How can we reconcile the argument of intelligent design with supposed design flaws?

[inocente]

The people who brought you that research:
scholar.google.ca/citations?user=ucZ0JxQAAAAJ&hl=en
encodeproject.org/tutorials/encode-users-meeting-2016/
stamlab.org

The ENCODE project has been running since 2003 to “identify all functional elements in the human genome”. Look instead specifically for the “duons” claimed in that article and you’ll find pages such as:

• Don’t Be Duped By ‘Duon’ DNA Hype - forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2013/12/13/dont-be-duped-by-duon-dna-hype/#138e965824a4
• Press release hyperbole and the “duon” delusion - sandwalk.blogspot.com.es/2014/01/press-release-hyperbole-and-duon.html
• Media Gets Duped by the “Duon” DNA Hype - labcritics.com/secret-second-code-in-dna-really-2919/
• ‘Duon’ controversy: Scientists claim second code hiding within DNA, provoking sharp rebuke - geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/12/13/scientists-discover-second-code-hiding-within-dna/

On the other hand I found no follow up or confirmatory work in the 30 months since the original article. Unless anyone on the thread has a relevant degree and can make a
reasoned argument either way, it seems the claim was hyperbole.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Point me at the chapter and verse which says God tweaks His open architecture.

Oh, I don’t know. How about turning water into wine? Or parting the Red Sea? Or turning bread and wine into his Body and Blood? Or the idea, long held by Christians (Cf. the Early Church Fathers,) that grace perfects nature?

 

[magnet]

It has now been established that viruses can change the genetics of human cells. Perhaps this is one mechanism for mutation.

Does God determine which viruses are able to change human genetics? Is this a purposeful action?

When a new human is created in the womb, is it God’s design to determine the profile of this new human? If the new human has birth defects or is born with hemophilia, is this God’s design?

 

[edwest2]

It is indeed remarkable that relatively little is known about non-coding regions.

uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2016/04/zhang/

benthamscience.com/journals/current-topics-in-medicinal-chemistry/volume/16/issue/5/page/511/

cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/76/6_Supplement/A34.abstract

whatisepigenetics.com/non-coding-rna/#

Ed

 

[tonyrey]

God is in the whole of nature but it doesn’t imply that nature has no* negative***

God can be found not only in nature but in the Incarnation, the Church founded by Jesus, miracles and the lives of people particularly the saints.

I thought the Church teaches that you receive your soul at conception. Is that not sufficient for you?

Do you accept that teaching?You answer my question then I’ll answer yours: if you accept your Church’s teaching that you receive your soul at conception, then is that not sufficient to separate humans from other animals?

It is sufficient but it doesn’t follow that we are “ghosts in machines”. Our body and soul are inextricably united. Animals have souls but they are not persons, i.e. rational beings.

Do you accept the teaching that we receive our soul at conception?

It implies evolution by Design:

Please define what you mean by “evolution by Design”.

The ongoing process of development planned and directed by God from start to finish, not a haphazard series of events explicable solely by fortuitous combinations of molecules, random mutations and natural selection.

So you believe God never intervenes or answers prayers? Never prevents accidents or disasters? Never warns anyone of danger? Never inspires or enlightens anyone? Never consoles those who mourn or are afflicted? Never gives strength to those who face temptation. Never guides His Church? Never does anything to help His children on earth and leaves them rentirely to their own devices? In other words you don’t believe in the gift of grace?

What a strange conclusion. If you have a relationship with God then that’s more than enough to prove his grace. I’m not the one arguing for a designer who designed everything in the past, so I don’t need God to intervene periodically to prove He’s still here. To me, He’s here because I know Him personally. Those who’re not born again might call that subjective, but I’ll take it any day compared with a God who only exists in theories. Don’t you agree?

God transcends time and space. He plans and directs development in the eternal present. Our knowledge of Him is not restricted to a private relationship which excludes everyone else. We are united to others by love as members of His Body, the Church, the community founded by Jesus who gave us the Sacraments which unite us to Him and to one another particularly at the most important stages of our lives. Without the Church we wouldn’t even know He had existed or anything about His teaching!

