This is difficult question to answer because I have not made specifically this claim.
But Leolaia, you did write that you reject Creationism.
Your question is a response to my statement that I reject creationism as valid science.
But creation (of life) can't actually now be duplicated and isn't subject to scientific methods. How can you reject something that is impossible? It just is. Dead cells are dead cells and cannot be brought back to life by anyone except God. He is the only one that can do it. So how can you say that you reject creation(ism) and say this:
You know that I am an agnostic and that I have not said in strong terms that there is not a God, or that divine creative activity (however that is supposed to
be construed) was not involved in the origin and development of the universe.
So which is the part of Creationism that you reject then? Is it the part that includes a God who must judge you righteously? How can you in good conscience accept his "creative activity" and not his position as your Judge? Who gives you the authority to pick and choose what kind of God you would like to have create the universe. Should not the Creator also be YOUR Judge by virtue of his Creatorship?
My point, as it was in my prior post, is that the present explanatory adequacy of a given theory is not evidence at all that no scientific explanation could ever
eventually be formulated, or evidence that a non-scientific explanation is needed.
Who says God is non-scientific? That ridiculous. They're his laws. If you cannot find anyone who has brought someone back from the dead, does that mean it cannot be done ?; or that unknown laws exist that make this possible.
You don't seem to be in search of a scientific theory to account for the complexity of life per se , as much as you seem to be hoping that a secular scientific theory comes along that eliminates the judgment part of that explanation. Just my take.
Otherwise, why even pursue scientific research into the complexity of the Jovian atmosphere if we can simply say that God created it that way, and .... that's all that needs to be said.
Because if God created it, it must be worth looking into. It's like my two young boys....when I finish a project they can't wait to inspect it, to test it, to examine it. The same object just laying around is uninteresting to them.
It took centuries before scientists understand how and why lightning happens, but perhaps their lack of an explanation early on was evidence instead that lightning is simply a manifestation of God's power and lightning happens simply because God sends the lightning.
And Ben Franklin believed in God as did most of the great scientists and inventors in our history. You have it backwards. History doesn't match your worldview.
In other words, what is your plausible explanation (as you are the one affirming a positive claim) of the processes involved when God created that single cell, or each single cell if we also reject common descent? How were the atoms arranged and what chemical processes occurred when God built those subsystems in place? If God imparted his own power to the cell, describe how the energy transfer processes occurred chemically. Are any creationists working on this? Or is "God did it" sufficient as an explanation for you? Personal incredulity aside, why doesn't "nature did it" meet the same standard?
Leolaia,
God lives inside of me, dynamically. The God that you don't know, that "might" have initiated "creative activity", that is the one that I can tell you about and what he did in my life. That's the proof I have .... my testimony.
You are the one rejecting certain convenient parts of Creationism as science or knowledge while attempting to retain others. Please just answer straightforward: Why do you believe that Creation by a moral judging God is false as say opposed to some other intelligent designer?
You do not allow for the possibility that the present system as a product that is only the end-result of processes of development and integration.
Please provide one explanatory example of how interdependent systems in a cell can develop from nothing.
Of course this is unnecessary if you again envoke the spirit of "divine creative activity" ; in which case your naturalism is DOA.
You can't have it both ways without the theological question of judgment and morality the way I see it.
