Hi Maestro. Man, this thread expands at an exponential rate. Hopefully my response won't get too buried. Thank Percy for the "reply to specific post" feature of the board...
I was putting the sufficiency of science without the context of Biblical revelation on trial. The fact that certain predators aren't in a certain place is a trivial matter compared to the matters which the Bible considers important. Perhaps we could debate over whether human kindness or predatory migration is more important to our society. Perhaps what is on trial is whether the Bible deals with important questions at all. As you can guess, I would say that it does.
I guess it does in many ways depend on what you consider "important". However, in the first place you are moving the goalposts quite significantly. After all, your original contention was that scientists (for future reference, I'm focusing on life scientists in particular when I say "scientists") in general fail in their approach to "truth" (and I think at some point we may need to define this term a bit better) by rejecting or at least not taking into consideration the spiritual (or divine, or whatever other term you want to use), and specifically by not taking into consideration the Bible. You are now introducing the concept of "relative importance" with the implication that the Bible only addresses "important" questions, leaving the rest of science alone - a significant shift in emphasis.
I'm actually willing to allow you that shift. After all, I consider biodiversity conservation to be THE critical question our species needs to address in both the long term and near term sense. All six questions in the OP were related to that issue, albeit related to the small details rather than grand schemes. However, even if you don't consider biodiversity all that important, that doesn't get you out of addressing the second set of questions. I would certainly think that the threatened starvation of literally millions of people (question #2), the loss of both food and financial resources in an area which can ill afford it (question #1), and the threat to commercial livelihoods of a segment of the US population dependent on fisheries (question #3) represent fairly "important" issues by any definition. Moreover, the second set allows you to posit a theoretical approach to researching the answers (without necessarily having to address the specifics of each case) that in fact provides a BETTER approach than the methodological naturalism the actual scientists working on the cases have used.
I notice that this argument comes up quite a bit, but evolutions (in the macro sense) cannot replicate macro evolution. How can you hold me to a standard you do not meet yourself?
On the contrary, "macroevolution" HAS been observed in the lab. Lenski's 10,000-generation experiments with bacteria, the colonialization experiments on
Chlorella, Okada
et al's nylon digesting flavobacterium, etc. Obviously, what we can observe is related only to those organisms with short generation times that we can observe directly. We can also observe speciation events "in real time" (note: unless you are using some non-standard definition of macroevolution, I am going with the usual macroevolution = speciation) in the field. Quite a few plants, for example, have been shown to produce hybrids through various means including gene doubling where the hybrids are able to reproduce with other hybrids, but not with either parent species - instant speciation. Another case of observed speciation is the splitting of
Rhagoletis genus into two species after the late 19th Century introduction of apple trees into North America. Etc.
However, once again you are changing the game - in this case by attempting to shift the burden of proof. Another standard creationist tactic. You are the one who made the claim that we are examining: that a theistic approach provides a better methodology than a naturalist approach. Another thread or another time for an examination of evolution's claims. Please try again.
Science cannot explain something that defies the natural laws of science. If something defies the natural laws of science, it is unnatural. If that thing occurs, just because science can't explain it, it doesn't mean it didn't occur. For examples of miracles, please look at the Gospels of the Bible which are an accurate historical account. If you disagree that it is not an accurate historical account, that is your right, but you should have some convincing evidence for why it is. (emphasis added)
I agree completely with the first part (up to the bold). However, in the second bit concerning miracles you are once again attempting to shift the burden of proof. YOU have made the claim that miracles exist, and that the Bible is an accurate historical record of these things. It is incumbent upon YOU to show the reality of miracles, etc. I don't have to refute something for which there is no objective evidence. If there IS evidence, then you need to present it. And present it in such a fashion that alternative explanations, if any, are taken into account. Welcome to science.
OK...for the scientists who say there is a spiritual realm, I would claim that it interacts with the physical realm and we should thus examine it. For the scientists who say there is no spiritual realm, I would claim that there is.
You can certainly claim whatever you wish. I can claim that I was the unwilling subject of weird alien medical experiments on an undisclosed moon of Jupiter. It's unlikely that anyone will accept my claim without some pretty substantive evidence. Therefore, if you want someone to accept
your claim, you need to support it with something that can be independently checked and confirmed. You need to start, as I noted previously, with defining your terms in a concrete fashion. Your continued insistence on using undefined terminology renders your statement meaningless. It is equivalent to all those fake psychics claiming crystal channeling can restore balance to spiritual energy. What is spiritual energy? How do you know when it is unbalanced? Or "restored" for that matter?
Get the picture?
My concern is not to suggest that science should be able to answer the "what purpose" questions." Part of my point is that it cannot and that "what purpose" is a valuable question to ask.
However, in an objective sense, the entire concept of "purpose" and even what constitutes a "valuable question" is meaningless. Scientists seek to establish
objective truths about the natural world. You have stated that you have a better approach than methodological naturalism. I have offered you the opportunity on this thread to demonstrate your claim. So far, I'd say your studied avoidance of doing so is a strong indication that your claim is spurious.
Also, I don't think I am only asking "what purpose." The Bible makes several claims about "what is the cause of."
For example:
1) The cause of death is our sinful nature
2) The cause the natural laws of the universe is God forming them
Again with the undefined terms. What is "sinful nature"? Without referent to what you are attempting to prove (i.e., avoiding the "affirming the consequent" fallacy), define "sin" and "not sin" objectively. Afterwards, you can examine in detail how the existence of death is correlated with the existence of the now-objective concept of sin. Of course, once again, to be taken seriously, you'll need to provide some kind of evidence or at least coherent logic in support of your claim.
™ Version 4.2
