WIthout the rest of this post I am not sure exactly what you are saying, Do you have a link?

******************************­******************************­*****

A good exercise for me -- how do I search? That thread was a coupe of weeks ago, top-posted by me, is there an elegeant way of finding it short of scrolling thru FB page by page ?????

But anyway -- my main point had been that the biggest problem posed by 'evolution' was that you could not get a 'cleanly defined' FIRST MAN AND FIRST WOMAN who would then commit the ORIGINAL SIN, and so cause evil, and thus necessitate Jesus Christ to sacrifice himself etc etc. If there is no 'first couple' andno definitiove 'first sin', then the reason for Christ's sacrifice and the whole notion of "born in evil and can only be redeemed through Christ" becomes far less compelling.

I can't speak to Mr. Ayala, but to hear something similar from someone who is not being coy at all about his religious beliefs, you could read this excerpt from Finding Darwin's God by avowed Catholic Kenneth Miller (the "avowed" is just a little joke - Miller recently referred to Dawins as "avowed atheist Richard Dawkins"). Here's a brief quote:

If we accept a lack of scientific explanation as proof for God's existence, simple logic would dictate that we would have to regard a successful scientific explanation as an argument against God. That's why creationist reasoning, ultimately, is much more dangerous to religion than to science. Elliot Meyerowitz's fine work on floral induction suddenly becomes a threat to the divine, even though common sense tells us it should be nothing of the sort. By arguing, as creationists do, that nature cannot be self-sufficient in the formation of new species, the creationists forge a logical link between the limits of natural processes to accomplish biological change and the existence of a designer (God). In other words, they show the proponents of atheism exactly how to disprove the existence of God - show that evolution works, and it's time to tear down the temple. This is an offer that the enemies of religion are all too happy to accept.

Putting it bluntly, the creationists have sought God in darkness. What we have not found and do not yet understand becomes their best - indeed their only - evidence for the divine. As a Christian, I find the flow of this logic particularly depressing. Not only does it teach us to fear the acquisition of knowledge (which might at any time disprove belief), but it suggests that God dwells only in the shadows of our understanding. I suggest that, if God is real, we should be able to find him somewhere else - in the bright light of human knowledge, spiritual and scientific.

And

Science in general, and evolutionary science in particular, gives us something quite different. It reveals a universe that is dynamic, flexible, and logically complete. It presents a vision of life that spreads across the planet with endless variety and intricate beauty. It suggests a world in which our material existence is not an impossible illusion propped up by magic, but the genuine article, a world in which things are exactly what they seem. A world in which we were formed, as the Creator once told us, from the dust of the earth itself.

It is often said that a Darwinian universe is one whose randomness cannot be reconciled with meaning. I disagree. A world truly without meaning would be one in which a deity pulled the string of every human puppet, indeed of every material particle. In such a world, physical and biological events would be carefully controlled, evil and suffering could be minimized, and the outcome of historical processes strictly regulated. All things would move toward the Creator's clear, distinct, established goals. Such control and predictability, however, comes at the price of independence. Always in control, such a Creator would deny his creatures any real opportunity to know and worship him - authentic love requires freedom, not manipulation. Such freedom is best supplied by the open contingency of evolution.

Looks like a plant to me.

Why?

But that makes God a Beethoven symphony but also a big pile of cowpattiy. The question then becomes, does this cowpatty care about humans?

******************************­******************************­*****

Now this is an altogether different q. Its one thing to wonder if there's a God (or generic 'Higher Being') so to speak -- its another to wonder if that Being "cares for humans" (and I assume the sub-text is "cares for humans MORE than he cares for any other living creature, or for that matter -- for rivers or mountains etc).

Frankly, if there is a God out there, I don't see why that God would care particularly for humans. We are, after all, one puny lifeform in one puny planet in one puny galaxy......rather insignificant, I'd say!

And that sounds like it might be a threat to some people's religion, so how does the Christian scientist who believes in evolution reconcile this with the Genesis story?

Is he a 'Christain scientist' as in a "literal-believer" type, or more a Christain a la Bishop Spock?

A better question is how does god interact with human? And there has to be some form of intellegence or conciousness involved with any god concept, in my opinion. A fresh cowpatty could be said interact with humans by releasing odorous compounds or by sticking to your boots if you step on it, but I believe this is all done in a very thoughtless manner. LoL

Nanotech:

Looks like a plant to me.

What kind of a plant does it look like?

piled up all the kegs of energy and lit the match, that is ancient history. What has he done for me lately?

To me, for God to be a reality there has to be some tie to Him in this physical world, else the concept becomes rather pointless.

does not say (in the article) what his religious belief is, unfortunately.

My question for him is that if Evolution proceeded without God's interference, and if evolution is still proceeding today, then what role is left for God to play?

and you are a fan of Dembski? LoL

What I outlined in my earlier post is a philosophical position, not a scientific one; what makes the idea of a watchmaker God who designs the universe but doesn't interfere in its function vacuous as a scientific idea is that it is more or less indistinguishable from materialism.

And no, I'm not a fan of Dembski. LOL.

way of thinking is to ask: when did we become god's creatures: when he intelligently designed us before the big bang along with all the exact calculations of the constants of nature needed to produce us and the world, or after billions of years when he was inventorying the Milky Way and just happened to notice these mildly amusing milk suckers which had evolved on the 3rd rock from Sun?

...he posits that God purposely leaves no mark on the universe. If He covertly interferes, it takes away human free will.

This is an interesting notion of finding a connection with a god-concept -- the degree to which it controls your existence, the chain of events that caused you to be, shows how much it cares. The god who merely sets off the big bang is no less responsible for your existence. Could even be an accident; and accidents can be loved too.

No, the argument going on here is not about what constitutes 'god's creatures.' If a god created all that is, you are that god's creature. The argument going on here, I think, is about taking offense at the idea of not being special. The language used -- 'intelligently designed', etc. vs. 'mildly amusing milk suckers' -- illustrates the point.