Why'd you do it that way, God?

quote:

---

Here aret two reasons/advantages for God to use natural processes in creation:
1) Using "naturalistic processes" helps to establish them as "normal," and to underscore God's consistency and reliability as He runs His universe.
2) The vast time periods used for "gradual naturalistic processes" convey a similar message to vast size of the universe. As David said in Psalm 8, this reveals to us our insignificance. We are insignificant in the vast size of the cosmos, and likewise we are insignificant in the vast history of the cosmos. Our significance comes from God, not from our spatial or temporal place in the universe

---

I don't think that makes sense. Our knowledge of how the naturalistic processes work is very recent - no more than 200 years or so, much of it in the last 100. That knowledge has not generally led people to the conclusions you reach. In fact it has led to the widespread secularization of Western society. So the message it conveys has effectively been 'there is no need for God to explain the Universe'.

quote:

---

#1 Creation of matter and energy is impossible.
(So a "God" is needed to explain why we see matter.)

---

but then a "God" needs explanation - oops, problem not solved.Don't come back and say God is eternal, outside time and therefore does not need an explanation. I could claim the same for a non-supernatural precursor of the universe. Neither of us would be justified. What happened before the big bang, if anything, is currently unknown. That's all we can say about it.

quote:

---

#2 Everything degrades down. Nothing evolves up to more a more complex system. (Evolution "up" is impossible)

---

Reality shows us otherwise. You're right within a closed system such as the universe as a whole, but thermodynamics does not prevent parts of that system from getting more 'complex' at the expense of others.We see evolution of complex life from simple life in the fossil record.

quote:

---

#3 The Cosmos is headed to death, not life.
(Again, Evolution as a source of life is contrary to Science. Evolution as a way to cope with decay and death is valid. Life DOES change to cope with a decay in the environment. But no NEW information is created or added.)

---

Eventually you may be right that the cosmos is heading towards death, depending on the ultimate fate of the Universe. But there are billions of years ahead of us before that becomes the case - far longer than the universe has already been in existence. The sun is likely to keep shining pretty much as it is for another 4 billion years or so. So, the eventual fate of the universe is irrelevant for what we see now and will see in the conceivable future.'Devolution but No NEW information' is the latest mantra of creationists. It has nothing to do with science. It can only survive while creationists define information in an unmeasurable way or by diktat as something that needs intellect to create. It will go the way of all previous creationist mantras when even creationists are forced to admit that their theories make no sense.