and let your faithful ones bless you.

Let them discourse of the glory of your kingdom

and speak of your might.

Making known to men your might

and the glorious splendor of your kingdom.

Your kingdom is a kingdom for all ages,

and your dominion endures through all generations.

May my mouth speak the praise of the LORD,

and may all flesh bless his holy name forever and ever.

<Your friends make known, O Lord, the glorious splendor of your kingdom.

That's precisely because this assumption is <not observable, not testable, not repeatable, and not proveable>.>

The theory of evolution doesn't care how the first life form arrived. We've been through this.

<So life from nonlife is <not observable, not testable, not repeatable, and not proveable>>

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and right. Any specific theory of how life developed from non-life is observable, testable, and repeatable. No scientific theory is provable, by definition. We've been through this.

<OCF>: <It's not a requirement, but every observation/interpretation is run though that assumption. I guess there's some nuance I'm missing there.>

It's not a nuance, but rather a conscious choice to explore speciation in-depth by tracing back how all existing forms of Life on earth are related <from where we are *now* > -- and have a common ancestor, as per Darwin's hypothesis. Just zooming in and go where-ever the "evidence" leads, or so one would expect...

Fortunately Darwin was very clear and frank-- Fossile record in the Cambrian stratum was a "mystery" (Sudden Appearance) to him, at the time of writing

'Origin of Species', Chapter X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record, On the sudden appearance of groups of allied species in the lowest known fossiliferous strata -->

"There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks."

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer."

However, I'm not angry now and I've just read your kind post above there.

Thanks for taking the time to explain.

A related point, and correct me if and where I'm wrong; --the assumption of there being a natural, ergo scientific- explanation and thus a developmental process causing life to "to <have> developed" from non-life, is as untestable and unprovable as the ID proponents' hypothesis that there *must* be some form of intelligent cause, to explain the sudden astronomical amount of influx of selective information data, which in turn should explain and account for "irreducable complexity" as found in eg the construction as observed in the bacterial flagellum.

Now we get into the realm or field of Philosophy of Science, and precise definitions are needed, as to what we deem to be Life, irreducable complexity... the lot.

“We will go up to the house of the LORD.”

And now we have set foot

within your gates, O Jerusalem.

Jerusalem, built as a city

with compact unity.

To it the tribes go up,

the tribes of the LORD.

According to the decree for Israel,

to give thanks to the name of the LORD.

In it are set up judgment seats,

seats for the house of David. (dissernement+++++++ +! is needed, stay in Him = Love)

<Let us go rejoicing to the house of the Lord.

I read this far and had formulated in my mind the response "I believe we're in the realm of philosophy now." which I admit and those who assume in life from nonlife won't admit. I'm not sure I agree with that description of ID but I recognize it is in the ballpark for sure. Anyway, I had meant to make that point about logic driving assumptions being an issue of philosophy earlier.

<Now we get into the realm or field of Philosophy of Science, and precise definitions are needed, as to what we deem to be Life, irreducable complexity... the lot.>

I'll correct it and offer a revision when I get the proper time.

<Nothing much has changed there in the past 150 years.> Some even argue that "the plot has thickened" in that regard. Those who do so are not considered Scientists by The Community. But there is friction and substantial movement in that regard.

PS- it was not my intention to offer a "description of ID" (passing by for the moment that I am not sure if that is even possible) - as irreducible complexity is only one of several arguments they put forward.

“I am the true vine, and my Father is the vine grower.

He takes away every branch in me that does not bear fruit,

and everyone that does he prunes so that it bears more fruit.

<You are already pruned because of the word that I spoke to you.>

<Remain 1> in me, as I <remain 2> in you.

Just as a branch cannot bear fruit on its own

unless it <remains 3> on the vine,

so neither can you unless you <remain 4> in me.

I am the vine, you are the branches.

Whoever <remains 5> in me and I in him will bear much fruit,

because without me you can do nothing.

Anyone who does not <remain 6> in me

will be thrown out like a branch and wither;

people will gather them and throw them into a fire

and they will be burned.

