The ones in over their heads are those who try to defend magical explanations for the existence of the world and life when all the evidence points to widespread solar system formation from clouds of cosmic gas clouds and debris from past Supernova. Life evolves, how it began is not yet understood but is a work in progress.
The argument; we don't know, therefore God, is neither a valid argument or explanation.
But who is defending "magical explanations"? Is it not those Darwinians whom the evidence has forced to hypothecate space aliens to account for the incredibly complex information necessary to instantiate life? It is true some proponents of intelligent design hypothecate God, but the theory itself does not require that God be the intelligent artificer. It only requires some sort of highly advanced intelligence. You mention the solar system, yet the Universe itself appears to have begun in a singularity of time and space out of literally nothing! Cosmologists have been very unhappy with the Big Bank theory since its inception because it implies a beginning and the instantiation of matter out of virtually nothing, thus essentially confirming the Biblical concept of a virtually inexplicable and miraculous creation event. That apparently magical" event is what science tells us occurred and what a coincidence that it dove tails with the Biblical idea of a special creation event (and a beginning).
We are now at 90 pages and you've finally admitted "how life began is not yet understood, but a work in progress" and blithely, "life evolves". "The work in progress (how life began)" is, as a research venture, virtually dead. Read the literature. Scientists are at a loss to explain the instantiation of life and many are quite blunt about the bleak prospects of ever finding a naturalistic explanation. But hope and faith spring eternal! In any event, what does "life evolves" mean? If it means that finch beaks change in size in consequence of environmental stressors, that is wholly non-controversial, but that is not what Neo-Darwinism is really about, Its about the much grander claim that the same process that causes variation in finch beak size also has the power to morph a finch into existence from some other creature in the first instance. But that idea is contradicted by the evidence at virtually every turn, including (and especially) the fossil record. What we know is that even with intelligent intervention (in the laboratory) species can only change so far (not into new species, mind you) and when the special breeding and selection (by human intelligence) is withdrawn, the specially bred specimens revert back to the mean within a few generations. Thousands of years of dog breeding by human intelligence has not changed a dog into a cat. In other words, biology and genetics overwhelmingly suggests the immutability of species, not their changeability.
Finally, the argument isn't "we don't know, therefore God". The argument is: we know that in all of human experience specified complex information comes from pre-existing intelligence. Specified complex information is a condition precedent to the existence of life. It is essentially impossible that natural processes could have created this information. Reasoning from the evidence to the best explanation then (the same logic Darwin applied!) the best explanation is that some sort of pre-existing super intelligence is responsible for the instantiation and variety of life on earth.
Great post and thanks for it.
Ecc 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but that of a fool to the left.
A Nation which leaves God behind is soon left behind.
"The Lord never asked anyone to be a tax collector, lowyer, or Redskins fan".
