Re: Ool - out at first base?

On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 17:52:14 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com>:

On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 08:46:26 -0800, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 12/14/24 8:23 AM, DB Cates wrote:

On 2024-12-14 6:04 a.m., MarkE wrote:
[big snip]
 

>
Christian de Duve put it this way: "Science is based on the working
hypothesis that things are naturally explainable. This may or may not
be true. But the only way to find out is to make every possible effort
to explain things naturally. Only if one fails - assuming failure can
ever be definitely established - would be entitled to state that what
one is studying is not naturally explainable."
>
That seems close what to what I'm proposing. Thoughts?
>

For argument's sake, let's say that is true.
Now, how do you get from 'OoL is supernatural' to the Christian god or
indeed any god at all? I suppose we could call it the 'god of OoL' but
now what else do we know about this 'god'?
 

If it's explainable, there's little difference between invoking god(s)
or looking for natural causes.  Many scientists believe in god, and
you're in good company with Issac Newton, probably the best physicist
who ever lived. He explained things that many believed inexplicable.

>
According to MarkE's logic he shouldn't have bothered trying to
explain them in the first place because nobody been able to explain
them over thousands of years so they had to be inexplicable by natural
means and therefore had to be supernatural!
>

I.e., the same class of "logic" propounded by a (thankfully
long absent) poster here who insisted that people today are
more intelligent than those in ancient Egypt, because we
have cell phones and they didn't.

(Actually, I'm tempted to argue the opposite, after watching
various "cellphone zombies" start to walk into traffic...)

>

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov