Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Burden of Proof: Why Most American Evangelicals Reject Long-Earth Evolution
ReligiousLiberty.TV ^ | 05/11/2012 | Michael D. Peabody

Posted on 05/11/2012 10:56:54 AM PDT by ReligiousLibertyTV

[dc]O[/dc]n May 14, noted philanthropist and neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson is scheduled to give the commencement address at Emory University and receive an honorary degree. But there is a problem. In recent weeks Emory faculty and students have asked the University to disinvite Dr. Carson because he is a critic of evolutionary theory and advocate of creationism. Faculty and staff have written that Dr. Carson’s “great achievements in medicine allow him to be viewed as someone who ‘understands science’” poses a direct threat to science that “rests squarely on the shoulders of evolution.”

The anti-Carson letter describes how there is “overwhelming” evidence of “ape-human transitional fossils” and how this evolution process has advanced an ability to develop animal models for disease and that even “the work of Dr. Carson himself is based on scientific advances fostered by an understanding of evolution.” The letter then argues that “the theory of evolution is as strongly supported as the theory of gravity and the theory that infectious diseases are caused by micro-organisms.”

In 2010, Gallup released a poll that found that 40% of Americans believe in strict creationism, the idea that humans were created by God in their present form within the past 10,000 years. Thirty-eight percent believe that God guided the process of human evolution from lower life forms over millions of years , and only 16% believe that humans evolved without divine intervention. Sixty percent of those who attend church weekly believe that we were created less than 10,000 years ago. Gallup notes that the numbers have remained generally stable for the past 28 years.

That the number of adherents of creationism remains so strong, even though Charles Darwin’s book, “On the Origin of Species” has been around since 1859 and has been taught in most public schools since the 1960s, is a testament to the persistent strength of American religious belief and faith over contradictory concepts.

Earlier this week, Forbes magazine staff writer Alex Knapp wrote an essay entitled, “Why Some Christians Reject Evolution,” arguing that many Christians reject evolutionary theory because it conflicts with the Protestant view of the doctrines of original sin and salvation.

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="347" caption="Photo credit - iStockPhoto.com"]Earth - IStockPhoto[/caption]

Perhaps the only way to explain how evolved human beings would end up with a soul is expressed in the hybrid evolution-creation concept advanced by Pope Pius XII in the encyclical Humani generis (1950). Pius XII writes, "For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.”

In Catholic thought, this has been interpreted to provide room for the concept that human beings were created over millions of years through evolution, and that God ultimately provided pre-existing, pre-created souls to those He designated and that these souls reconnect to God through practicing the sacraments.

In contrast, American evangelicals tend to view Adam and Eve as actual living people, who were literally created by God as clay forms into which God breathed the breath of life. There was no death before the fall of humanity. The time frames are important because they rely on the Biblical chronologies Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-28 to prove that Jesus was in the prophetically-designated ancestral line of David, and draw the genealogical line all the way back to Adam, the first created human being.

Many evangelicals reject the hybrid view of creation and evolution because it would necessarily require them to regard creation, as discussed in the books of Genesis and of a new earth in Revelation, as allegory and submit the pervasive teachings of the Bible referencing Creation and other supernatural activity to the realm of mythology or cultural contextualism. Acceptance of “scientific” views of evolution would then, by necessity, require a major reconfiguration of matters of faith – and that is something that most adherents to strict creationism are unwilling to do.

Knapp, whose own religious beliefs are not indicated, notes that while some churches have found ways to incorporate the idea of change over time into their belief systems, “for many Christians, evolution isn’t a minor fact of science that can be resolved into the mythos of their faith. It is, rather, a fundamental attack on their faith and many things that they believe.”

There have been a number of heated arguments on the campuses of a diverse array of religious universities regarding how issues of origins should be taught. Some have tried to walk the middle line of teaching “intelligent design” as an alternative to creationism and evolution. Critics of those teaching intelligent design point out that trying to split the issue down the middle does no favors to either side and in the end is nothing but a weakened form of creationism, and an explanation that is of no value to secular science.

Within the larger context of American Protestant Christianity the debate continues without resolution. Among Christians, creationists are often asked to consider various forms of evidence of a long-history of the earth, but those advocating for a long-earth have largely ignored discussion of the genealogies of the New Testament and the concepts of original sin and salvation. Christian evolutionists have failed to provide a verse-by-verse rebuttal to the Biblical Creation narrative or to acknowledge the extent to which acceptance of creation would impact theology.

Instead theistic evolutionists operate on the supposition that Creationists will eventually bifurcate their religious beliefs from scientific understanding, because incompatibilities must be resolved in favor of science. This places faith directly in conflict with science and any resultant battle on these issues will take centuries if true academic freedom is to be granted, but can resolve faster if the voices of religious dissent are silenced and those who have openly criticized evolution are denied a seat at the academic table.

The attempt to “purify” academia by silencing the voices of critics such as Dr. Carson would be the first step toward a secular Dark Ages. So far, it appears that despite the controversy, Emory University’s commencement ceremony will go forward as planned.

###

In response to the controversy at Emory, as of this writing nearly 2,000 people have signed a Petition to reaffirm “Dr. Ben Carson’s Welcome and Defend His Right to Express His Views.” Click here to view the Petition.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Evangelical Christian; Religion & Science
KEYWORDS: academicfreedom; creationism; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-278 next last
To: 1010RD; annalex
1010RD: "I’ve often heard Drosophila flies used to foil the Theory of Evolution.
The argument goes that experimenters cannot genetically alter them through natural selection or even gene manipulation into a new species.
Is that correct?"

No.
The Drosophila fly (aka "common fruit fly") is often cited as a good example of evolution "caught in the act".
It breeds quickly and mutates readily, so evolution can be seen happening in a lab.

To which people like annalex have two main responses, as we've seen repeated here:

  1. Evolution doesn't count if it happens in small critters -- you need elephants producing manatees before evolution is "proved".

  2. It's not really evolution until it produces some "distinct" new species -- if you could make a fruit fly produce a zebra in a lab, then that might prove evolution.

Of course, much depends on our definition of the word "species".
Annalex insists that a "species" has to be "distinct", not just one sub-species that no longer wants to mate with another.
How distinct?
Well, in annalex's mind, monkey's and zebras are "distinct", but zebras and horses?
No real answer from annalex.

Scientifically speaking, annalex is out in looney-tune land.
Scientific definitions of terms like "sub-species", "species" and "genera" are set at degrees of differences and difficulty in interbreeding.
And so, by definition, two different sub-species of, let's say these common fruit flies, will become different species when they no longer interbreed.
Can this, has this ever been done in a lab?
I don't know, but what we do know is nature takes thousands-to-millions of generations of evolution to form truly "distinct" species, and that's asking a lot of even the most reproductively busy little fruit flies in a lab.

But some evolution -- so-called "micro-evolution" -- certainly has been reproduced in a lab, indeed is routinely produced for agricultural purposes and some of that "micro-evolution" even pushes into the "species boundary" where different sub-species no longer interbreed.

But none of it can possibly satisfy annalex -- nothing short of turning zebras into monkeys will do the job of providing "proof" of evolution theory in annalex's mind.
No number of "intermediate" fossils will do it, no counting of DNA alleles can matter, until you actually see monkeys coming out of zebras, in annalex's mind "evolution" is all just "voodoo" and "cult".

Some people are just harder to please than others... ;-)

201 posted on 06/12/2012 2:47:26 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
papertyger: "Global Warming = Evolution 2.0"

Of course, I'm certain you agree with me that "global warming" is not a scientific hypothesis, nor a scientific theory.
Global warming is an easily demonstrated fact which you can test yourself most any day by first measuring the outside temperature at 6:00 AM, and then again at noon, to see if any "global warming" has occurred.
Do not be surprised if your measurements tell you it did. ;-)

Likewise evolution in its most basic form is neither hypothesis nor theory, it's a fact of life -- descent with modifications and natural selection can be easily observed and confirmed.

Nor is longer-term "global warming" in dispute, since geological evidence clearly shows the globe was in deep ice age as recently as 12,000 years ago, and endured a "little ice age" from 500 to 150 years ago.
And, current temperature measurements do show a slight increase in recent years.

Likewise, the theory of long-term evolution is confirmed by mountains of evidence, from fossils to the geological record, to radiometric datings to biological studies and DNA analysis.
The evidence is overwhelming, but some people insist it does not "prove" evolution, though they often refuse to say just what it might "prove".

Where "global warming" and indeed where science in general gets into trouble is when it mixes with politics and get's on somebody's agenda for ever-expanding government power over virtually everything.
Now "global warming" is hugely exaggerated and then used to justify new taxes, new regulations and less individual freedom.
That's where we have to cry "baloney".
It's where we have to insist on more objective data from less politicized scientists.

By contrast, evolution theory has not suffered the same fate as global warming.
For one thing, the theory itself is over 150 years old, and did not originate from the need for scientists to justify more government research grants.

For another, evolution theory is not being used today (so far as I can tell) to justify the growth of government power.
Evolution is still just a scientific theory which explains better than any other scientific ideas how life descended from common ancestors over many millions of years.
And evolution itself does not deny the Hand of God operating to create "descent with modifications" or "natural selection" of the best features.

Ironically, even allegedly man-made global warming, should it eventually prove true, may well be a good thing, since studies suggest we are now past-due on the next major ice-age, and the longer global warming can delay that, the better off will most life on earth be, especially ours. ;-)

202 posted on 06/12/2012 3:42:09 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

In 116 I posted a brief description of the scientific objections to the hypothesis of evolution. In 120 I explained it to you in sufficient precision. In 130 and then in 134 I explained what parts of your hypothesis are indeed supported by fact and which are not. In 176 I defined an experiment that would prove your hypothesis.

Since then you made no substantive posts but a lot of repetitions of stuff previously ridiculed by me successfully. Even a good comedy gets tiresome with repetitions.


203 posted on 06/12/2012 5:08:51 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
...descent with modifications and natural selection can be easily observed and confirmed.

Then please do so.

204 posted on 06/13/2012 3:16:51 AM PDT by papertyger ("And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if..."))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

So have Fruit Flies been naturally selected (unnaturally in this case) into a new species?


205 posted on 06/13/2012 4:04:13 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: annalex
annalex: "In 116 I posted a brief description of the scientific objections to the hypothesis of evolution."

To which I responded at great length in post #118.

annalex: "In 120 I explained it to you in sufficient precision."

To which I responded at even greater length in post #125.

annalex: "In 130 and then in 134 I explained what parts of your hypothesis are indeed supported by fact and which are not."

