Harrison Butker…oy vey…what a commencement “speech”

[GunnerBill]

Just now, Einstein said:

If you are under the impression that anyone believes that God physically reached down his hand to write the Bible on paper, you are mistaken.

What the faiths believe is that God inspired man to write what he wanted written.

Therefore, Paul writing social declarations is irrelevant - as it would be God telling him what to write.

 

Again, a view.... not a universally accepted one.

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, Einstein said:

Person A: "I am an Atheist, but I believe in God"

Person B: "How is that possible?"

Person A: "You're imposing!"

huh?

 

I don't believe in God. I am a total athiest. I make no apologies for that. It is the only logical answer IMO. We are here by utter chance. 

 

But, I am also a theologian. As I say I was debating Catholic Priests aged 15. I know more about the Bible than I'd say 75% of Christians. You have to understand something and the various interpretations of it to get to the conclusion I have got to. 

Edited May 18 by GunnerBill

[Einstein]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I don't believe in God. I am a total athiest. I make no apologies for that. It is the only logical answer IMO. We are here by utter chance. 

 

But, I am also a theologian. As I say I was debating Catholic Priests aged 15. I know more about the Bible than I'd say 75% of Christians. You have to understand something and the various interpretations of it to get to the conclusion I have got to. 

 

My point was that a Christian disbelieving the Bible as God's Word is as contradictory as an atheist believing in God.

It's antithetical. It makes no sense. This is not a religious argument, it is a logical argument.

Without the Bible, how does one know who Christ is? Without knowing who Christ is, how does one believe in him? The Bible is the foundational text that reveals the teachings, life, and divinity of Christ. Rejecting the Bible undermines the very basis of Christian faith and doctrine.

Of course one claim to be a Christian while also rejecting the Bible - however it would be as inane as someone claiming to be an atheist while also believing in God. It simply would make no logical sense.

[thenorthremembers]

50 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I don't believe in God. I am a total athiest. I make no apologies for that. It is the only logical answer IMO. We are here by utter chance. 

 

But, I am also a theologian. As I say I was debating Catholic Priests aged 15. I know more about the Bible than I'd say 75% of Christians. You have to understand something and the various interpretations of it to get to the conclusion I have got to. 

Pascals wager.  The good news is if you're right than I go to sleep and never know pain again.  If I am right then eternity is going to be very painful for non-believers.

 

I appreciate your dedication to your beliefs.  But, I've always found it baffling to try and comprehend why intelligent people, who know how a body works, who know that a mother can make milk specifically designed for a baby directly after birth, or to heal a sick child can't at the very least fathom intelligent design.

 

That said, I am sure you could come back with a million things as to why the idea of Christiantiy is baffling to you as well.

 

All the best to you brother.  Hoping for many happy days ahead for you.  At least we can agree on Go Bills!

[DrW]

6 minutes ago, thenorthremembers said:

 

I appreciate your dedication to your beliefs.  But, I've always found it baffling to try and comprehend why intelligent people, who know how a body works, who know that a mother can make milk specifically designed for a baby directly after birth, or to heal a sick child can't at the very least fathom intelligent design.

 

 

Sorry, for me it is just the other way around. There is neither a part of a cell nor a biochemical reaction in an organism that could not have generated by evolution. One factor adherents to intelligent design generally overlook is time. Nature had millions of years of testing what works and (much more frequently) what does not work. And please do not tell me that you believe the World was created just about 4000 BC. There is NO scientific fact supporting this notion.

 

But let's go back to evolution vs intelligent design. I am a biochemist working on an enzyme called ATP synthase. It converts electrochemical energy stored in a proton gradient (imagine the water behind the Hoover dam that would like to escape the dam) into chemical energy in form of a molecule called ATP (imagine gas for your car). For a long time, it was not known how the enzyme would do that - the intermediate is mechanical energy. The protons flowing down the gradient (i.e. the water down the Hoover dam) powers the rotation of a part of the enzyme (like a turbine) which then allows the synthesis of ATP (the generation of gas). 

 

As you can see, the mechanism of the enzyme is pretty complicated. In fact, Ken Ham's "Answers in Genesis" gives it as example of intelligent design, as there seemed to be no precedent of an enzyme where a part of it rotates to facilitate a chemical reaction on the other protein subunits surrounding the central protein in ring-like fashion. Well, it turns out that there are much simpler enzymes using the same basic mechanism. DNA helicases unwind DNA that occupies the center of the protein ring; some protein transporters use the center of the ring for substrate transport. Thus, evolution could have easily taken these simpler proteins as precursors to ATP synthase.  

