re: Impressive support for Intelligent Design

quote:

---

Appreciate your defense of the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Sorry I don't contribute more. God bless you brother.

---

Thank you, brother. Praise God for His mercies to weak vessels like us

quote:

---

Genesis 1-3 explains that God created the different kinds of animals, differently and separately.

---

That is not what I asked. I asked where in scripture it says God massively expanded the numbers of postdiluvian species. That is your contention which you said was based on scripture.

I'll help you out.
There is no such scripture.
You are attempting an argument independent of it.

In addition to the Bible, God left us a series of bread crumbs in the fossil record, in geology, in biology, and in physics. It is not an either/or premise. By nature the two are not contradictory. Where they seem to be contradictory, the mistake is ours.

E.g., The Bible does not purport geocentrism. But man's misinterpretation of it did. That was a mistake, just as is the discounting of other science is in this case.

quote:

---

That is not what I asked. I asked where in scripture it says God massively expanded the numbers of postdiluvian species. That is your contention which you said was based on scripture.

I'll help you out.
There is no such scripture.
You are attempting an argument independent of it.

---

You're right that it doesn't specifically say how the animals reproduced. It doesn't say anything about how human eye color changed since the first two people, either. We can use "the light of nature" (reason) to help us with understanding things that the Scriptures do not tell us. However, just as you were saying that science places limitations, the Bible also places limitations. We cannot come up with any theory we want to in order to explain what we do not know if it contradicts what God has spoken of as true.

Science is good. It's a tool that humans can use to understand what God has created. What we cannot do is go beyond what God has commanded, in creating "truth" that goes against what God has already revealed as being true.

quote:

---

In addition to the Bible, God left us a series of bread crumbs in the fossil record, in geology, in biology, and in physics. It is not an either/or premise. By nature the two are not contradictory. Where they seem to be contradictory, the mistake is ours.

---

I agree entirely with this. God has also given us breadcrumbs in His direct revelation in the Bible to help us understand what we see in the fossil record, in geology, in biology, and in physics. The initial creation and the global flood are pretty important bread crumbs.

quote:

---

E.g., The Bible does not purport geocentrism. But man's misinterpretation of it did. That was a mistake, just as is the discounting of other science is in this case.

---

The Bible doesn't require geocentrism to be true, though. There are no important doctrines or direct statements from God that require geocentrism to be true. That isn't the case for other things, such as creation (including God making man, rather than man evolving from other animals) and the flood narrative.

quote:

---

I agree that science puts a constraint on presuppositions, but it does so by constraining them to materialistic naturalism.

As I said, modern scientific thought presupposes naturalism precisely because it seeks to explain everything in nature naturally. It presupposes a natural explanation, and rejects any explanation that is supernatural, precisely because it cannot speak to the supernatural. What this does is lead all conclusions to the natural and away from any explanation that is supernatural in origin. It leads many to falsely accuse the religious of engaging in the "god of the gaps" fallacy, even if that isn't accurate, because it assumes a naturalistic explanation that precludes supernatural involvement.

---

There are a couple different claims here, and they need to be separated.

First, modern science does use methodological naturalism. But that is not the same thing as presupposing that only natural things exist. It is a rule about how explanations are evaluated. Scientific explanations must appeal to causes that operate in regular, observable ways because those are the only kinds of causes that allow competing hypotheses to be tested against evidence.

That rule is practical. It does not say supernatural causes are impossible. It says that if a cause leaves no detectable pattern that distinguishes it from other possibilities, science has no way to evaluate it.

Second, this constraint does not “force” all conclusions to be natural in some ideological sense. It simply means that within the scientific method, explanations are limited to mechanisms that generate observable consequences. If a supernatural event produced clear, repeatable, or distinctive evidence, science would examine that evidence the same way it examines any other claim about the past.

Third, the “God of the gaps” critique is not about invoking God per se. It applies when a supernatural explanation is used specifically to fill a gap where a natural explanation is not yet known. The issue is explanatory structure. If an explanation can account for any possible observation equally well, then it cannot be tested or compared against alternatives.