Those, plus your posts #126 and 128 I responded to at incredible length in my posts #125, 127, 129, 131, 133 and 135."

annalex: "In 176 I defined an experiment that would prove your hypothesis."

I responded at great length to all nine of your posts between #134 and 176.
See my posts #137, 139, 152, 153, 162, 171, 173, 175 & 177.

annalex: "Since then you made no substantive posts but a lot of repetitions of stuff previously ridiculed by me successfully."

I note with interest that you consider "ridicule" a method of "successful" response to scientific arguments.

In fact, all ten of my posts from #179 to #200 are cogent, coherent thoughtful and lengthy responses to each of your arguments, "word salads" and ridicule (or ridiculous) posts.

Nothing you've claimed remains unanswered, but no answer matters to you, does it -- because actual science is not what you care about.
Discrediting science is what you care about, isn't it?

206 posted on 06/13/2012 1:08:13 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
BJK: "...can be easily observed and confirmed."

papertyper: "Then please do so."

You can observe "descent with modifications" and "natural selection" all by yourself, you don't need my help.

On "descent with modifications" simply note that no offspring are identical to their parents.
For "natural selection" simply note that in nature offspring born with defects often don't survive, while those born with something special more often survive and reproduce.

And that's evolution in a nut-shell.

207 posted on 06/13/2012 1:21:35 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD
1010RD: "So have Fruit Flies been naturally selected (unnaturally in this case) into a new species?"

First remember, the Drosophila genus of Fruit Flies consists of about 1,500 named species, plus some thousands more estimated as yet to be discovered.
And, the Drosophila genus of fruit flies belongs to the larger order of Diptera, flies.
There are 152,000 named species of Diptera flies, including the 1,500 named Fruit Fly species.

So how, precisely do biologists distinguish between fly sub-species, species, genera, orders, etc, and have any genetic experiments produced offspring which meet the criteria for a new "species"?
Answer: I don't know, but probably not -- because major speciation typically takes many thousands, even millions of generations, and even Fruit Flies don't reproduce that fast.

But let's just suppose, only for sake of argument, that some biologist claimed they did breed a new "species"?
What exactly would be your response?
Would you say,

Would you really say that?

No, of course you wouldn't, because science is not the source of your disagreement with evolution theory, is it?
You disagree with evolution for reasons which have nothing to do with science, and therefore nothing science might do will convince of it, isn't that correct?

208 posted on 06/13/2012 2:03:03 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

But in most of your indeed, lengthy responses you exhibit no understanding of the essence of the objections to your cult, nor of the central ideas in the experiment that might resolve the dispute. That is funny.


209 posted on 06/13/2012 5:06:48 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
For "natural selection" simply note that in nature offspring born with defects often don't survive, while those born with something special more often survive and reproduce.

Something special such as...?

210 posted on 06/14/2012 4:52:35 AM PDT by papertyger ("And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if..."))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
But let's just suppose, only for sake of argument, that some biologist claimed they did breed a new "species"? What exactly would be your response? Would you say, "oh, yes, now I see, after all these years, that evolution finally makes sense, and I agree that it is a confirmed theory, not just some wild hypothesis"? Would you really say that? No, of course you wouldn't, because science is not the source of your disagreement with evolution theory, is it? You disagree with evolution for reasons which have nothing to do with science, and therefore nothing science might do will convince of it, isn't that correct?

That's some piece of prognostication, given you start the entire process with a rather gratuitous supposition.

What is shielding you from following the same script were the initial premise going in the opposite direction?

211 posted on 06/14/2012 5:08:02 AM PDT by papertyger ("And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if..."))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: DManA; ReligiousLibertyTV

“How many here think it’s a clear cut sin not to reject the old earth theories outright?”

‘Old Earth?’ - there is no conflict in believing that the earth/universe might be ‘eons’ old, created by God, but long before the Genesis account of the creation of Man, about 6,000 years ago.

And the concept of a previous creation on earth, supported by the Word of God (Bible) provides explanation for fossil evidence that the ‘evolvers’ like to say ‘proves’ evolution.


212 posted on 06/14/2012 5:14:09 AM PDT by GGpaX4DumpedTea (I am a Tea Party descendant...steeped in the Constitutional Republic given to us by the Founders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: annalex
annalex: "But in most of your indeed, lengthy responses you exhibit no understanding of the essence of the objections to your cult, nor of the central ideas in the experiment that might resolve the dispute."

Once again, your false accusation of "cult" proves how much you loathe science.

And sorry, annalex, but it's you who refuses to understand.
I understood perfectly the claims you made, and responded to each and every one with scientific answers.
You never once demonstrated an accurate understanding of the actual science I explained, and just kept repeating what amounts to "word salads" -- sentences which make no logical sense.

My suggestion is that you go back and carefully re-read every one of my posts -- until you begin to understand the actual science they refer to.
And if you need any help with that, just ask.
I'm here to serve... ;-)

213 posted on 06/14/2012 11:31:32 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
papertyger: "Something special such as...?"

Anything you might imagine -- bigger, stronger, faster, smarter, better eyes, ears, nose, teeth, camouflage or endurance, more hot, cold, wet or dry weather adaptations, etc., etc.

Indeed, when humans first began to develop new breeds of domestic animals and plants -- thousands of years ago -- the only thing they did was replace evolution's "natural selection" with "human selection".
The results illustrate the whole idea of evolution's "punctuated equilibrium", meaning species can remain apparently unchanged for millions of years, and then "suddenly" evolve into something quite different looking.