 

A much more recent example. There is a breed of sheep on one of the British Orkney Islands that had been confined to an area close to the sea for a number of decades. They "learned" to live on seaweed as main food source. Seaweed is very low on copper, an essential mineral. Thus, their digestive system had to adapt to extract copper more efficiently. How do you think that happened? (Interestingly, it is now dangerous for these sheep to feed on regular grass, as they take up too much copper which is toxic.)

[Einstein]

19 minutes ago, DrW said:

 

Sorry, for me it is just the other way around. There is neither a part of a cell nor a biochemical reaction in an organism that could not have generated by evolution. One factor adherents to intelligent design generally overlook is time. Nature had millions of years of testing what works and (much more frequently) what does not work. And please do not tell me that you believe the World was created just about 4000 BC. There is NO scientific fact supporting this notion.

 

But let's go back to evolution vs intelligent design. I am a biochemist working on an enzyme called ATP synthase. It converts electrochemical energy stored in a proton gradient (imagine the water behind the Hoover dam that would like to escape the dam) into chemical energy in form of a molecule called ATP (imagine gas for your car). For a long time, it was not known how the enzyme would do that - the intermediate is mechanical energy. The protons flowing down the gradient (i.e. the water down the Hoover dam) powers the rotation of a part of the enzyme (like a turbine) which then allows the synthesis of ATP (the generation of gas). 

 

As you can see, the mechanism of the enzyme is pretty complicated. In fact, Ken Ham's "Answers in Genesis" gives it as example of intelligent design, as there seemed to be no precedent of an enzyme where a part of it rotates to facilitate a chemical reaction on the other protein subunits surrounding the central protein in ring-like fashion. Well, it turns out that there are much simpler enzymes using the same basic mechanism. DNA helicases unwind DNA that occupies the center of the protein ring; some protein transporters use the center of the ring for substrate transport. Thus, evolution could have easily taken these simpler proteins as precursors to ATP synthase.  

 

A much more recent example. There is a breed of sheep on one of the British Orkney Islands that had been confined to an area close to the sea for a number of decades. They "learned" to live on seaweed as main food source. Seaweed is very low on copper, an essential mineral. Thus, their digestive system had to adapt to extract copper more efficiently. How do you think that happened? (Interestingly, it is now dangerous for these sheep to feed on regular grass, as they take up too much copper which is toxic.)

 

 

You bring up ATP synthase and its c-ring as a paradigm for the evolutionary argument versus intelligent design. However, the contention that this molecular machinery unequivocally substantiates evolution remains a zero-sum argument:

 

1. Proponents of intelligent design posit that such an intricately precise mechanism necessitates an intelligent creator, invoking the concept of irreducible complexity to argue that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler predecessors.
   
2. Conversely, those who advocate for evolution through natural selection assert that the gradualistic model of trial and error, coupled with immense temporal scales, suffices to account for the emergence of such complex biochemical systems.

 

But the debate is ultimately philosophical rather than empirical. Both perspectives are anchored in fundamentally different epistemological frameworks. The evolutionary paradigm relies on an iterative process of mutation, selection, and genetic drift over geological timescales. Yet, it does not inherently disprove the notion of an intelligent designer. In fact, in ways it can give more evidence for one.

 

When I was studying for the MCAT I was absolutely amazed at the vast amount of information that the scientific community spouts as fact but is actually simply theory.

[DrW]

1 hour ago, Einstein said:

 

 

You bring up ATP synthase and its c-ring as a paradigm for the evolutionary argument versus intelligent design. However, the contention that this molecular machinery unequivocally substantiates evolution remains a zero-sum argument:

 

1. Proponents of intelligent design posit that such an intricately precise mechanism necessitates an intelligent creator, invoking the concept of irreducible complexity to argue that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler predecessors.
   
2. Conversely, those who advocate for evolution through natural selection assert that the gradualistic model of trial and error, coupled with immense temporal scales, suffices to account for the emergence of such complex biochemical systems.

 

But the debate is ultimately philosophical rather than empirical. Both perspectives are anchored in fundamentally different epistemological frameworks. The evolutionary paradigm relies on an iterative process of mutation, selection, and genetic drift over geological timescales. Yet, it does not inherently disprove the notion of an intelligent designer. In fact, in ways it can give more evidence for one.