 

[Aloysium]

The ENCODE project has been running since 2003 to “identify all functional elements in the human genome”. Look instead specifically for the “duons” claimed in that article and you’ll find pages such as:

• Don’t Be Duped By ‘Duon’ DNA Hype - forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2013/12/13/dont-be-duped-by-duon-dna-hype/#138e965824a4
• Press release hyperbole and the “duon” delusion - sandwalk.blogspot.com.es/2014/01/press-release-hyperbole-and-duon.html
• Media Gets Duped by the “Duon” DNA Hype - labcritics.com/secret-second-code-in-dna-really-2919/
• ‘Duon’ controversy: Scientists claim second code hiding within DNA, provoking sharp rebuke - geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/12/13/scientists-discover-second-code-hiding-within-dna/

On the other hand I found no follow up or confirmatory work in the 30 months since the original article. Unless anyone on the thread has a relevant degree and can make a
reasoned argument either way, it seems the claim was hyperbole.

i cannot imagine that the research that is being discussed has any relevance to your daily life. It is also clear that science is not something you do.

You should have stuck to your own advice:

. . . Ask any scientist, good science is never about appeals to authority. . .

My links were to information which documents the people and organizations involved in the research presented in the article in Sciencedaily linked by Ed. They are heavy-hitters in their field. Their work is published in peer-reviewed journals. I am saying this not as an appeal to authority, but to attest to their credentials and the soundness of the methods they employed.

What scientists do not do is appeal to:

• a Forbes magazine written by someone whose contribution seems to be limited to having coauthored “The Informed Parent: A Science-Based Resource for Your Child’s First 4 Years.”
• a blog full of emotional rhetoric, using words like “delusion” and “dupe” in reference to scientific hypotheses, by a prof who hasn’t published anything of significance since 1994.
• some opinion piece claiming the media has been duped in the title but offering nothing in the write-up, thereby appearing to be duping people into reading it by using strong headlines.
• A piece claiming the research in question was open to sharp rebuke, published on the web site of the Genetic Literacy Project, which is a GMO lobbying group funded by Monsanto, and whose CEO has been called “the world’s leading biotech shill and character assassination operative.”

You have obviously failed to convince me. If you have some issue with the research, and I have no idea why you would, you should search for peer reviewed articles that provide experimental evidence that the results could not be replicated or that the conclusions did not fit the data. The fact that no papers have been published to corroborate the conclusion does not mean anything.

Makes me wonder whether there isn’t an atheist itching to get out - no proof (How much is needed? Really!) means it doesn’t exist.

 

[edwest2]

It has now been established that viruses can change the genetics of human cells. Perhaps this is one mechanism for mutation.

Does God determine which viruses are able to change human genetics? Is this a purposeful action?

When a new human is created in the womb, is it God’s design to determine the profile of this new human? If the new human has birth defects or is born with hemophilia, is this God’s design?

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2448 “In its various forms - material deprivation, unjust oppression, physical and psychological illness and death - human misery is the obvious sign of the inherited condition of frailty and need for salvation in which man finds himself as a consequence of original sin. This misery elicited the compassion of Christ the Savior, who willingly took it upon himself and identified himself with the least of his brethren. Hence, those who are oppressed by poverty are the object of a preferential love on the part of the Church which, since her origin and in spite of the failings of many of her members, has not ceased to work for their relief, defense, and liberation through numerous works of charity which remain indispensable always and everywhere.”

We have a physical body that has been wounded by an inherited Original Sin.

1264 "Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, “the tinder for sin” (fomes peccati); since concupiscence “is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ.” Indeed, “an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules.”