Of course, a few thousand years is not enough for mutations to create a new "species boundary" (as annalex calls it) between breeds.
But human animal husbandry shows us how quickly species can change under the right conditions.

214 posted on 06/14/2012 12:03:02 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
papertyger: "...you start the entire process with a rather gratuitous supposition."

Nothing "gratuitious" about it, but feel free to correct me if my assumption is wrong -- would evidence of human induced speciation in any way effect your opinions on the Theory of Evolution?

papertyger: "What is shielding you from following the same script were the initial premise going in the opposite direction?"

There's no "shielding" here.
But for one thing, in fact the "initial premise" does not "go in the opposite direction".

And many other things -- confirmed facts which support the Theory of Evolution.
Finally, no scientific facts to confirm any other competing hypothesis.

215 posted on 06/14/2012 12:26:41 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
I understood perfectly the claims you made

No you didn't. I corrected you a number of times even recently, and now I grew tired of it. You post cultist propaganda, and when you run out of arguments, you repeat the old ones.

The evolutionists' methods are an insult to any science.

216 posted on 06/14/2012 5:21:19 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

I see you’re going to stick with the “broken rocks” rationale.

I assumed as much, but intellectual integrity demanded I ask you to demonstrate your reasoning.


217 posted on 06/14/2012 6:35:51 PM PDT by papertyger ("And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if..."))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Nothing "gratuitous" about it, but feel free to correct me if my assumption is wrong

Seeing as your initial premise hasn't ever been observed, and the entire reason you posited it was to give a basis for the rest of your assertion (thus making your hypothetical a circular argument), I'd pretty much call that "gratuitous" by definition.

There's no "shielding" here. But for one thing, in fact the "initial premise" does not "go in the opposite direction".

You're right. There is no "shielding." You are committing the very illegitimate argument you accused.

Of course the "initial premise" goes in the opposite direction...it's called "stability." And any researcher who claimed to have verified offspring are always of the same species as the parents would elicit nothing but a big "duh."

In fact, it is well known by even non-scientists that apart from intentional breeding manipulation, successive generations of dogs will tend to revert back to the same approximately 35 pound carnivorous quadruped that typifies the species "dog."

Finally, it is disingenuous at best to use any manner of "better" generational variation as a "something special" for the evolution we all know we are talking about here, as the genetics for said "improvement" is already resident in whatever species we're observing.

The only legitimate example you could proffer would be something exhibiting a new body plan, or sensitivity, that is not already extant in the genome of its predecessors.

218 posted on 06/14/2012 7:28:57 PM PDT by papertyger ("And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if..."))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Nothing "gratuitous" about it, but feel free to correct me if my assumption is wrong

Seeing as your initial premise hasn't ever been observed, and the entire reason you posited it was to give a basis for the rest of your assertion (thus making your hypothetical a circular argument), I'd pretty much call that "gratuitous" by definition.

There's no "shielding" here. But for one thing, in fact the "initial premise" does not "go in the opposite direction".

You're right. There is no "shielding." You are committing the very illegitimate argument you accused.

Of course the "initial premise" goes in the opposite direction...it's called "stability." And any researcher who claimed to have verified offspring are always of the same species as the parents would elicit nothing but a big "duh."

In fact, it is well known by even non-scientists that apart from intentional breeding manipulation, successive generations of dogs will tend to revert back to the same approximately 35 pound carnivorous quadruped that typifies the species "dog."

Finally, it is disingenuous at best to use any manner of "better" generational variation as a "something special" for the evolution we all know we are talking about here, as the genetics for said "improvement" is already resident in whatever species we're observing.

The only legitimate example you could proffer would be something exhibiting a new body plan, or sensitivity, that is not already extant in the genome of its predecessors.

219 posted on 06/14/2012 7:29:04 PM PDT by papertyger ("And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if..."))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: annalex
annalex: "You post cultist propaganda, and when you run out of arguments, you repeat the old ones."

I've posted nothing but explanations of science, repeating as necessary what you've obviously failed to grasp.
And, the appropriate response to science is scientific argument, not false & vile epithets.
So surely your frequent resort to such language ("cult", "voodoo") simply demonstrates how much you loathe science, and how few actual scientific arguments you have to present.

annalex: "I corrected you a number of times even recently"

You "corrected" nothing, you simply repeated your non-scientific "word salads".

annalex: "The evolutionists' methods are an insult to any science."

My patient, careful and detailed explanations to correct your woeful misunderstandings are an "insult"?
Your hurling vile epithets like "cult" and "voodoo" are not insults?

It seems you live in a strange world, well beyond the reach of rational discourse, FRiend. ;-)

220 posted on 06/15/2012 2:00:00 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
papertyger: "I see you’re going to stick with the “broken rocks” rationale....intellectual integrity demanded I ask you to demonstrate your reasoning."

Sorry, FRiend, "broken rocks" must be anti-evo jargon than I've not been clued-in on.
And what such rocks might have to do with your "intellectual integrity" I can't even begin to imagine.

221 posted on 06/15/2012 2:05:15 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

No that’s not correct. If I were a scientist trying to prove the mechanism of evolution I’d immediately try to breed a species of fruit fly into another species. At the very least even if the experiment failed you’d gain some insight into the number of generations it takes to migrate into a new species.