If you <remain 7> in me and my words <remain 8> in you,

ask for whatever you want and it will be done for you.

<By this is my Father glorified,

Difficult perhaps, but not impossible. There are very few environments that cannot now be simulated in the laboratory. The problem is that a clear mechanistic theory is still lacking (i.e., which specific conditions/chemicals should be tested), although the RNA world theory is starting to gain ground I believe.

<A related point, and correct me if and where I'm wrong; --the assumption of there being a natural, ergo scientific- explanation and thus a developmental process causing life to "to <have> developed" from non-life, is as untestable and unprovable as the ID proponents' hypothesis that there *must* be some form of intelligent cause, to explain the sudden astronomical amount of influx of selective information data, which in turn should explain and account for "irreducable complexity" as found in eg the construction as observed in the bacterial flagellum.>

Sure, the assumption that all phenomena have a natural explanation is essentially an axiom of science. You could argue that it is derived from Occam's razor, since invoking any supernatural explanation to explain the goings on of the natural world is undoubtedly less parsimonious than a purely natural explanation.

Now that's not to say that there aren't phenomena which:

(a) *cannot* be explained in this fashion (e.g., if God did magic life into existence, then no natural explanation will be able to account for this),

or

(b) appear to have a natural explanation because they were supernaturally created to look that way (e.g., God created the illusion - purposely or not - of past events, such as supernovae and transitional fossils, without these things ever having actually happened).

In the latter case, the natural explanation could not be rejected by any of the existing evidence, because it would all appear to be consistent with the theory.

As a creationist, I object to saying "God created the fossils, distant galaxies, etc., to look old when they aren't." We really do have to do better than that. As the Scripture says, God is not a man, that He should lie. It's OK to say we don't understand and can't explain why these things appear to be so old.

I go along with your exact reasoning, except that I would take time to review the cases in recent Biology of morphogenetical debates that date back to the early 1920s, and those which by definition demand of me to remain critical of the mainstream deductions included by neo darwinians and adaptational explorations and publications. (I'll name them if needed)

They have changed, in my presence...

"We're not defending <that> kind of Biology anymore", is often heard, and deep investigations have been conducted and arranged despite.

OCF: I read this far and had formulated in my mind the response "I believe we're in the realm of philosophy now." which I admit and those who assume in life from nonlife won't admit...>

Once again, you say <won't admit> as if we're being fearfully evasive about something. You could avoid having to backpedal if you would just ask *before* accusing.

Sure, I'll "admit" that it's "in the realm of philosophy". I'm not sure what significance you place on this however.

Basically, I agree with <achieve>'s comment. These two assumptions, (1) that there is a natural explanation and (2) that there is a divine explanation, may be deemed as two philosophical approaches to understanding this universe that we observe and the life within it.

The first is the philosophical approach used by science, while the second is the philosophical approach of religion. Frankly, I've made this *same* point multiple times myself. I'm perfectly happy with this "admission".

THE PROBLEM is that some on the divine philosophy side aren't happy with this arrangement. They want the natural-explanation philosophers to accept their divine-explanation philosophy. And they go as far accusing them of bias and dishonesty for refusing!

Why the divine-explanation philosophers do this is another matter...

~~~~~

IMO, it's because they are fearful. Their assumption of divine explanations doesn't leave much room for deeper understanding. They are limited to conflicting interpretations of their holy books.

Meanwhile, the science side has no such limitations (although their work is much harder). Over the centuries, they have deepened their understanding immensely. They have every reason to be pleased with the natural explanation philosophy.

Worse (from the religionist view), several of the views once held dearly as "obviously divine" (e.g. rainbows, lightning, geocentrism) have proven to have better natural explanations. Although the natural explanations have often faced religious opposition, those "obviously divine" views are now seen as "obviously natural" to most people -- even to most religious people.

As "obviously divine" views fall to natural explanations, many of the divine philosophers fear a decreasing sense of relevance. At a minimum, they fear having to admit that their earlier interpretations -- once forcefully defended to the point of attacking dissenters as liars -- were in fact wrong, and that their accusations were false. A deeply embarrassing position for those who represent the side of "divine intelligence".