Ed

 

[tonyrey]

What a strange conclusion. If you have a relationship with God then that’s more than enough to prove his grace. I’m not the one arguing for a designer who designed everything in the past, so I don’t need God to intervene periodically to prove He’s still here…

1. Do you believe God never intervenes?
2. Never cures the sick miraculously?
3. Never prevents accidents or disasters?
4. Never inspires, enlightens anyone or warns anyone of danger?
5. Never consoles those who mourn or are afflicted?
6. Never gives strength to those who face temptation?
7. Never guides His Church?
8. Never does anything to help His children on earth and leaves them entirely to their own devices?

 

[inocente]

The “design phase” (your term, which I am trying to integrate into the way I would express my understanding, in the hope of facilitating some sort of communication) would be “ontological”, it would be “built into” God’s ongoing loving relationship with His creation.

You dislike the word “tweaking”. So, how about “responding”. God responds to our actions in order to bring about the good He wills.

Something I posted on another thread:

We would agree more, if you weren’t out to argue.

If design is an “ongoing loving relationship” rather than a previous phase or stage then it still seems we may only be arguing over the words. My vote is that “responding” is better than “tweaking” but still implies reacting rather than creating. And yes, whether any design fan’s theory has yet answered the OP is arguable.

i cannot imagine that the research that is being discussed has any relevance to your daily life. It is also clear that science is not something you do.

My background is computer science. I’ve coauthored some ISO standards and other works, and have given talks at conferences etc. I’m not a scientist but am in the AAAS, so was able to read the research paper rather than just the press blurb.

I know a little about data packing in DNA as it’s a neat example for computing, but as a non-specialist found even the paper’s title hard to parse (“Exonic Transcription Factor Binding Directs Codon Choice and Affects Protein Evolution”). The only parts I understood, the intro and conclusion, don’t appear to say anything particularly new (the conclusions are cited as findings in previous papers from other teams).

But obviously as every design fan on this thread seems to think the 30-month-old paper proves design, even though none of you thought to tell the world about it until Ed joined the thread a couple of days ago, no doubt you can explain to me how, for instance, the following finding from the paper proves design - “The high sequencing coverage provided by genomic footprinting revealed 592,867 heterozygous single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) across the 81 cell type samples, and 3% of coding footprints harbored heterozygous SNVs (Fig. 4A). Functional SNVs that disrupt TF occupancy quantitatively skew the allelic origins of DNaseI cleavage fragments (13), and 17.4% of all heterozygous coding SNVs within footprints showed this signature (Fig. 4B and fig. S12), including both synonymous and nonsynonymous variant classes (Fig. 4C).”

Of course, if like me you don’t know what any of that means, perhaps you should read again the line you quoted: Ask any scientist, good science is never about appeals to authority.

*You have obviously failed to convince me. If you have some issue with the research, and I have no idea why you would, you should search for peer reviewed articles that provide experimental evidence that the results could not be replicated or that the conclusions did not fit the data. The fact that no papers have been published to corroborate the conclusion does not mean anything. *

I think you’re mistaken - the scientists didn’t criticize the paper but rather the hype around the press blurb. As I said, the paper doesn’t seem to have made much of splash in the specialist community in the 30 months since publication, but I don’t have the necessary specialist knowledge, so no doubt you’ll explain precisely how the paper proves design since you say I’ve failed to convince you otherwise.

Makes me wonder whether there isn’t an atheist itching to get out - no proof (How much is needed? Really!) means it doesn’t exist.

There would be nothing out of the ordinary in seeing someone usurp God’s role to judge other Christians.

 

[inocente]

So how does this argue against an intelligently designed universe?

If God is in the “whole of Nature,” then surely he is also in the designed aspects of nature – the ones which are clearly ordered towards obvious ends and where those ends are not obvious to us, very likely (since God is in the whole of Nature) those bits are also ordered towards preordained ends.

You seem to have forgotten that I am not much of a supporter of “random” mutations consistently bringing about beneficial adaptations. That was your schtick – or so you seemed to have been arguing. My position has always been that God is in the whole of Nature even in those aspects that we haven’t yet been able to figure out how they fit into the whole schema.