My theology and belief in God isn’t affected by the Theory of Evolution. My God is Truth and I am a sincere seeker of truth. My question to you was based on this. I’d heard this argument from other FReepers. I’ve worked with fruit flies in the past and wondered if you knew of any experimenters working to speciate fruit flies. They can breed in 7 days so if someone had started back in 1930 at best you’d only have 56,000 generations.

Perhaps you’re confusing me with some other poster. I just jumped into the thread at my first post.

From what I understand of the Theory of Evolution it suffers from some flaws:

1. Tautology - it cannot be falsified. Every contradictory discovery simply alters and reinforces the Theory.

2. Irreducible Complexity - slow changes over long time periods don’t make sense - think of the human placenta, human eye, etc.

3. Vestigiality - which direction? Is it something we used to have or something we are gaining?

4. Transitions - given the long years and number of life forms where are all the transition creatures? The fossil evidence points toward formed, fully functioning life.

5. Conservation of Energy - why would a useless body part persist over millions of years? Perhaps we’re wrong about the appendix.

As for my theology, the Biblical time of creation is eons and the word is essentially undefined in Hebrew as a time measurement. Eden is a place on earth and the garden is located within Eden. That is Eden isn’t the garden. It is the “Garden in Eden” not the “Garden of Eden”. The time period during which Adam and Eve were within the Garden is also undefined. It could have been days or millions of years. Human beings have a poor grasp of time and time management. How could they even begin to comprehend eternity?

If you’re interested in having a thoughtful discussion then please let’s continue. It is the whole reason I posted to you. If you’re emotionally involved in the outcome or if I have to agree with you to have you be satisfied in a conversation then perhaps you’re too immature to continue the discussion. I know that many FReepers suffer from this disease. We don’t have to agree to still be friends or FReepers.


222 posted on 06/15/2012 3:59:29 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
papertyger: "Seeing as your initial premise hasn't ever been observed, and the entire reason you posited it was to give a basis for the rest of your assertion (thus making your hypothetical a circular argument), I'd pretty much call that "gratuitous" by definition."

So already, you start in with the "word salads"?
How about you back up a minute?
What exactly do you claim "hasn't ever been observed"?

And what evidence suggest that this alleged "hasn't ever been observed" is the "entire reason" I "posited" something.
And how, precisely, does "hasn't ever been observed" make my "posit" either "hypothetical" or "circular".

Appears to me like what you did here is string together a bunch of words which have no real meanings, but are intended generally as a educated-sounding insult.

papertyger: "You are committing the very illegitimate argument you accused."

What is that, again?
What, you just have a book of insults, randomly pick out sentences and throw them in your posts?
Your sentence here references nothing specific, but alleges an "illegitimate argument" which I am supposed to have "accused".
Can you quote that "illegitimate argument" and "accusation"?

papertyger: "Of course the "initial premise" goes in the opposite direction...it's called "stability."

Your word "stability" might refer to a number of ideas, the most basic of which is that DNA mutations-per-generation (typically less than 100) are relatively small compared to an overall human genome of 3 billion "base pairs".
That's why fossil and DNA analyses suggest it takes many generations (thousands to millions) for major changes in speciation.

papertyger: "And any researcher who claimed to have verified offspring are always of the same species as the parents would elicit nothing but a big 'duh.' "

But not always of the same "species" as their thousands-of-generations-removed ancestors.
That's because:

papertyger: "In fact, it is well known by even non-scientists that apart from intentional breeding manipulation, successive generations of dogs will tend to revert back to the same approximately 35 pound carnivorous quadruped that typifies the species 'dog.' "

Well, first of all, dogs will never-ever revert back to their original wolf ancestors, and so there is a definite limit to how much "reversion" is possible.

Second, whatever "reversion" they make will never be back even to the exact same more recent dog ancestor they were bred from.

Third, any "reversion" will only survive and reproduce over the long term if it benefits from natural (or human) selection.

So, in that sense, human "intentional breeding manipulation" simply mimics the effects of evolution's natural selection.
But the key element that you refuse to acknowledge (and of course we all know why, don't we?) is the element of time.
Over thousands and millions of generations, small genetic mutations accumulate in separated sub-species until they become unable to interbreed, and scientists classify them as separated "species".

papertyger: "Finally, it is disingenuous at best to use any manner of "better" generational variation as a "something special" for the evolution we all know we are talking about here, as the genetics for said "improvement" is already resident in whatever species we're observing."

First, there's nothing "disingenuous at best" about it, since it's true, FRiend.
Of course, it is "disingenuous at best" to make false accusations, so cut it out. ;-)

Second, your "...evolution we all know we are talking about here..." is what exactly?
Scientifically speaking, there is only one evolution and it consists of 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
In other words, virtually all reproduction includes some small evolution.
Major evolution in nature takes time, lots of time.

papertyger: "The only legitimate example you could proffer would be something exhibiting a new body plan, or sensitivity, that is not already extant in the genome of its predecessors."

"Only legitimate example"? Of what, precisely?
"A new body plan"? Exactly how new, precisely how different?

In truth, now you are back to "word salads" which make no sense, scientifically or otherwise.
And I suspect "we all know" the reason for that, but let's just see how much "intellectual integrity" you really have, FRiend. ;-)

223 posted on 06/15/2012 4:04:05 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Sorry, FRiend, "broken rocks" must be anti-evo jargon than I've not been clued-in on. And what such rocks might have to do with your "intellectual integrity" I can't even begin to imagine.

