Scientists speak out about evidence of Intelligent Design in nature..

[2PhiloVoid]

Starting from 3:16 she says:

However, Imari Walker points out that Assembly theory, (at the base of their Life theory), aims to tell us how the universe can design and construct itself, (with life being the best example of that physics).
So, as Assembly theory explains a self designing, self constructing universe, It would seem there is no role for Oberg's complex, primary cause 'creator of the cosmos'. Assembly theory is consistent with a low complexity, low entropy initial state of the universe.

Right. Being that she's Catholic, she likes to resort to the use of Aquinas' teaching, using Aristotelian principles of causation by which to explain how her engagement with science can be incorporated into her theological presentations TO THE CHURCH. I mean, that is what the Thomistic Institutes teaching is about. It's essentially for the Church. ......... I, as a Christian, just happen to appreciate various scientists of her caliber, and I can understand her form of Compatiblism, even if I don't adhere to it in exact "like" form----with full emphasis on the term, "LIKE."

By now, you should have gathered that I didn't present a quick, short video by Karin Oberg to somehow represent a fully orbed, comprehensive, or even state of the art explanation about abiogenesis, or anything else. But you keep treating what I post as if that is what I'm doing and have missed the most basic, simple point in my reference to Oberg.

Maybe stop doing that? Because after a while, I'll get suspicious that for all of the furor and stink you guys start raising about scientific orthodoxy, you're really here with an alterior motive and agenda. And I would like to think instead that, "No, 2PhiloVoid, they're just fellow human beings on the trek of life and learning who just merely woke up one day and decided to land on CF for the sake of friendly, objective discussion, not sabotage of the Christian worldview(s)."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Where'd you get that? Does it matter?

Yes. it most definitely matters. And where's I get it? Why do you ask? It's not as if I don't check the background of the people I all too briefly post pieces of .................................. Stop asking disrespectful questions as if you think I don't (or worse, "can't") do any basic assessment.

That's the rumor. Their best plan is to not say anything and hope those in the pews don't notice the problems. At least that's what they tried with us.

I don't think you pay attention to contexts in these matters. Probably because you don't care to.

I didn't know that since I looked up her papers on ADS (which happens to be at Harvard, and we're all on it) to see what her work was on. CfA? SAO? Dept. Astronomy?

Oh good grief. Being "with Harvard" (as you oddly put it) doesn't grant special privileges to avoid criticism for using your scientific credentials to promote theology.

I didn't say that being "with Harvard" grants special privileges. I also didnt' post a video with Oberg in it simply because I think it somehow represents "THE............ FINAL...............SUPREME..............ANSWER." It obviously doesn't, and I don't think it ever did. So, maybe stop acting like that's what I did and start being more respectful. Do you treat your students this way in class when you teach?

ID advocates (or at least those at DI) pretend that there motivations aren't theological, so they rarely talk so explicitly theologically. (Or at least they used to. The mask has been coming off for a few years.) I criticize them first and foremost for their lies about their motivations and purpose. Once that is done, they can get the same response that this video has gotten.

She's not an ID advocate. Do you know the conceptual difference in these things, Hans? I'm beginning to think that you're not only apathetic, but a bit lazy since you seem to refuse to take initiative to understand those things you don't care about.

Karin Öberg - BioLogos

Work like this gets what it deserves.

And your being on CF and mouthing off like you do doesn't ingratiate anyone here to see you has honest.

It is no competition for anything serious or scientific.

And you have a tendency to read into things meanings that aren't there. You also seem to think that when I post some video or article, it's meant to be taken as a final word rather than a point of departure for another line of thought or investigation. Maybe stop doing that.

 

[SelfSim]

Right. Being that she's Catholic, she likes to resort to the use of Aquinas' teaching, using Aristotelian principles of causation by which to explain how her engagement with science can be incorporated into her theological presentations TO THE CHURCH. I mean, that is what the Thomistic Institutes teaching is about. It's essentially for the Church. ......... I, as a Christian, just happen to appreciate various scientists of her caliber, and I can understand her form of Compatiblism, even if I don't adhere to it in exact "like" form----with full emphasis on the term, "LIKE."

By now, you should have gathered that I didn't present a quick, short video by Karin Oberg to somehow represent a fully orbed, comprehensive, or even state of the art explanation about abiogenesis, or anything else. But you keep treating what I post as if that is what I'm doing and have missed the most basic, simple point in my reference to Oberg.

Maybe stop doing that? Because after a while, I'll get suspicious that for all of the furor and stink you guys start raising about scientific orthodoxy, you're really here with an alterior motive and agenda. And I would like to think instead that, "No, 2PhiloVoid, they're just fellow human beings on the trek of life and learning who just merely woke up one day and decided to land on CF for the sake of friendly, objective discussion, not sabotage of the Christian worldview(s)."

So, I've looked back to see the context in which you dug up this video of Odberg's. My original point was about how well understood mainstream physical concepts are sometimes filtered through biblical beliefs (literal, etc) and what comes out of that rabbit hole is absolute gobbledegook arguments like the Hydroplate nonsense. There are some posters here at CFs, who resonate with the idea of perpetuating pseudoscience to justify their own personally held beliefs. Then the Odberg video pops up with a person who is about two hairs breadth away from exhibiting classic symptoms of her own form of cognitive dissonance.

Sooner or later, I'll predict that dissonance will surface by presenting itself as yet more pseudoscience, (if it hasn't already done so in her case).

The observationally based conclusion is that the counterintuitive nature of deep fundamental physics, does not sit well with intuitively held beliefs in a single mind attempting to think scientifically.

If you don't like what I have to say there, then so be it. There is however, plenty of objective evidence which supports my prediction.
The question then arises; how does one regard that evidence as it drives towards feelings akin to Odberg's own, apparent, impending psychological crisis?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So, I've looked back to see the context in which you dug up this video of Odberg's. My original point was about how well understood mainstream physical concepts are sometimes filtered through biblical beliefs (literal, etc) and what comes out of that rabbit hole is absolute gobbledegook arguments like the Hydroplate nonsense. There are some posters here at CFs, who resonate with the idea of perpetuating pseudoscience to justify their own personally held beliefs. Then the Odberg video pops up with a person who is about two hairs breadth away from exhibiting classic symptoms of her own form of cognitive dissonance.

Sooner or later, I'll predict that dissonance will surface by presenting itself as yet more pseudoscience, (if it hasn't already done so in her case).

The observationally based conclusion is that the counterintuitive nature of deep fundamental physics, does not sit well with intuitively held beliefs in a single mind attempting to think scientifically.

If you don't like what I have to say there, then so be it. There is however, plenty of objective evidence which supports my prediction.
The question then arises; how does one regard that evidence as it drives towards feelings akin to Odberg's own, apparent, impending psychological crisis?

It's not a matter of whether or not I like what you say, or whether or not I "like" what either Karin Oberg or Imari Walker say.

Somehow, you seem to think I'm on the same line of thought as some other individuals here. I'm not. They're doing their thing, whatever that is, and I'm doing my thing. I'm no fundamentalist and have never been.

 

[SelfSim]

It's not a matter of whether or not I like what you say, or whether or not I "like" what either Karin Oberg or Imari Walker say.

Somehow, you seem to think I'm on the same line of thought as some other individuals here. I'm not. They're doing their thing, whatever that is, and I'm doing my thing. I'm no fundamentalist and have never been.

Ok .. understood. I've only been adressing the products of what has been presented.

For my part in this, I can fully disclose that will not support, in any way, pseudoscience, nor its genesis in thought.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes. it most definitely matters.

Catholicism? Why does it matter? Obviously this wasn't YEC. You sated something about a particular Catholic philosophy way of dealing these things, which I think is a bad assumption to make. I've known lots of Catholics (and been one) and never have heard any talking about a phiilosophy to deal with science or origins or what ever you think this "Catholic philosophy" deals with that is relevant.

And where's I get it? Why do you ask? It's not as if I don't check the background of the people I all too briefly post pieces of .................................. Stop asking disrespectful questions as if you think I don't (or worse, "can't") do any basic assessment.

You posted a YouTube video. Most people post those after being fed them by the algorithm or a quick use of the YT search bar. There was no reason to think that this was anything other than some random video you came across and like. Perhaps you went searching for something like it. I don't know and it didn't seem to matter.

I don't think you pay attention to contexts in these matters. Probably because you don't care to.

I don't assume you are special in this regard. Perhaps it was the level of effort you put into your previous couple of replies.

I didn't say that being "with Harvard" grants special privileges.

No, you said it should get "respect". (It wasn't a statement to me, but to @SelfSim . )

She also works with Harvard. So, maybe have a little respect.

The only thing I care about for a scientists institutional affiliation or educational background is if the institution requires a statement of faith.

I also didnt' post a video with Oberg in it simply because I think it somehow represents "THE............ FINAL...............SUPREME..............ANSWER."

It was some semi-random YT video, not divine revelation.

It obviously doesn't, and I don't think it ever did. So, maybe stop acting like that's what I did and start being more respectful.

Overreact much?

Do you treat your students this way in class when you teach?

I don't remember, but I also dont' recall them trying to argue that I was wrong about Newton's laws of motion.

She's not an ID advocate. Do you know the conceptual difference in these things, Hans?

And I didn't say that. You said something about how she wasn't like IDists, and I commented on why I treat IDers dismissively. No where in that reply did I claim she was one of them. (Frankly, I don't know because all I know about her is the first 3/4 of this video and her ADS search results.) [ALSO: This is an ID thread, so even if anyone had mistaken her for an IDist, it would be at least understandable.]

I'm beginning to think that you're not only apathetic, but a bit lazy since you seem to refuse to take initiative to understand those things you don't care about.

I fail to see the point of yet another video featuring some scientist talking in front of an animated background for a couple minutes about legit science and then veering in to religion or a pseudoscience like ID. Now if she wanted to discuss how she didn't think science could explain planet formation, I'd take notice given that it is her field, but that's not what this was.

Karin Öberg - BioLogos

I'd gather that it was on that page that you learned she was catholic, but it still won't load on my computer.

And your being on CF and mouthing off like you do doesn't ingratiate anyone here to see you has honest.

You described the video as being like your view for many years and I did find it like some of your posts, sound if not exciting for a couple minutes and then shifting to theology which make we want to stop reading/watching quite quickly. If it is not related to the primary topic (ID) or the current side topic (hydroplate) or even the last side topic (MDR, which I'd not bother with anyway), why should I invest any time in it after it gets boring (theological)?

And you have a tendency to read into things meanings that aren't there. You also seem to think that when I post some video or article, it's meant to be taken as a final word rather than a point of departure for another line of thought or investigation. Maybe stop doing that.

Frankly, I'm in a dozen threads having about 20 conversations and I don't remember the full details of most of them. This thread has been mostly about hydroplates for the last week with nary a mention of the ID of the OP. I rarely assume any post is the "Final word" on anything (especially with some posters) unless someone is explicitly exiting the convo.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Catholicism? Why does it matter? Obviously this wasn't YEC. You sated something about a particular Catholic philosophy way of dealing these things, which I think is a bad assumption to make. I've known lots of Catholics (and been one) and never have heard any talking about a phiilosophy to deal with science or origins or what ever you think this "Catholic philosophy" deals with that is relevant.

Contexts ALWAYS matter, Hans. ALWAYS.

You posted a YouTube video. Most people post those after being fed them by the algorithm or a quick use of the YT search bar. There was no reason to think that this was anything other than some random video you came across and like. Perhaps you went searching for something like it. I don't know and it didn't seem to matter.

I don't assume you are special in this regard. Perhaps it was the level of effort you put into your previous couple of replies.


No, you said it should get "respect". (It wasn't a statement to me, but to @SelfSim . )



The only thing I care about for a scientists institutional affiliation or educational background is if the institution requires a statement of faith.


It was some semi-random YT video, not divine revelation.

I didn't say it was divine revelation. All I said is that my own views are "LIKE" what she offers. Of course, "like" doesn't imply "same" or "identical."

That's all I said. Now, here you are implying some tangential oddities in your own evaluation.

And no, the video was not a random video, or even a semi-random video. I'm had it referenced for quite some time.

Overreact much?

No. I'm all about reacting, wherever I deem it's needed.

I'd gather that it was on that page that you learned she was catholic, but it still won't load on my computer.

You described the video as being like your view for many years and I did find it like some of your posts, sound if not exciting for a couple minutes and then shifting to theology which make we want to stop reading/watching quite quickly. If it is not related to the primary topic (ID) or the current side topic (hydroplate) or even the last side topic (MDR, which I'd not bother with anyway), why should I invest any time in it after it gets boring (theological)?

Frankly, I'm in a dozen threads having about 20 conversations and I don't remember the full details of most of them. This thread has been mostly about hydroplates for the last week with nary a mention of the ID of the OP. I rarely assume any post is the "Final word" on anything (especially with some posters) unless someone is explicitly exiting the convo.

That's great.

 

[Hans Blaster]

And no, the video was not a random video, or even a semi-random video. I'm had it referenced for quite some time.

Almost 24 hours now.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No. I'm all about reacting, wherever I deem it's needed.

A reactionary, then? It seems to suit you, particularly when you get out your "angry avatar".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Almost 24 hours now.

No, I've had it referenced now for about 4 months. And I ran across Karin Oberg several years as I perused the BioLogos website, not that you're interested in any of that, or that you could get their website to work on your funky computer even if you had an interest.

Whatever the case is, very little of what I post is, for me, "something or someone brand new."

I will admit, however, that what I posted about Dr. Betul Kacar is brand new to me and I did randomly come across an article on her work last night.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No, I've had it referenced now for about 4 months.

I have no memory of any such posts o[n] her generally. This is a little odd, given that I am so fond of ALMA and its studies of proto-planetary disks.

And I ran across Karin Oberg several years as I perused the BioLogos website, not that you're interested in any of that, or that you could get their website to work on your funky computer even if you had an interest.

The only thing funky about my computer is that a couple keys seem to be not responding correctly all the time. If I drop a ltter in the rest of this post I'll not go back and fix it to illustrate. I'm not sure I would find anything of interest to induce a browsing at biologos anyway.

Whatever the case is, very little of what I post is, for me, "something or someone brand new."

It is a bit shocking when you reference anyone who is till alive.

I did bite the bullet and watch the whole econd half of the video and ouch. This is not going to go well for her. Citing non-natural causation for her own subfield. Even Tour wouldn't do that. Plus the incessant references to some ancient philosopher. Ugh.

I will admit, however, that what I posted about Dr. Betul Kacar is brand new to me and I did randomly come across an article on her work last night.

 

[SelfSim]

...
I did bite the bullet and watch the whole econd half of the video and ouch. This is not going to go well for her. Citing non-natural causation for her own subfield. Even Tour wouldn't do that. Plus the incessant references to some ancient philosopher. Ugh.

My feelings also. (I had to fight hard to keep my dinner in my stomach).

I honestly don't think I've experienced so many simultaneous alarms going off in my mind as I did on that one!

 

[dlamberth]

Wow.. Talk about attacking the messenger and not the message. The video is from a Thomas Aquinas website. I know that means absolutely nothing to some of you, but that's an important point to know. For many, there's no way to separate the spiritual from the physical world. Aquinas was one of those who worked in both the physical AND spiritual worlds and was able to tied them together. He is one of those beings I highly respect and am looking forward to watching more of the Aquinas videos. But I have a keen interest in how the Mystics of the various spiritual traditions "experience" their reality in life and what they have to say. I learn from them. 2PhiloVoid shared a window by way of a video that hints into his spiritual perspective of Life. That's good insight to know about him. From what I've seen, he has a healthy spiritual outlook on life around him. It's true and I fully agree that the video after a certain point is not empirical evidenced science as is the want in this sub-forum. But for myself anyway, I honor those who are able to find a place where they find compatibility between science and their religion. And 2PhiloVoid, from what I've seen, is one of those who is able to do that and even shared that about himself. That's pretty rare here in this forum, on both sides of the aisle.

 

[SelfSim]

Wow.. Talk about attacking the messenger and not the message. The video is from a Thomas Aquinas website. I know that means absolutely nothing to some of you, but that's an important point to know. For many, there's no way to separate the spiritual from the physical world. Aquinas was one of those who worked in both the physical AND spiritual worlds and was able to tied them together. He is one of those beings I highly respect and am looking forward to watching more of the Aquinas videos. But I have a keen interest in how the Mystics of the various spiritual traditions "experience" their reality in life and what they have to say. I learn from them.

So what exactly did you learn from Oberg's video?

2PhiloVoid shared a window by way of a video that hints into his spiritual perspective of Life. That's good insight to know about him. From what I've seen, he has a healthy spiritual outlook on life around him. It's true and I fully agree that the video after a certain point is not empirical evidenced science as is the want in this sub-forum. But for myself anyway, I honor those who are able to find a place where they find compatibility between science and their religion. And 2PhiloVoid, from what I've seen, is one of those who is able to do that and even shared that about himself. That's pretty rare here in this forum, on both sides of the aisle.

.. and yet we frequently see criticisms of @2PhiloVoid's postings in the Physical and Life Sciences forum, (I'll admit I'm one such critic).
The reasons given in those criticisms, usually have sound scientific bases.

The thing is, Philosophy and Science do intersect. Some philosophical thinking when teased out however, very quickly runs into conflict with science's objectively tested evidence (which constitutes science's Objective reality).. so at that point, one has to resolve that in some way. The easiest way I've found is to isolate the philosophically posited truth(s) which invariably are never required by science, because science does not rely on posited truths in its models under test. Other people go in the opposite direction and blindly move forward astounded that scientific thinking actually tosses out those preciously held, posited truths. When they are tossed out, what remains in some argument formed on them which simply crumbles apart .. enter the comedy of pseudoscience .. like Walt Brown's Hydroplating or the Electric Universe, etc. etc.

Compatibility is some kind of idealistic, utopic vision which plays no role in science's purpose of returning practical value.
Its a very tenuous, fence-sitting position ..

 

[Hans Blaster]

Wow.. Talk about attacking the messenger and not the message.

I wasn't going after the messenger (unless PV is think we were going after him) until I actually finished the video, heard the full message and saw how much the messenger was part of the problem. The message was standard "devine causation" stuff and the only difference between what she was talking about and having god press the Big Red [Big Bang] Button was a matter of scale. The first time I watched, I stopped when she started with the god talk and had only mentioned god making chemicals get together to start life. No need worry about the messenger, just another Christian letting God into a gap they(/we) don't fully understand.

But then I went back and watched the whole "Christian" part of it and it was bad. She was invoking divine action to make grains clump together in protoplanetary disks. This is *LITERALLY* her sub-field of study (something I looked up on ADS before replying to the first post about her ( Astrophysics Data System ). This is bad. She is invoking divine causation IN HER OWN SUBFIELD. It's really bad. Our friend who posted her video likes to call himself a "methodological naturalist", but given her own statements about divine causation in the area she studis, I must question whether she is. And if she's not, her whole scientific portfolio is in question. Believing scientists have been shoving gods and other supernatural causes into the spaces between bricks in the wall of science from the begining, no big deal. But doing it in your own speciality. Yowza. I wasn't looking to attack Dr. Karin Öberg for being a believer and a scientist, even after I stopped watching at the divine start of abiogenesis, but to do so in her own sub-field -- Not good.

The video is from a Thomas Aquinas website. I know that means absolutely nothing to some of you, but that's an important point to know.

I was a Catholic and as such he never came up in church or RE. I learned only a tiny bit about him being a midevil theologian in world history class in HS. I know nothing of his ideas, nor am I interested in them.

For many, there's no way to separate the spiritual from the physical world.

And yet, many have no problems doing so. I thought biologos was the place where believing scientists did just that. That seems to no longer be the case. The example from that group often pulled out is founder Francis Collins who stated emphatically that when I was doing science (genomics and genetics) he was a scientist and not a believer. As a scientist in training I was the same. I lost my faith around the time I took a job in the field. If you can't make that separation in your own work, then perhaps you are not up to the task.

Aquinas was one of those who worked in both the physical AND spiritual worlds and was able to tied them together.

Which is enough to sustain my disinterest in tomas aquinas. I dont find the "spiritual" to be even plausible.

He is one of those beings I highly respect and am looking forward to watching more of the Aquinas videos. But I have a keen interest in how the Mystics of the various spiritual traditions "experience" their reality in life and what they have to say. I learn from them. 2PhiloVoid shared a window by way of a video that hints into his spiritual perspective of Life. That's good insight to know about him. From what I've seen, he has a healthy spiritual outlook on life around him. It's true and I fully agree that the video after a certain point is not empirical evidenced science as is the want in this sub-forum. But for myself anyway, I honor those who are able to find a place where they find compatibility between science and their religion. And 2PhiloVoid, from what I've seen, is one of those who is able to do that and even shared that about himself. That's pretty rare here in this forum, on both sides of the aisle.