I have – as far as I know – always held the position that the schema is designed and ordered by God and that he is in “the whole of Nature.” Where we appear to disagree is that I would insist that the “whole of Nature” also includes moral agency and human free will, which entails that the “whole of Nature” is not as mechanical or predetermined as, perhaps, your Baptist affiliation might insist it has to be.

“Open architecture” is a computing term meaning that hardware is designed to be open to the “imprinting” of new capacities after the fact. I would suggest that if human engineers can do this with regard to silicone, aluminum, etc., God must surely be capable of doing so with regard to flesh, blood, genetics, and neurology, especially if autonomous moral agency is a reality to be “fit” into “the whole of Nature.”

If there are designed aspects in nature then there must be a designer, and as there’s a designer there must be designed aspects of nature. Circular Arguments ‘R’ Us .

I’ve not mentioned “random mutations”. Do a search and you’ll find the last time I posted the word “mutations” was 14 months ago, and even then only because I was quoting another poster.

Schema, like open architecture, is another term from computer science, although your definition of the latter is off-base. Schema means plan, so why not just say plan? The trouble with your IT metaphor is it sounds like you think God is a programmer in the sky, which raises questions like how could free-will be programmed, and if it is, how can a program be free?

If you want to keep the IT metaphor then evolutionary computation would appear to be closer to what you describe. But then you have another problem, as that dispenses with the programmer. It may be better to just hear God say “my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways” (Is 58) and stop trying to squeeze God into human constraints. To use another computing term, I’d deprecate that practice if I were you.

I don’t know how free-will or moral agency work but without them we could not be held responsible for our actions, and clearly that’s not part of God’s plan (or in your terms, God’s schema).

inocente;13939266:

Point me at the chapter and verse which says God tweaks His open architecture.

Oh, I don’t know. How about turning water into wine? Or parting the Red Sea? Or turning bread and wine into his Body and Blood? Or the idea, long held by Christians (Cf. the Early Church Fathers,) that grace perfects nature?

Now I’ve wiped the coffee off my monitor, yes, you must be the first person in the history of the universe to describe John 2 as God tweaking His open architecture. Now I’ve heard it all.

 

[inocente]

Our body and soul are inextricably united. Animals have souls but they are not persons, i.e. rational beings.

Do you accept the teaching that we receive our soul at conception?

As you accept that body and soul are inextricably united, unlike those pesky substance dualists who claim otherwise, and as you accept that the soul cannot be found in biology, it would seem we’re agreed that biologically we are fundamentally no different from other animals.

I think soul at conception is a Catholic teaching, never heard it before speaking to Catholics. I’d have to read up on it to be able to make a vote.

inocente;13939438:

Please define what you mean by “evolution by Design”.

The ongoing process of development planned and directed by God from start to finish, not a haphazard series of events explicable solely by fortuitous combinations of molecules, random mutations and natural selection.

So unlike some design fans, you accept evolution, and your argument would seem to turn on whether there have been events so improbable that they are otherwise inexplicable. If that’s where you’re headed then it’s an hypothesis based on statistics, and such arguments are notorious, but I’d object to it on the grounds that God cannot be tested or made the subject of statistical analysis.

1. Do you believe God never intervenes?
2. Never cures the sick miraculously?
3. Never prevents accidents or disasters?
4. Never inspires, enlightens anyone or warns anyone of danger?
5. Never consoles those who mourn or are afflicted?
6. Never gives strength to those who face temptation?
7. Never guides His Church?
8. Never does anything to help His children on earth and leaves them entirely to their own devices?

I was wondering when you’d make one of your numbered lists. As I said, God has intervened in my life so no to all the above, not based on theories but on experience.