Finally, none of this prevents someone from believing that God ultimately grounds or sustains the processes science studies. Many scientists and theologians hold that view. The scientific model simply asks a narrower question: given the observable evidence and known mechanisms, what processes best explain the patterns we see? That methodological boundary is what allows scientific claims to be evaluated publicly rather than relying on private revelation or authority.

quote:

---

If you walk into a bathroom and see a bathtub dripping water, with a pool of water collected at the bottom, you can use the scientific method to calculate the volume of the tub, the amount of water collected, the average size of the water droplets, and the average time between drops to calculate how long it would take to fill up the tub with water if the water continues to drip at that same amount. It can also be used to calculate how long the water has been dripping and collecting in the tub by extrapolating calculations back in time. You can even repeat the calculations and tests time and time again and get the same results. You can also have any number of other scientists perform the same tests and reach the exact same conclusions. That's what science does.

However, this would change if someone walked into the bathroom and saw all these scientists taking measurements and performing calculations and proceeded to tell them that, earlier that day, they walked into the bathroom, turned on the water full blast for a minute, and then turned off the water and walked out. That would change the starting conditions and would alter the conclusions of when the drip and collection started, and how long it had been dripping.

---

Your bathtub example illustrates the difference pretty well, but it actually reinforces the point about method rather than undermining it.

If someone claims they briefly turned the faucet on earlier, science would treat that the same way it treats any other claim about past events. It would ask whether there is evidence consistent with that explanation. For example, was the tub recently wet higher up the sides, are there splash patterns inconsistent with slow dripping, are there time stamps on cameras, sensors, or other records. In other words, the claim becomes testable if it produces detectable consequences.

Where science draws the boundary is when an explanation can be invoked without leaving any observable signature. If the faucet was turned on for a minute but left no trace that distinguishes it from steady dripping, then the claim cannot be evaluated with evidence. At that point it becomes a different kind of explanation, philosophical or theological rather than scientific.

That boundary is methodological, not metaphysical. It does not say supernatural events are impossible. It says explanations used in science must produce observable consequences that allow competing claims to be compared against the evidence.

So the issue is not that presuppositions exist. Everyone agrees they do. The issue is whether explanations are constrained by evidence in a way that allows them to be tested and potentially shown wrong.

Since it's been a couple of weeks, just to keep my role in this discussion clear, I’m not trying to debate Christianity or religion in general.

My focus is much narrower. I’m defending what evolutionary biology and the scientific method actually claim, and correcting some common misconceptions about where those claims begin and end.

Science operates within methodological limits. It studies mechanisms that can be observed, measured, and tested. Evolutionary theory is simply a model explaining biological change through processes like mutation, selection, and inheritance. That’s the scope of the claim.

When the discussion shifts into questions about ultimate causation, divine intention, revelation, or theology, we’ve moved outside the domain of science. Those are philosophical or religious questions. They may be meaningful discussions, but they are not testable in the scientific sense.

So my argument here is not that religion is false, nor that supernatural explanations are impossible. My point is just that they fall outside the method science uses to evaluate claims. I’m only addressing the biology and the scientific reasoning behind it, not trying to settle theological debates.

quote:

---

First, modern science does use methodological naturalism. But that is not the same thing as presupposing that only natural things exist.

---

They are closely related, and more often than not, the use of methodological naturalism influences and even results in the presupposition of philosophical naturalism, especially when the scientific method for what we can test and repeat in observational science is assumed to work the exact same way for historical science, when dealing with events that cannot be repeated or tested in the same way. Assumptions from one typically spill over to the other. It also makes supernaturalism superfluous if you assume the scientific method is the primary, or especially the only way, to know the truth about the world around us.

quote:

---

It is a rule about how explanations are evaluated. Scientific explanations must appeal to causes that operate in regular, observable ways because those are the only kinds of causes that allow competing hypotheses to be tested against evidence.

That rule is practical. It does not say supernatural causes are impossible. It says that if a cause leaves no detectable pattern that distinguishes it from other possibilities, science has no way to evaluate it.

