Dan, you seriously need logic lessons. I said that only Berlinski wrote that sentence. Berlinski repeats it often to give himself some sort of strawman to attack, but only comes from Berlinski. Your conclusion that I believe that no biologists may believe it to be true is not discernable from the statement.

Some biologists may believe it to be true, but I can say with certainty that not all biologists believe it to be true. Some biologists don't believe in 'inevitability' when it comes to human affairs.

All your examples are either not necessarily singular events or they are rare convergences of relatively common events. In all cases they leave objective evidence behind.

" how many times did the non-living chemicals combine to form the self replicating cell, which in turn became the evolutionary ancestor of other life? "
Simple answer, we don't know yet, maybe many times. The microbes that formed the organelles may not necessarily have had the same ancestors, but that is yet to be determined. Perhaps multiple forms of life once existed and our ancestors ate them. Evolution happens a lot like that. One day we may know how common these types of events are, if we find life on other planets.

"How many times did a gigantic meteor crash into the earth causing the extinction of the dinosaurs?"

Gigantic meteors crashing to earth are a relatively regular event, and may have caused more than one mass extinction. The dinosaurs could only live once, but at least we know they existed, as they left a lot of evidence behind.

"How many times did Azaria Chamberlain allegedly disappear from her camp bed?"
While Azaria only disappeared once, she could only once. How many other babies have disappeared from their beds? Can we predict that other babies could disappear in the future?

It's all about evidence Dan.

A big difference between these other events is that Jesus' alleged feat is impossible to repeat and noone can perform such an act with ancient technology, that's what makes it a miracle.

Miracles Dan. Untouched and untouchable by science.

Dan wrote: “How many times did Jesus turn water into wine? Once, I believe. Who else could do it? No one, I suspect. St John described it as a ‘miraculous sign’, and the reason Jesus’ disciples put their faith in him.”

And of all the acts the alleged Jesus performed, all he could do were a few gimmicky things in front of a select few people.

Jesus had the chance to prove his godlike status by providing us with beneficial information about things such as electricity and important medical information such as: a bath every so often will prevent disease.

Instead, he confines himself to one tiny part of the world, lives a life almost identical to many messiahs before him, and effectively prolongs a primitive and savage mindset in mankind and stunts our progress by not only holding from us important medical information, but making things worse by blaming medical conditions on demonic possession.

This is often dodged by theists with the excuse that the people of Jesus’ time couldn’t understand advanced science or concepts that we can now understand, and aside from the fact that there’s nothing advanced about the idea of bathing regularly, what better way to prove you’re god than to record a complex scientific equation in scripture?

Oh, and Bugsy, Dan wanted you to say “yes” to his question so that he could then say that evolution therefore isn’t science. This despite the fact that he knows you meant that science can’t touch miracles simply because miracles, by their very definition, defy science. Very disingenuous.

Of course, you probably already knew this.

Dear Dan,
I did not “direct” you to the article I only thought you might be interested in a recent paper that raises some problems not with evolution theory as such but with some (naive to my mind) theist interpretations.

My creed, as expressed on this OLO a couple of times:

It is not true that religion and science are on a collision course.
It is not true that religion and science are mutually irrelevant.
It is true that some interpretations of religion and some interpretations of science are on a collision course.
It is true that "uninterpreted" religion and "uninterpreted" science are mutually irrelevant.

In othern worlds, scientific theories (evolution included) by their very nature cannot contradict a theist, especially Christian, outlook, unless either or both are interpreted with the purpose of finding a contradiction, i.e. unless science is seen as ersatz-religion and/or religion as ersatz-science (the latter having had some justification in the past, when no proper science existed).

The problems the article in Huffington post raises arise - in my opinion - from a naive understanding of the term “purpose” (in Creation) and confusing it with the term “design” as understood by science, and discernible by humans (scientists). There is purpose, and planning, in many things I do, but a three-year-old will not recognise it as such, unless I “revealed” it to him/her in a language appropriate to his level. The same with our Creator's mind: It is futile, to say the least, to expect that humans - scientists or not - should be able to discern (and fully understand) the mechanism of God’s creative activity. [Let me hasten to add, that I am aware that this paragraph does not make sense to an atheist.]

Dear, Oliver,

>>I am willing to apply the same methodology to some aspects of QM, as I do religion.<<

QM is easy to understand if you know enough mathematics, and there is no known experiment that would falsify it. It is the interpretations or philosophical implications of the physical theory that constitute a problem, what I kept on referring to as the quantum enigma. On the other hand, religion is a very broad concept, and I am not sure what could play the role of mathematics on which all religions would hinge, like physics hinges on mathematics. There is always the subjective, cultural factor, and many valid perspectives, (c.f. the metaphor of “elephant and the six blind men“).

Fact, in my dictionary, is a “thing that is indisputably the case”. This indisputability depends on those who do not see a need to dispute it. This is universally OK for everyday facts, and e.g. for centuries in Europe “the existence of God” was such a fact indisputable for the “man in the street”. However, in a more abstract (philosophical) context it is not such a straightforward concept. The same for “non-fact”. (ctd)

(ctd)
I am not sure who you think does “stay put, in one's home, and not trek the marketplace”: teher are narrow-minded people in all sorts of cultural environments.

Your McFadden quote could be seen as saying that we do not know what is reality on its own: we only know of physical phenomena (interaction of reality with our SENSES AND measuring devices), and we can form a mental image of physical reality only through physical models/theories (where the concepts of "atoms, electrons and photons” etc belong) hinging on mathematical models - or, if you like, written in the language of mathematics - (where concepts like Hilbert spaces, probability etc belong). To my understanding it is not clear whether the crucial concept of QM - wave-function - belongs to the first or second realm.

As you know, I see also the numinous (“supernatural” to Dawkins and his ilk) as being approachable by humans only through models based on narrative mythologies, sacred texts of this or that religion (with various degrees of historicity), theology or philosophy in the widest meaning of the word.

So in this sense I also draw inspiration from my understaning of physical reality to a wider context of human experience, except I would not call it "applying the same methodology" for reasons explained above.

Dear George,

You wrote: "This is universally OK for everyday facts, and e.g. for centuries in Europe “the existence of God” was such a fact indisputable for the “man in the street""

Doubt as to the existence of any supernatural has a long history. I doubt the accuracy of your above statement. A “man in the street" could doubt and could also be afraid to express doubts. The fate of those in the medieval era who challenged the 'verities' of religious belief was not always pleasant.

Protagoras in the fifth century BCE expressed doubts as to the existence of a supernatural. As a Greek philosopher of note his words have been recorded. Men and woman of less note have not had their words recorded, but that does not mean that they didn't have doubts. However, I think you have no right to claim what was an indisputable fact for the voiceless dead.

My words will fade away with my death, but I had doubts as to the existence of any deity at the age of 7. I am sure that I am not unique in that.