 

[Aloysium]

I . . . The only parts I understood, the intro and conclusion, don’t appear to say anything particularly new (the conclusions are cited as findings in previous papers from other teams). . . every design fan on this thread seems to think the 30-month-old paper proves design, even though none of you thought to tell the world about it until Ed joined the thread a couple of days ago, no doubt you can explain to me how, for instance, the following finding from the paper proves design . . . the scientists didn’t criticize the paper but rather the hype around the press blurb. As I said, the paper doesn’t seem to have made much of splash in the specialist community in the 30 months since publication, but I don’t have the necessary specialist knowledge, so no doubt you’ll explain precisely how the paper proves design since you say I’ve failed to convince you otherwise.
There would be nothing out of the ordinary in seeing someone usurp God’s role to judge other Christians.

If I were now where I was some three or four decades ago, I’d be able to translate it for you. With the great strides that have been made in developing the jargon, it’s pretty much gibberish to me as well.

I agree with you that there is not that much new in the research. However, the implications could be huge. I would imagine that living in Europe you might have an awareness of the controversy around genetically modified products. The research suggests that there is more going on than has been considered. If you mess up on a code, the consequences are very limited. Someone messes up on genetic codes, the repercussions could be felt possibly throughout the world. There’s a lot of anxiety about these sorts of things, not all of it unfounded.

The paper reveals the awesomeness of God’s design. It proves nothing if one does not already know of His plan in creation.

If you look at the " media hype", it is going in the other direction. I’m generally up on the news, especially that which pertains to scientific matters. I never heard of this study. There seems to have been very little media coverage. This isn’t the Higgs boson, but it may have deserved a bit more than it got. Interestingly, it’s getting stuff like “delusion” and “hype” - what?? Research is a slow process and likely people are pursuing the findings. However, knowing that it chases the politics and the money, hearing from you that there is no published follow up to some very interesting and relevant findings, is somewhat disconcerting.

I wasn’t addressing the Design discussion but rather your approach to science. I thought it important to show how off the mark you were in your response to the link. You were obviously trying to discredit it. This may be how the world works, but not how science should in its quest for the truth.

There is such a thing as constructive criticism. I was attempting to reflect back an error that I saw. You post here of your own accord. I would never presume to judge you morally. If I gave a student a “D” way back when, it was never personal.

The comment about “atheistic” logic, so well demonstrated on this subforum, was tongue-in-cheek. While needing a , I think it was appropriate. Because you found nothing, you cannot assume there was nothing to it. There are many factors involved involved in why you do not find something on a Google search, the least of which is that there is nothing there.

 

[tonyrey]

Our body and soul are inextricably united. Animals have souls but they are not persons, i.e. rational beings.

Being inextricably united rules out the arbitrary separation of the spiritual and biological aspects of our nature. Modern medicine, for example, is holistic…]

Do you accept the teaching that we receive our soul at conception?

I think soul at conception is a Catholic teaching, never heard it before speaking to Catholics. I’d have to read up on it to be able to make a vote.

How else could the soul emerge? When would it appear?

So unlike some design fans, you accept evolution…

The Church accepts development which is not restricted to natural causes.

… and your argument would seem to turn on whether there have been events so improbable that they are otherwise inexplicable. If that’s where you’re headed then it’s an hypothesis based on statistics, and such arguments are notorious, but I’d object to it on the grounds that God cannot be tested or made the subject of statistical analysis.

God is not the subject. It is the origin and development of living beings that is the issue. There is no reason why Creation should not have multiple causes. The all or nothing approach is simplistic:

The ongoing process of development planned and directed by God from start to finish, not a haphazard series of events explicable **solely ** by fortuitous combinations of molecules, random mutations and natural selection.

NB The term “solely” is significant.

1. Do you believe God never intervenes

?
2. Never cures the sick miraculously?
3. Never prevents accidents or disasters?
4. Never inspires, enlightens anyone or warns anyone of danger?
5. Never consoles those who mourn or are afflicted?
6. Never gives strength to those who face temptation?
7. Never guides His Church?
8. Never does anything to help His children on earth and leaves them entirely to their own devices?I was wondering when you’d make one of your numbered lists.

Your disparaging comment is out of place in what should be an objective discussion…

As I said, God has intervened in my life so no to all the above, not based on theories but on experience.