---

The problem with the rule is that it excludes supernatural causes, even if it admits that they could exist. If the scientific method is used to find the truth about the universe, then it disregarding potentially true events that it cannot account for means that it, by necessity, can exclude the truth entirely because it cannot speak to it. Understanding that limitation is great, but the problem is that the limitation isn't really "believed" by those who invoke it most of the time, and the practical reality is that the truth claims often do reject non-natural explanations.

quote:

---

Second, this constraint does not “force” all conclusions to be natural in some ideological sense. It simply means that within the scientific method, explanations are limited to mechanisms that generate observable consequences. If a supernatural event produced clear, repeatable, or distinctive evidence, science would examine that evidence the same way it examines any other claim about the past.

---

The reality is that this doesn't happen. Most scientists don't accept supernatural claims, even with some evidence to support them, precisely because they assume that there must be a naturalistic alternative.

For example, Christians make different arguments for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, including eye-witness recorded testimony and even testimony from non-witnesses, but witnesses who are hostile to those making the claim. Those arguments and evidences may be sufficient for Christians, but for the scientist, they will more likely than not reject the claim altogether, because they default to "scientific" (natural) explanations over supernatural ones. So, the typical response is to reject such claims as fables, myths, lies, or deceptions, because we do not witness the dead rising from their graves. Or, if we do see such things, it's because they weren't really dead, or were not "dead" long enough to prevent them from being resuscitated. The assumption, then, is a naturalistic explanation, rather than a supernatural one. That sort of thinking permeates the scientific community, and is carried over to communities that see science as "real" and other non-scientific explanations as not real, because science deals with supposed certainty.

quote:

---

Third, the “God of the gaps” critique is not about invoking God per se. It applies when a supernatural explanation is used specifically to fill a gap where a natural explanation is not yet known. The issue is explanatory structure. If an explanation can account for any possible observation equally well, then it cannot be tested or compared against alternatives.

---

The problem here is twofold: first, you said "not yet known". The assumption here is that there is a natural explanation that we just don't yet have. This could be called the "science of the gaps" fallacy, invoking a naturalistic or scientific explanation as necessary where it is currently unknown. Second, it provides a bias towards an explanation that can be tested and falsified and against one that cannot, even if the alternative may be the true explanation. This, again, is not a matter of "truth", but a matter of naturalistic explanation.

quote:

---

Finally, none of this prevents someone from believing that God ultimately grounds or sustains the processes science studies. Many scientists and theologians hold that view. The scientific model simply asks a narrower question: given the observable evidence and known mechanisms, what processes best explain the patterns we see? That methodological boundary is what allows scientific claims to be evaluated publicly rather than relying on private revelation or authority.

---

The method fails because it limits itself entirely to naturalistic claims, and ignores even supernatural testimony that may result in a different conclusion.

At the end of the day, the problem I have is that scientists ignore the supernatural when it comes to science itself, and the result is a denial of "unscientific" truth claims. The conclusion is that where science can't speak, a person can claim whatever they want, but where it can speak, it must win the day, even against other alternative claims.

quote:

---

Your bathtub example illustrates the difference pretty well, but it actually reinforces the point about method rather than undermining it.

---

You're missing a key point I was making, which I'll show shortly.

quote:

---

If someone claims they briefly turned the faucet on earlier, science would treat that the same way it treats any other claim about past events. It would ask whether there is evidence consistent with that explanation. For example, was the tub recently wet higher up the sides, are there splash patterns inconsistent with slow dripping, are there time stamps on cameras, sensors, or other records. In other words, the claim becomes testable if it produces detectable consequences.

---

Not necessarily. The testimony may have evidence to support it, but it may not.

quote:

---

Where science draws the boundary is when an explanation can be invoked without leaving any observable signature. If the faucet was turned on for a minute but left no trace that distinguishes it from steady dripping, then the claim cannot be evaluated with evidence. At that point it becomes a different kind of explanation, philosophical or theological rather than scientific.

