Let's be honest

[Kingpin]

I disagree that it's a false claim because it's how the choice is framed and the differing levels of explanation.  Suppose I showed you a picture of a Model T and said the choices to explain it's existence are the laws of internal combustion/mechanical engineering or Henry Ford, please choose.  Or why is the water boiling?  You describe heat transference, excitement of atoms, etc.  I answer that because I'm making pasta.  They don't conflict, they are differing levels of explanation and are complimentary.

Easy questions.  Ford isn't even a factual explanation among the set of human innovators associated with ice.  Water doesn't boil because you're trying to make pasta.

But why did you ask, do these things seem ambiguous to you?  Do you think ice works because henry ford existed or water boils because you want noodles....?  Are these additional things, along with biology, that you draw the line on?

My point was the differing levels of explanation.  If you don't like the Henry Ford analogy, take Frank Whittle as the inventor/creator of the jet engine.  The point is Whittle does NOT compete with the laws and engineering steps to create the jet engine.  Both explain the existence. I would saw that the jet engine DOES require a person/mind to USE the laws to make it work. That's what inventing is. Using the world we have, the knowledge we've acquired to invent something new. Requires a mind.  One explains HOW/WHAT is happening, the other is WHY, but both satisfy the question regarding a jet engine.  

Same with water boiling.  Someone walks in to your kitchen and see a pot on the stove bubbling and asks you, "Why is the water boiling?"  Do you respond with a scientific answer like heat induction and water molecule excitement?  No.  It's boiling because I'm making pasta for dinner.  But that explanation is not contradictory to the scientific explanation to the question.  They are both correct.  I'm not drawing any lines in the sand, just that I see a lot of naturalist/materialist say that modern science has removed the need for God to explain anything and I disagree because of this differing level of explanation, one from agency.