So all the reports of miracles worked by the Apostles and saints are false? Jesus was misleading everyone when He promised that our prayers would be answered? Our loving Father in heaven does absolutely nothing to prevent or mitigate suffering? The Beatitudes apply solely to what happens after we die? As far as this life is concerned God leaves us entirely to our own devices? Why doesn’t He ever help us when we are in desperate need?

 

[cfauster]

The paper reveals the awesomeness of God’s design. It proves nothing if one does not already know of His plan in creation.

I am a molecular geneticist actively working (not yet retired) and I would be happy to do what I can to help anyone understand such papers of interest. But I doubt the issues of interest in this thread really hinge on scientific details.

The quote above states an important truth: faith in a Creator is needed in order to view the natural world as creation, as the work of a Creator.

Religious and non-religious scientists work together on doing science without conflict. The former views such work as a calling, a vocation, as one way to praise God by using one’s gifts of curiosity and knowledge to learn more about the creation. The latter also exercises such gifts and also discovers new knowledge about the natural world, but does not regard the natural world as the work of a Creator.

The knowledge we have of molecular genetics, and the knowledge we lack (recognized as open, unanswered questions in the field) neither prove nor disprove the existence of a Creator.

We all benefit by having an increasingly informed and accurate scientific understanding of the natural world. *If *one views the natural world as a creation, one’s scientific understanding also can have important implications for one’s understanding of the Creator. I find two things important to remember, however, when it comes to drawing lessons about the Creator from scientific understanding of the creation:

1. 
   *]The fundamental issues seem rather timeless, and essentially the same across millennia. We still live our lives without provable answers to important perennial questions asked by people of all generations.
   *]We don’t need proof in order to trust in God. God has provided sufficient means, but not proof, for such trust. Our faith can be informed by science, in that its doctrines concerning the creation should be consistent with what we can know via science about the natural world, but grace through faith in Christ comes by means other than science.

 

[edwest2]

I am a molecular geneticist actively working (not yet retired) and I would be happy to do what I can to help anyone understand such papers of interest. But I doubt the issues of interest in this thread really hinge on scientific details.

The quote above states an important truth: faith in a Creator is needed in order to view the natural world as creation, as the work of a Creator.

Religious and non-religious scientists work together on doing science without conflict. The former views such work as a calling, a vocation, as one way to praise God by using one’s gifts of curiosity and knowledge to learn more about the creation. The latter also exercises such gifts and also discovers new knowledge about the natural world, but does not regard the natural world as the work of a Creator.

The knowledge we have of molecular genetics, and the knowledge we lack (recognized as open, unanswered questions in the field) neither prove nor disprove the existence of a Creator.

We all benefit by having an increasingly informed and accurate scientific understanding of the natural world. *If *one views the natural world as a creation, one’s scientific understanding also can have important implications for one’s understanding of the Creator. I find two things important to remember, however, when it comes to drawing lessons about the Creator from scientific understanding of the creation:

1. 
   *]The fundamental issues seem rather timeless, and essentially the same across millennia. We still live our lives without provable answers to important perennial questions asked by people of all generations.
   *]We don’t need proof in order to trust in God. God has provided sufficient means, but not proof, for such trust. Our faith can be informed by science, in that its doctrines concerning the creation should be consistent with what we can know via science about the natural world, but grace through faith in Christ comes by means other than science.

1. 
   Then there are two separate types of people. One may work in science but since science cannot study anything outside of nature, it can offer nothing regarding a Creator or a Creation of God, and another may learn more about nature but believes in God. Correct?
   
   Ed

 

[cfauster]

Then there are two separate types of people. One may work in science but since science cannot study anything outside of nature, it can offer nothing regarding a Creator or a Creation of God, and another may learn more about nature but believes in God. Correct?
Ed

I see the first statement (since science cannot study anything outside of nature, it can offer nothing regarding a Creator or a Creation of God) as saying that science is limited to studying nature using methods that are limited to observable data.