 

When I was studying for the MCAT I was absolutely amazed at the vast amount of information that the scientific community spouts as fact but is actually simply theory.

 

Let me thank you for the detailed response to my post. And please forgive me - I will not respond to most of your points because whatever I say will not change your mind. Just an anecdote: When I was looking for a tenure-track assistant professor position 20 years ago, one of the possibilities was Baylor, possibly the largest Christian university in the country. I looked up their web site, and the first hit in my research area of biochemistry was a biology professor who taught microbiology lab. In his syllabus he clearly stated (I paraphrase here, because that was 20 years ago): To be successful in this class, you have to accept the principle of evolution. 

 

One thing that made me curious: Do you have examples of MCAT questions you found problematic?

Edited May 19 by DrW

[Beck Water]

9 hours ago, DrW said:

 

First, let me clarify a misunderstanding. I was serious and not mocking you when I thanked you for the detail; I truly appreciated it.

 

Second, see the bolded. How do you know about Butker's reasoning behind ignoring stay-at-home dads? Is it possible that he does not see being a stay-at-home dad as an appropriate role for a man?

 

I'm trying to stay out of a lot of this, but I think it's very possible Butker is an Opus Dei supernumerary.  I thought there were various tells - the focus on vocation (Opus Dei is about finding sanctity through an ordinary life of work), the criticism of parishes and parish priests (Opus Dei have their own priests who are regarded as superior), the strong preference for mass in Latin.  Opus Dei is a secretive organization, and supernumeraries can not disclose their membership without permission from a superior or discuss their actual beliefs, but fundamentally it seems any changes to the church from the '50s on are anathema. In America (dunno about elsewhere) they seem to align quite a bit from fundamentalist evangelical Christian beliefs and to have similar goals for promoting legislation and influencing public policy.

 

Formally Opus Dei is "committed to the equal dignity of men and women", and female numeraries and supernumeraries have careers.  BUT, care for the family and the home are regarded as "eminently feminine" - for example, there's a category of "assistant numeraries" who clean and care for Opus Dei centers, and they are all women.  Opus Dei was founded in Spain in 1928 and steeped in the social attitudes of that time and place.  The founder, Escriva, wrote, "Wives, you should ask yourself whether you are not forgetting a little about your appearance. Your duty is, and will always be, to take as good care of your appearance as you did before you were married—and it is a duty of justice." Escriva similarly stated that "Women needn’t be scholars—it’s enough for them to be prudent." 

 

Anyway, if I'm reading the tea leaves correctly, no, Butker would probably not see being a stay-at-home dad as an appropriate role for a man.

Edited May 19 by Beck Water

[DrW]

13 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

 

You bring up ATP synthase and its c-ring as a paradigm for the evolutionary argument versus intelligent design. However, the contention that this molecular machinery unequivocally substantiates evolution remains a zero-sum argument:

 

1. Proponents of intelligent design posit that such an intricately precise mechanism necessitates an intelligent creator, invoking the concept of irreducible complexity to argue that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler predecessors.
   
2. Conversely, those who advocate for evolution through natural selection assert that the gradualistic model of trial and error, coupled with immense temporal scales, suffices to account for the emergence of such complex biochemical systems.

 

 

 

I had really intended to stop responding to "intelligent design" viewpoints, as this discussion is mostly useless. However, can you please explain to me how you see this as a "zero-sum argument"? Solution 2 just requires time, of which there was plenty. Solution 1 needs an "intelligent creator". Don't you see how this complicates everything? Did he/she organize everything as it is today from the beginning, or are they still working on it today?

Going back to my example of the Orkney sheep. Had they always been designed to live on seaweed and they just had to be brought into the right environment? Otherwise, how did their digestive system adapt? 

And please do not tell me that you accept evolution as response to immediate environmental changes (the Orkney sheep, adapting in a few decades), but reject it as a long-term solution.   

Edited May 19 by DrW

[GunnerBill]

7 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

My point was that a Christian disbelieving the Bible as God's Word is as contradictory as an atheist believing in God.

It's antithetical. It makes no sense. This is not a religious argument, it is a logical argument.

Without the Bible, how does one know who Christ is? Without knowing who Christ is, how does one believe in him? The Bible is the foundational text that reveals the teachings, life, and divinity of Christ. Rejecting the Bible undermines the very basis of Christian faith and doctrine.