I'm referring to an analogy I made previously on this thread.

Pointing to broken rocks at the foot of a hillside to explain the rise of the Pyramids...as if demonstrating how rocks that are broken by a completely random naturalistic mechanism can explain the Pyramids by the same mechanism.

224 posted on 06/15/2012 5:54:42 AM PDT by papertyger ("And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if..."))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

I understand your retreat to the “word salad” comment, and I’m sorry for you as I don’t know any way to get around it.

“Word Salad” is what “cognitive dissonance” looks like to the one suffering from it.


225 posted on 06/15/2012 6:01:12 AM PDT by papertyger ("And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if..."))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD
1010RD: "No that’s not correct."

FRiend, this is now a long thread with many different posts.
Can you do us all a favor and quote the comment you are responding to?
If you need instructions on how to use html, here's a place to start.

So which statement of mine, exactly, "is not correct"?

1010RD: "If I were a scientist trying to prove the mechanism of evolution I’d immediately try to breed a species of fruit fly into another species.
At the very least even if the experiment failed... "

No you wouldn't, FRiend.
I'm sorry, but long before you performed any such "experiment", you would have to demonstrate to somebody else, a real scientist, that you have even the foggiest, tiniest, minutest, infinitesimally smallest understanding of what you are talking about.
And since that seems impossible, you would never perform any truly scientific experiment.

By scientific definition of the word "species", you create a new "species" any time two sub-species become so genetically different they no longer interbreed.
In nature that typically takes thousands to millions of generations, but in a laboratory, with Fruit Flies, it's a little bit easier.

1010RD: "I’ve worked with fruit flies in the past and wondered if you knew of any experimenters working to speciate fruit flies.
They can breed in 7 days so if someone had started back in 1930 at best you’d only have 56,000 generations."

What, do you think science is a joke?
Do you think science doesn't require you to double check your work?
Do you think you can just throw any old numbers around and have them be true because you say so?
Did you never learn math in school?

Come on, FRiend, follow me here: 1932 was 80 years ago.
Assuming (only for sake of argument) scientific experiments had begun in 1932 breeding Fruit Flies, and that each new generation takes 7 days, in one year you could have about 52 new generations.
Then 52 times 80 years is what? Yes, 6,560 generations.

Fortunately, Fruit Flies are relatively "simple" genetically, and readily speciate.

1010RD: "Perhaps you’re confusing me with some other poster.
I just jumped into the thread at my first post."

If so, them my apologies.

1010RD: "From what I understand of the Theory of Evolution it suffers from some flaws:"

Then you obviously understand very little, and suffer from reading a lot of ridiculous propaganda.

1010RD: "Tautology - it cannot be falsified.
Every contradictory discovery simply alters and reinforces the Theory."

First of all, one definition of the word "tautology" is: "3.logical true proposition: a proposition or statement that, in itself, is logically true."
This would not be a problem, I think.

Second, there are facts and theory related to evolution.
The facts include "descent with modifications", "natural selection", fossil records, biological comparisons, DNA analyses, geological radio-metric dating, astronomical measurements and many more, all of which help confirm Evolution as a Theory.

Third, Evolution Theory itself is basically the same as 150 years ago: that all life descended from common ancestors, but the theory through, shall we say "natural selection", has been considerably improved by each new scientific discovery.

Fourth, of course, Evolution Theory could easily be falsified -- all you'd have to do is physically find the Intelligent Designer who's alleged to create all life in a matter of "days" while making it appear to scientists as if billions of years were required.
So what, exactly, is your problem with that, FRiend?

1010RD: "Irreducible Complexity - slow changes over long time periods don’t make sense - think of the human placenta, human eye, etc."

And why, precisely, do they not "make sense"?
Especially with DNA analyses comparing and contrasting genomes of more-and-less distantly related species, exact step-by-step changes can be mapped from one to the others.

In the case of eyes, even today there are many more primitive versions of eyes -- "transitional forms" if you will.
In the case of mammalian placentas, there are also still many "transitional forms", including those in marsupials, sharks, sea horses and others.
So there is no reason to suspect that any biological feature we see today was necessarily created independently by some "Intelligent Designer" in a laboratory and then artificially injected into some previous life form (which arrived on Earth from where?).

Of course, if such solid confirmed physical evidence is ever found, that would make a big difference.

But there is a larger point here, and it is a key point I've been trying to make this entire thread (so far without much effect):
The question of "Intelligent Design" is ultimately irrelevant, because the entire Universe is self-evidently designed intelligently from the beginning to produce us and all we see.
And the Creator Who designed it is the exact same Creator who "endowed us with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Indeed, these are facts which are literally undeniable.
The Intelligent Creator-Designer then is necessarily axiomatic -- a given.

Nor is God's role in our everyday lives in dispute -- He blesses our country, far more than we now deserve, thus demonstrating infinite patience.
He protects all of us in ways we don't even begin to understand.
So those are not the debate here.

The real debate comes down to this: how "random" is "random"?
Are all "random" DNA mutations which lead to new biological features truly "random" or are they in some way directed by God?
I believe the latter, and so I don't care how "random" scientists say it is.
If you believe in God, nothing is truly "random", imho.

1010RD: "3. Vestigiality - which direction?
Is it something we used to have or something we are gaining?"

In what precise sense is this question a "flaw" in Evolution Theory?