That boundary is methodological, not metaphysical. It does not say supernatural events are impossible. It says explanations used in science must produce observable consequences that allow competing claims to be compared against the evidence.

---

The bold point, and particularly the word "must" is what I take issue with.

What we are talking about is truth claims, and how we can know them to be true. You are right to point out the limitation of science to only that which is observable, but the problem is that scientists and those who hold science to be the best or only way to know truth will reject any claims that cannot be observed or tested scientifically. We're talking about epistemology when all is said and done, and science will come to false conclusions about truth claims because of its limitations, but it leads many to believe those false claims are true due to their presuppositions.

I've run out of characters to continue, so I'll leave it there.

quote:

---

If the scientific method is used to find the truth about the universe,

---

And that's the real question. Are we searching for the truth about our reality or the truth as it can be found between fences we've erected?

quote:

---

Neither are all the claims of evolution.

---

Examples?

quote:

---

Your core objections seem to be that science only considers evidence that can be tested.

---

Science is a method; scientists are people. They have biases and worldviews that drive their exploration just like anybody else. And they do NOT restrict themselves to evidence that can be tested; that's nearly impossible when looking at the historical sciences.

quote:

---

Your core objections seem to be that science only considers evidence that can be tested. But that means you’re really arguing against what science is, not against the conclusions it reaches. In other words, what you’re really arguing is that science, by definition, does not consider non-scientific evidence.

---

In a sense, yes; I am. It seeks to find truth without accounting for the one who is the essence of truth. It presupposes that God has not worked in history in order to understand what has happened in history, and by its nature, that denies God, which I object to.

And let me be clear: I'm not objecting to the scientific method in terms of observational science, because we can utilize the methodology to understand what we see. What I'm objecting to is what we cannot see, or have not seen, and drawing conclusions that go against the eye-witness testimony. In a word, I'm arguing against rejecting the testimony of person who turned on the faucet just because we don't like that sort of evidence.

quote:

---

That’s true, but it isn’t a flaw in the method. It’s simply what the method is. Science evaluates claims using evidence that can be observed, measured, and tested against competing explanations. If a claim relies on revelation, private testimony, or supernatural action that leaves no distinct observable trace, science has no way to evaluate it.

---

That's why I believe God's testimony should be the limiting factor in this, not the natural, observable world. I think it's backwards. We should start with God, not science. Or as Augustine once said, "I believe in order to understand". Our presuppositions undergird knowledge, as I've been arguing.

quote:

---

That doesn’t mean supernatural claims are false. It just means, by definition, it falls outside the scope of science.

---

Yes, but being outside the scope of science doesn't mean they can't inform science. That's what I've been driving to. Science rejects supernaturalism entirely because of its limitations, rather than using the supernatural claims of God to inform its limitations.

quote:

---

We don't actually disagree about that limitation. Science cannot adjudicate supernatural claims. But that boundary cuts both ways. If a claim produces no observable consequences that distinguish it from alternatives, then science has no tool to test it either.

---

That's true, but the presupposition there is that science--or scientists--is the arbiter of truth, and that which cannot be tested must be rejected because of its limitations.

quote:

---

Where we seem to be talking past each other is that you treat this boundary as an ideological commitment to naturalism. It isn’t. It’s simply the rule that explanations used in science must be testable against evidence.

---

You admitted that there is already a commitment to methodological naturalism baked in. Whether or not one has a commitment to philosophical naturalism is a secondary but related issue, but in the end, the result is the same: those who are committed to "science" almost always reject the Bible as true precisely because the supernatural claims are supernatural.

quote:

---

If someone believes God ultimately grounds the processes we observe, science has nothing to say about that.

---

It isn't just the grounding of the processes we observe, though. The Bible makes claims of God interfering with those processes at times, which runs contrary to the conclusions of scientists using the scientific method.

quote:

---

That isn’t rejecting the supernatural. It’s defining the kinds of explanations it can evaluate.

---

Again, there are overlapping events that scientists and theologians are attempting to explain. In those overlaps, science will reject the supernatural claims, potentially (and actually, as I see it) rejecting what is true.