I see the second statement (a person may learn more about nature but believe in God) as saying that people (including scientists) live lives and ask questions that go beyond science and the natural world that science studies.

Together, I see them as compatible, rather than referring to two distinct types of people, so I must be misinterpreting.

 

[Bradski]

Then there are two separate types of people. One may work in science but since science cannot study anything outside of nature, it can offer nothing regarding a Creator or a Creation of God, and another may learn more about nature but believes in God. Correct?

Those are one and the same person.

As cfauster has just said, science cannot prove God. That statement stands whether you are an atheist scientist, a Hindu scientist, a Christian scientist, a deist…just add any belief system you care to imagine.

It is the height of folly to point to a gap in our understanding and try to fill it with God. ‘Here’s where God shows His Divine Handiwork!’ And when the gap in knowledge disappears, they run off pointing in a different direction and shout the same thing. It will never end, because there will always be something we don’t know.

You reduce God to a bit player in a celestial game of Where’s Wally.

 

[cfauster]

I agree that we should not make gap claims in general. That cuts both ways. If a particular question about the natural world remains stubbornly open (unsolved), we can’t tell whether that’s because:

1. we’re just ignorant and the explanation is there and waiting - albeit maybe indefinitely - to be discovered through science,

or

1. the explanation really isn’t there to be discovered through science, no matter how long/hard we try and no matter how much our descendants might discover and learn, because the open question really is, inherently and fundamentally, an unfathomable mystery.

Since we can’t know which is the case, we have plenty of motivation to keep trying to learn what we can through science. We can’t necessarily predict scientific success beforehand, as in naturalism of the gaps. We can’t necessarily predict scientific failure beforehand, as in God of the gaps.

We just keep searching for scientific explanations knowing that when we succeed as scientists in finding natural explanations, we are not thereby detracting from any truly valid store of “evidence” for God. When a scientist humbly, faithfully and doggedly keeps searching for natural explanations, she/he is not attacking God or God’s church.

 

[Aloysium]

I am a molecular geneticist . . . Our faith can be informed by science, in that its doctrines concerning the creation should be consistent with what we can know via science about the natural world, but grace through faith in Christ comes by means other than science.

There being one truth, science and religious teachings should be consistent.

I believe we have had this discussion before regarding creation.

As a molecular geneticist you are basically bound to what the discipline holds true.
One of its tenets would be that the way we observe matter interacting now, is the way it has always interacted. The laws which describe the nature and behaviour of matter do not change.
Another has to do with the current understanding of matter, which for some constitutes reality (materialism).
Thus, we do not need to consider the Hand that moves creation, a hand that might do otherwise according to its will.
By focussing on and delving into constituent parts we believe we are discovering more about what it is. What we find is not considered to be merely the decomposed remains of a whole being, but rather a truer reality. With this view comes the abolition of the person.

You and I are whole persons, whom we can understand as a matter-spirit unity. We are separate and have our individual relationship with the world and the Source of this relational capacity. Our being, which is given to us, reaches out into the world through perception, understanding and action. This is all one in the reality of the person who exists in relation to what is other. Intellectually, the person disappears when we reduce him/her to decomposable parts - molecular and ultimately subatomic.

Genesis speaks to all ages in a language that is clear to those who can hear. It reveals the basics of our creation, what we need to know in our dialogue with God. I am not going to get into it here, but I do know that science a thousand years from now will have a very different understanding of who we are and where we come from.

 

[Bradski]

Couldn’t agree more (with csfauster’s last post).

What those who point to a gap in our knowledge and state that ‘God did that’ are doing is proclaiming a supernatural answer to the problem. That is, that science will never be able to solve it, because science can only deal with the natural.

In effect, they are saying: ‘It’s a waste of time to continue looking. You can stop now’.

Wouldn’t have got us very far, would it…

And, in passing, who are those who make that call? Can’t get a solution to super-string theory? Should we stop now? Have we got as far as we can go? Who do we ask? Who says that the next step is God?