Is it not simply a matter of observation, whether certain biological features existing in more primitive creatures have been improved, or reduced and discarded in more advanced forms?
You know, of course, that Evolution Theory "posits" a tendency toward more complexity in life, but this tendency is not absolute, and features no longer needed are eventually reduced and discarded -- surely you don't need me to cite examples, do you?

1010RD: "4. Transitions - given the long years and number of life forms where are all the transition creatures?
The fossil evidence points toward formed, fully functioning life."

How many times do I have to post this before the idea begins to sink in? --

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

• (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
• (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
• (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
• (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
• (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
• (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
• (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
• (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
• (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
• (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
• (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
• (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
• (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
• (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

1010RD: "5. Conservation of Energy - why would a useless body part persist over millions of years?
Perhaps we’re wrong about the appendix."

Again, in what sense is that even conceivably a "flaw" in Evolution Theory?
The appendix, or tonsils, or little toes, or anything else may or may-not be "vestigial", so what?
Evolution simply says that natural selection favors features which improve survivability, and eventually discards those which don't.
That's not a "flaw".

1010RD: "then perhaps you’re too immature to continue the discussion."

My rules are pretty simple: if you don't insult me, then I won't insult you.
If you do insult me, then I still won't insult you beyond pointing out how ridiculous your insults are, and how that may suggest a certain ridiculousness in your ideas generally.

But yes, when I have time I do enjoy these FRiendly discussions, even some of the more, ahem, difficult ones. ;-)

226 posted on 06/15/2012 6:21:44 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
But the key element that you refuse to acknowledge (and of course we all know why, don't we?) is the element of time.

Yes, that is the key here, but rather as the "magic wand" evolutionists use to make the theory plausible.

"Time" is the one element evolutionists admit they can not evaluate, and they use it as a "theoretical curtain" to hide hopeful assumptions they can not actually demonstrate.

227 posted on 06/15/2012 6:29:33 AM PDT by papertyger ("And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if..."))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
papertyger: "Pointing to broken rocks at the foot of a hillside to explain the rise of the Pyramids...as if demonstrating how rocks that are broken by a completely random naturalistic mechanism can explain the Pyramids by the same mechanism."

Your "broken rocks" by themselves are a false analogy, since they necessarily correspond to only half of evolution theory -- "descent with modifications".
To make the analogy more accurate, you'd have to "posit" a "natural selector", who picks through your pile of "broken rocks" and finds those suitable as building material.

Of course, in the analogy of pyramid building, that "natural selector" would have to be an "intelligent designer" of pyramids.
But since we can't physically see the "selector" at work, and since by definition of the word "science" it can only deal with natural events, science calls the breaking of "rocks" suitable for construction "random" and the movement of suitable "rocks" from pile-to-pyramid as "natural" selection.

I don't personally care what science calls it, anyone with eyes to see can readily detect the Hand of God at work in both "descent with modifications" and "natural selection" = evolution.

228 posted on 06/15/2012 6:49:23 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
papertyger: " 'Word Salad' is what 'cognitive dissonance' looks like to the one suffering from it."

More nonsense.
The truth is that science itself has standards of language and logic which all scientists are required to learn and practice.
In terms of those scientific standards, much of your posting here amounts to mere "word salad":

Of course, if you will simply confess your loathing for real science, and your refusal to use its terms correctly, then we will be in perfect understanding and agreement.
Then we will understand and agree that you hate science, and won't touch it, while I'm doing my level best here to explain & defend it, FRiend.

229 posted on 06/15/2012 7:05:52 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Sorry I made a mistake. 52 X 80 = 4160 generations.


230 posted on 06/15/2012 7:20:08 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
papertyger: "Yes, that is the key here, but rather as the "magic wand" evolutionists use to make the theory plausible.
"Time" is the one element evolutionists admit they can not evaluate, and they use it as a "theoretical curtain" to hide hopeful assumptions they can not actually demonstrate."

Time is far more than a "magic wand", it is easily quantifiable and measurable, in terms of geology, fossils and even average rates of genetic mutations.

The hard physical evidence of time suggests many millions, even billions of years for evolution on Earth.
No real scientist can ignore such evidence, and anyone (such as yourself) who denies it is simply not being scientific.

Which is fine with me -- there's no law which says everybody has to be "scientific".
But there is a law (the 8th Commandment) which says you have to tell the truth about it, FRiend.

231 posted on 06/15/2012 7:20:50 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD
1010RD: "Sorry I made a mistake. 52 X 80 = 4160 generations."

That absolutely serves me right.
I'll take it as just punishment for me acting ______ (fill in the blank). ;-)

232 posted on 06/15/2012 7:27:13 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
To make the analogy more accurate, you'd have to "posit" a "natural selector", who picks through your pile of "broken rocks" and finds those suitable as building material.

But there's the rub. It's not the "suitability" of the building materials that counts: it's how that building material is arranged that makes the difference between a pyramid and a pile of rocks.

"Natural Selection" is supposed to do the arranging using mutations as its engine. The problem with that idea is the "irreducibly complex" system, organ, or appendage.

"Chance" goes asymptotic when you start talking about the confluence of genetic events that would be required for say, a human no longer handicapped in darkness by developing an analog to "bat radar."

And just as we would reasonably conclude such a confluence of events is functionally impossible, so it is reasonable to conclude such a confluence has never occurred in the past. Confidently pointing to morphologically similar species and concluding their similarities prove it MUST have happened, is just fatuous.

