning bolts that destroy Jesus sculptures or Christian churches are not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGTBFPte-MY