 

[SelfSim]

I wasn't going after the messenger (unless PV is think we were going after him) until I actually finished the video, heard the full message and saw how much the messenger was part of the problem. The message was standard "devine causation" stuff and the only difference between what she was talking about and having god press the Big Red [Big Bang] Button was a matter of scale. The first time I watched, I stopped when she started with the god talk and had only mentioned god making chemicals get together to start life. No need worry about the messenger, just another Christian letting God into a gap they(/we) don't fully understand.

But then I went back and watched the whole "Christian" part of it and it was bad. She was invoking divine action to make grains clump together in protoplanetary disks. This is *LITERALLY* her sub-field of study (something I looked up on ADS before replying to the first post about her ( Astrophysics Data System ). This is bad. She is invoking divine causation IN HER OWN SUBFIELD. It's really bad. Our friend who posted her video likes to call himself a "methodological naturalist", but given her own statements about divine causation in the area she studis, I must question whether she is. And if she's not, her whole scientific portfolio is in question. Believing scientists have been shoving gods and other supernatural causes into the spaces between bricks in the wall of science from the begining, no big deal. But doing it in your own speciality. Yowza. I wasn't looking to attack Dr. Karin Öberg for being a believer and a scientist, even after I stopped watching at the divine start of abiogenesis, but to do so in her own sub-field -- Not good.

I was a Catholic and as such he never came up in church or RE. I learned only a tiny bit about him being a midevil theologian in world history class in HS. I know nothing of his ideas, nor am I interested in them.

And yet, many have no problems doing so. I thought biologos was the place where believing scientists did just that. That seems to no longer be the case. The example from that group often pulled out is founder Francis Collins who stated emphatically that when I was doing science (genomics and genetics) he was a scientist and not a believer. As a scientist in training I was the same. I lost my faith around the time I took a job in the field. If you can't make that separation in your own work, then perhaps you are not up to the task.



Which is enough to sustain my disinterest in tomas aquinas. I dont find the "spiritual" to be even plausible.

I notice that her video was funded by the Templeton Foundation .. which, (you may recall), I queried couple of weeks ago on the topic of the history of Autocatalysis research:

'This video was made possible through the support of grant #61944 from the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation'.

I'm not quite sure what to make of that .. maybe nothing(?)

ETA: I'll upload a screenshot of the Research Grant:

Here's the Templeton backgound to the Grant Category (Public Engagement):

 

[dlamberth]

Compatibility is some kind of idealistic, utopic vision which plays no role in science's purpose of returning practical value.
Its a very tenuous, fence-sitting position ..

I know your position. But that's not necessarily shared by others and diffidently not my me. I know that, for example, in my life being aware of the spiritual within life has added to the window that science has opened into this universe. I'm in no way alone in that. I'm not understanding the comment about the "fence-sitting position" part of finding a place where science and ones religions are compatible. That makes no sense to me. Because I experience it as a holistic perspective on life, there's no fence-sitting about it. Is that "utopic"? I don't think so. I see it simply as an aspect of being a Human Being.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I notice that her video was funded by the Templeton Foundation .. which, (you may recall), I queried couple of weeks ago on the topic of the history of Autocatalysis research:

'This video was made possible through the support of grant #61944 from the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation'.

I'm not quite sure what to make of that .. maybe nothing(?)

Ugh, not Templeton again.

 

[SelfSim]

Ugh, not Templeton again.

See my above Edits for the details.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have no memory of any such posts o[n] her generally. This is a little odd, given that I am so fond of ALMA and its studies of proto-planetary disks.

I meant that I held it as a reference for .... myself. It doesn't mean I had yet presented it to anyone.

The only thing funky about my computer is that a couple keys seem to be not responding correctly all the time. If I drop a ltter in the rest of this post I'll not go back and fix it to illustrate. I'm not sure I would find anything of interest to induce a browsing at biologos anyway.

Probably not.

It is a bit shocking when you reference anyone who is till alive.

Very funny.

I did bite the bullet and watch the whole econd half of the video and ouch. This is not going to go well for her. Citing non-natural causation for her own subfield. Even Tour wouldn't do that. Plus the incessant references to some ancient philosopher. Ugh.

As I explained earlier, Oberg wasn't citing anything FOR her own subfield. The specific video I presented was a Catholic video, and instead of becoming informed by it, you read into it things I wasn't intending. I should have given you my Carl Sagan video instead; maybe you would have gotten the gist of what I was attempting to communicate but for which it appears my earlier effort was a complete dud.

But oh well.