Of course one claim to be a Christian while also rejecting the Bible - however it would be as inane as someone claiming to be an atheist while also believing in God. It simply would make no logical sense.

 

I am not saying any Christian rejects the bible. But there are Christian denominations who accept that some of the books of the bible are social doctorine of their time not ultimate articles of faith. It doesn't mean that they reject those elements. It just means they interpret them through that lens. 

[GunnerBill]

6 hours ago, thenorthremembers said:

Pascals wager.  The good news is if you're right than I go to sleep and never know pain again.  If I am right then eternity is going to be very painful for non-believers.

 

I appreciate your dedication to your beliefs.  But, I've always found it baffling to try and comprehend why intelligent people, who know how a body works, who know that a mother can make milk specifically designed for a baby directly after birth, or to heal a sick child can't at the very least fathom intelligent design.

 

That said, I am sure you could come back with a million things as to why the idea of Christiantiy is baffling to you as well.

 

All the best to you brother.  Hoping for many happy days ahead for you.  At least we can agree on Go Bills!

 

Oh it is more than baffling to me it is totally illogical. 

 

But honestly my point isn't to denegrate anyone's faith. I respect totally anyone's belief.

 

My fundamental point is there is no Biblical support for Butker's assertion that homosexuality is a "deadly" sin. And to be honest it is the word deadly I have a particular issue with. Because in a world where people are still being murdered for being gay in many countries (and before anyone says "ah yes but just Muslim countries" think again) I think the use of the word deadly in the waffle he was spouting has pretty dark undertones. If he'd just said sin I'd still think he was wrong, but it would be less triggering. 

[Bob Jones]

One thing that was very interesting to me was the NFL's need to come out with a (puzzling) response for this.

 

First off, is there EVER a time when a player speaks on behalf of the NFL? Or for that matter, even on behalf of their respective teams? I don’t think so, although maybe somebody can correct me. Both the NFL and all teams have PR departments that speak for them. My belief is that players ALWAYS  speak just for themselves.

 

Secondly, the NFL made a point to say that they are "inclusive" to everybody. My reading of Butker's speech sees nothing that says certain people shouldn't be NFL fans, or NFL refs, or NFL/team employees. The main complaint was that he wants women to be "barefoot and pregnant, and in the kitchen." I'm pretty sure that even if the latter accusation was true (it's not), he'd still want them to be NFL fans, and watch games on Sundays, Mondays, Thursday, Saturdays, and Christmas, or buy NFL gear. LOL  Also, you can opine that transgenderism is wrong and is a mental illness, but that doesn’t mean you dislike those folks, or that you don't want them to be fans.

 

Finally, the biggest criticism of the NFL was that were very quick to respond to this while they stay silent on many other  cases where their players are doing things FAR WORSE than what Butker did. IMO, that criticism is justly deserved.

[GunnerBill]

37 minutes ago, Bob Jones said:

Also, you can opine that transgenderism is wrong and is a mental illness, but that doesn’t mean you dislike those folks, or that you don't want them to be fans.

 

 

How do you know he was just talking about transgenderism? Pride represents all LGBT people and he said it was a deadly sin. People wanting to defend him immediately jump to transgender because that is where there are more difficult societal issues to grapple with in relation to a conflict of rights. It is harder to defend if you accept he was on about all groups represented through Pride.

[Dr. Who]

37 minutes ago, Bob Jones said:

One thing that was very interesting to me was the NFL's need to come out with a (puzzling) response for this.

 

First off, is there EVER a time when a player speaks on behalf of the NFL? Or for that matter, even on behalf of their respective teams? I don’t think so, although maybe somebody can correct me. Both the NFL and all teams have PR departments that speak for them. My belief is that players ALWAYS  speak just for themselves.

 

Secondly, the NFL made a point to say that they are "inclusive" to everybody. My reading of Butker's speech sees nothing that says certain people shouldn't be NFL fans, or NFL refs, or NFL/team employees. The main complaint was that he wants women to be "barefoot and pregnant, and in the kitchen." I'm pretty sure that even if the latter accusation was true (it's not), he'd still want them to be NFL fans, and watch games on Sundays, Mondays, Thursday, Saturdays, and Christmas, or buy NFL gear. LOL  Also, you can opine that transgenderism is wrong and is a mental illness, but that doesn’t mean you dislike those folks, or that you don't want them to be fans.

 

Finally, the biggest criticism of the NFL was that were very quick to respond to this while they stay silent on many other  cases where their players are doing things FAR WORSE than what Butker did. IMO, that criticism is justly deserved.

