Although abiogenesis v biogenesis was not addressed in Darwin’s theory, it is readily apparent that the theory became the intellectual justification for men who abhorred God or the very idea of God. A quick scan of the atheist websites and their forums would confirm that is so.
And ironically, the most embittered opponents of the intelligent design movement (esp. atheists) claim a hidden agenda, i.e. that ID is the cover for getting creationism back into public schools.
The hidden agenda crossfire is a goose-gander situation with scientists caught in the middle.
If we ignore the agendas and try to weigh the theory of evolution on its own merits, then we are in betty boop’s ballpark on this thread. Thank you for your illuminating essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!
Of a truth, when one closely examines the mathematical models (Rosen and Shannon) required to understand living organisms in nature, it becomes very clear under Rosen that living things entail a final cause whereas non-living things do not and under Shannon that living things successfully communicate whereas non-living and dead things do not.
That’s strictly an objective assessment based on the math and is not anti-evolution. But final cause (temporal non-locality) is a poison pill to anyone relying on happenstance to deny God.
But one cannot say something is random in the system if he doesn't know what the system "is" and we do not know and cannot know the full number and type of dimensions that exist, massless particles that have no measurable effect, etc.
Moreover, order cannot rise out chaos in an unguided physical system. Period. There are always guides to the system. Cellular automata and self-organizing complexity have rules. Chaos theory has initial conditions, etc.
Which brings me to the insights of my dear brother in Christ, TXnMA!
As you truly said, TXnMA, few consider relativistic time.
I very strongly agree with Jewish Physicist Gerald Schroeder that when we consider relativity and the inflationary theory, that six (earth relative) days from the inception space/time coordinates are equal to approximately 15 billion years from our present space/time coordinates.
God was the Creator, the only observer of the creation and the author of the only account of it. So it does not surprise me at all the description would be relative to the inception space/time coordinates.
God the Father has revealed Himself in four ways: in the Person of Jesus Christ His only begotten Son, in the Person of the indwelling Holy Spirit, in Scripture and in His Creation both physical and spiritual. And His revelations do not contradict each other.
Man is not the measure of God.
God’s Name is I AM.
Well put as usual.
Absolutely! Final cause is a rebuke to those who hold the opinion that evolution is essentially a random development. Therefore, it must be denied — the only Aristotelian causal category denied/rejected by mainstream contemporary science.
"Temporal non-locality" does not fit into the Newtonian paradigm. In that framework, changes of state of a system in nature can be entailed (caused) only by a preceding local state. What Alex Williams has called "inversely-causal metainformation" is regarded as patently impossible, dismissed out of hand. In effect, his idea was that biological functions are in a certain way "pulled from the future," not produced in the past by means of random development, putting it very crudely. That is to say, biological function depends on the three causal categories of formal, material, and efficient causes, all of which are themselves entailed by the fourth category, final cause.
It was Francis Bacon who kicked final cause out of science. Today, an increasing number of serious thinkers are beginning to recognize that biology cannot be addressed without it. The mathematician/theoretical biologist Robert Rosen is one such.
Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your outstanding essay/post!