The NFL like the rest of the corporate world is very much driven by fear of offending those who hold dominant power in the political bureaucratic class, academe, Hollywood, the fourth estate, and social media. If you are marginal to that power, you are subject to ostracization and canceling. Inside, it's a free pass on misdemeanors and often felonies. 

 

That's why they fawn upon ideological attachments that much of their viewership disagrees with. They don't care. The brand is not a function of moral courage, but craven obeisance to idols of the day. 

[oldmanfan]

43 minutes ago, Bob Jones said:

One thing that was very interesting to me was the NFL's need to come out with a (puzzling) response for this.

 

First off, is there EVER a time when a player speaks on behalf of the NFL? Or for that matter, even on behalf of their respective teams? I don’t think so, although maybe somebody can correct me. Both the NFL and all teams have PR departments that speak for them. My belief is that players ALWAYS  speak just for themselves.

 

Secondly, the NFL made a point to say that they are "inclusive" to everybody. My reading of Butker's speech sees nothing that says certain people shouldn't be NFL fans, or NFL refs, or NFL/team employees. The main complaint was that he wants women to be "barefoot and pregnant, and in the kitchen." I'm pretty sure that even if the latter accusation was true (it's not), he'd still want them to be NFL fans, and watch games on Sundays, Mondays, Thursday, Saturdays, and Christmas, or buy NFL gear. LOL  Also, you can opine that transgenderism is wrong and is a mental illness, but that doesn’t mean you dislike those folks, or that you don't want them to be fans.

 

Finally, the biggest criticism of the NFL was that were very quick to respond to this while they stay silent on many other  cases where their players are doing things FAR WORSE than what Butker did. IMO, that criticism is justly deserved.

He has the right to say what he wants.  I and apparently many others have the right to disagree and express that.  So why are you and others continue to suggest I should just accept his views?  As for the NFL, he is an employee of one of their teams, and the league wants to assure fans who do not agree with his views that he does not speak for the league as a whole.

[Dr. Who]

7 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Oh it is more than baffling to me it is totally illogical. 

 

But honestly my point isn't to denegrate anyone's faith. I respect totally anyone's belief.

 

My fundamental point is there is no Biblical support for Butker's assertion that homosexuality is a "deadly" sin. And to be honest it is the word deadly I have a particular issue with. Because in a world where people are still being murdered for being gay in many countries (and before anyone says "ah yes but just Muslim countries" think again) I think the use of the word deadly in the waffle he was spouting has pretty dark undertones. If he'd just said sin I'd still think he was wrong, but it would be less triggering. 

I'm not here to defend every aspect of the fella's speech. I think he could have been more careful in his speech, and I say that as someone who is largely sympathetic to traditional Catholic beliefs. Technically, all sin is "deadly" in the sense that it is alienation from the source of Being. And no one properly understands the command to avoid sin as somehow facilitating heinous sins like murdering folk because of their sexual proclivities. 

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

I'm not here to defend every aspect of the fella's speech. I think he could have been more careful in his speech, and I say that as someone who is largely sympathetic to traditional Catholic beliefs. Technically, all sin is "deadly" in the sense that it is alienation from the source of Being. And no one properly understands the command to avoid sin as somehow facilitating heinous sins like murdering folk because of their sexual proclivities. 

 

Yea I don't buy that. Sorry. Unfortunately we live in an era of extremism and gay people are still being persecuted and indeed killed in many parts of our world by people with similar beliefs. I don't accept that sin exists. Or that it is deadly. Or that there is any biblical justification for him saying pride represents a deadly sin. Or that he needed to refer to it in that manner. He's an idiot. I don't think he should be thrown out of the league or anything. But I don't think there is a defence of his comments. 

[DrW]

17 minutes ago, Bob Jones said:

 

Finally, the biggest criticism of the NFL was that were very quick to respond to this while they stay silent on many other  cases where their players are doing things FAR WORSE than what Butker did. IMO, that criticism is justly deserved.

 

While I may not agree with their stance, for the NFL the two situations are different. In the "far worse" cases the player is accused of a crime or behavior generally condemned by society. Thus, there is no need for the NFL to confirm "We do not tolerate violence against women" or "Rape is a capital crime". However, in Butker's case there was the (admittedly, very remote) possiblity that the NFL would like women to stay home and serve their husbands wings, pizza and beer during a game. Thus, they had to state their point of view on this issue.

[Einstein]

9 hours ago, DrW said:

However, can you please explain to me how you see this as a "zero-sum argument"?

 

Well that's obvious. The characterization of this debate as a zero-sum argument arises from the fundamental lack of empirical evidence capable of definitively proving or disproving the existence of a creator. Within the realms of biology, chemistry, physics, and other scientific disciplines, no data irrefutably supports or negates the hypothesis of a creator. As a result, the discourse often devolves into a series of assertions and counter-assertions, where participants may resort to ad hominem attacks rather than substantive refutations.

 

In essence, both sides present compelling arguments based on their interpretive frameworks, yet neither can achieve conclusive validation or invalidation of their claims. This dynamic results in a stalemate, with the "scales" of the argument remaining balanced due to the inherent limitations in proving or disproving such a profound existential question through scientific means alone. Thus, the discussion exemplifies a zero-sum scenario, where the exchange of ideas does not lead to a decisive resolution but rather highlights the epistemological boundaries of the debate.

 

9 hours ago, DrW said:

Solution 2 just requires time, of which there was plenty.

 

Please note that I never wrote about creationism - the earth in 6 days, etc. I was speaking not of evolution vs tradiotonal creationism, but evolution set in motion by an intelligent creator vs evolution set in motion by 'it'. With it being the unknown that no-one can explain.
 

9 hours ago, DrW said:

Solution 1 needs an "intelligent creator". Don't you see how this complicates everything? 

This is no different than attempting to explain the origin of the big-bang. That is the most complicated question of all and a question that no-one in the history of mankind has ever been able to answer as it breaks the first of law of thermodynamics. Many will semantics their way out of this thought, waxing poetic about the pure definition of the law, but the fundamental problem remains the same - Something does not come from nothing. This question being unanswerable is the foundation of the zero-energy theory. Essentially, apply a precise manipulation of quantum fluctuations within a vacuum, and voilà, a new universe emerges - seemingly without the need for additional energy. Except... where did the vacuum come from and the force to create it? Which leads us back to...

 

In this context, considering evolution as a process set in motion by an intelligent creator offers a coherent explanatory framework. It posits that a creator established the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, providing the foundational conditions for life to evolve. This perspective does not contradict the vast body of scientific evidence supporting evolution but rather complements it by addressing the question of ultimate causation. Prominent figures in science have acknowledged the limits of scientific explanation regarding the origin of life and the universe. Albert Einstein once remarked, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."

 

Edited May 19 by Einstein

[DrW]

30 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Well that's obvious. The characterization of this debate as a zero-sum argument arises from the fundamental lack of empirical evidence capable of definitively proving or disproving the existence of a creator. Within the realms of biology, chemistry, physics, and other scientific disciplines, no data irrefutably supports or negates the hypothesis of a creator. As a result, the discourse often devolves into a series of assertions and counter-assertions, where participants may resort to ad hominem attacks rather than substantive refutations.

 

In essence, both sides present compelling arguments based on their interpretive frameworks, yet neither can achieve conclusive validation or invalidation of their claims. This dynamic results in a stalemate, with the "scales" of the argument remaining balanced due to the inherent limitations in proving or disproving such a profound existential question through scientific means alone. Thus, the discussion exemplifies a zero-sum scenario, where the exchange of ideas does not lead to a decisive resolution but rather highlights the epistemological boundaries of the debate.

 

 

Please note that I never wrote about creationism - the earth in 6 days, etc. I was speaking not of evolution vs tradiotonal creationism, but evolution set in motion by an intelligent creator vs evolution set in motion by 'it'. With it being the unknown that no-one can explain.
 

This is no different than attempting to explain the origin of the big-bang. That is the most complicated question of all and a question that no-one in the history of mankind has ever been able to answer as it breaks the first of law of thermodynamics. Many will semantics their way out of this thought, waxing poetic about the pure definition of the law, but the fundamental problem remains the same - Something does not come from nothing

 

In this context, considering evolution as a process set in motion by an intelligent creator offers a coherent explanatory framework. It posits that a creator established the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, providing the foundational conditions for life to evolve. This perspective does not contradict the vast body of scientific evidence supporting evolution but rather complements it by addressing the question of ultimate causation. Prominent figures in science have acknowledged the limits of scientific explanation regarding the origin of life and the universe. Albert Einstein once remarked, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."

 

 

I would suggest to return to Butker's speech.