233 posted on 06/15/2012 7:42:18 AM PDT by papertyger ("And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if..."))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Lack of reading comprehension on your part does not prove “word salad” on my part.

Further, your “confess your loathing for real science” comment is analogous to “conservatives hate women,” a truly Sharpton-esque redoubt.


234 posted on 06/15/2012 8:02:08 AM PDT by papertyger ("And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if..."))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Time is far more than a "magic wand", it is easily quantifiable and measurable, in terms of geology, fossils and even average rates of genetic mutations. The hard physical evidence of time suggests many millions, even billions of years for evolution on Earth. No real scientist can ignore such evidence, and anyone (such as yourself) who denies it is simply not being scientific.

Of course your little paean to "scientific" (sic) completely dodges the point of my post.

"Resist we much?"

235 posted on 06/15/2012 8:32:12 AM PDT by papertyger ("And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if..."))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
...anyone with eyes to see can readily detect the Hand of God at work in both "descent with modifications" and "natural selection" = evolution.

Where? Darwinists certainly don't see anything readily detectable.

236 posted on 06/15/2012 8:39:11 AM PDT by papertyger ("And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if..."))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
papertyger: "It's not the "suitability" of the building materials that counts: it's how that building material is arranged that makes the difference between a pyramid and a pile of rocks."

I'm just trying to turn your "broken rocks" analogy from a lie to the truth.
To become analogously true, your "broken rocks" need two separate processes:

Sorry, that's the best I can do with your silly analogy.

papertyger: "The problem with that idea is the "irreducibly complex" system, organ, or appendage."

That allegation is false when you consider every "system, organ, or appendage" in existence today still has more primitive versions in other living creatures.
Further, the development of these organs can often be tracked in terms of DNA modifications from one species to another.

Finally, I'll say it yet again: whether all of these DNA changes are scientifically "random" or God-directed "randomness" is ultimately irrelevant.
There can simply be no doubt that the evolution of life on Earth has unfolded exactly as God intends -- regardless of how much, or how little, "tinkering" or "interventions" God Himself did to get us here.

papertyger: "Chance" goes asymptotic when you start talking about the confluence of genetic events that would be required for say, a human no longer handicapped in darkness by developing an analog to "bat radar."

Actually, primitive human echolocation is not unknown among some blind humans.
But advanced echolocation, such as bats, whales and others species use, is obviously the product of millions of years of evolution:

papertyger: "And just as we would reasonably conclude such a confluence of events is functionally impossible, so it is reasonable to conclude such a confluence has never occurred in the past."

Sorry FRiend, but false assumptions nearly always lead to false conclusions, as your example here demonstrates.

237 posted on 06/15/2012 8:56:01 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Salamander

If Americans came from Europeans - why do we still have Europeans running around?

Same answer to a rather stupid question.


238 posted on 06/15/2012 8:57:57 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
papertyger: "Lack of reading comprehension on your part does not prove “word salad” on my part."

FRiend, I totally understand what you are trying to say, and I'm being charitable in calling it "word salad".
The fact is, you are not writing in any real scientific language or logic, though you try to pretend otherwise.

papertyger: "Further, your “confess your loathing for real science” comment is analogous to “conservatives hate women...”

You might demonstrate your alleged love for science by, for example, going back to school and actually learning something true about it. ;-)

239 posted on 06/15/2012 9:10:01 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
papertyger: "Of course your little paean to "scientific" (sic) completely dodges the point of my post."

And that was?

240 posted on 06/15/2012 9:11:26 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
papertyger: "Darwinists certainly don't see anything readily detectable."

The Hand of God, by definition of the word "science" is not detectable by any scientific instrument.
It can only be "seen" by the human mind, and then usually only by those who look for Him.

Science as science deals in "physical laws" or "theories" and labels as "random" what others might see as God's laws, God's Plan and God's Handiwork.

So I don't have a problem with science being science.
Nor apparently does God, since He rewards science so lavishly.

241 posted on 06/15/2012 9:20:09 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
The Hand of God, by definition of the word "science" is not detectable by any scientific instrument. It can only be "seen" by the human mind, and then usually only by those who look for Him.

If this is so, then by what method or evidence do you "readily" detect the hand of God?

Futher, on what basis do you dispute "scientific" evolutionists' dogmatic insistence no "god" is necessary to explain what they observe?

242 posted on 06/15/2012 9:49:53 AM PDT by papertyger ("And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if..."))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Amusing that creationists have such a bugaboo about randomness - a common feature in nature.

They think that “random” somehow means “not under the control of God” - as if HIS power stops at the casino door.

The Bible says “The dice are cast into the lap - but every result is from the Lord.”


243 posted on 06/15/2012 11:38:53 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
There is a concept in science called “necessary and sufficient”.

For example - the force of gravity is both necessary and sufficient to explain the motion of the Moon around the Earth and the Earth around the Sun.

Not only are supernatural causations not used in science - use of such makes what you are doing absolutely useless.

Appeal to a natural cause of natural phenomena can lead to further information, discovery, and useful application - because natural forces are knowable, predictable and replicable.

Appeals to a supernatural cause of natural phenomena will lead nowhere, to no further information, discovery or useful application - because supernatural forces are unknowable, not predictable and not replicable.

That is why science is of use while creationism is useless.

244 posted on 06/15/2012 11:50:06 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
non-scientific "word salads"

That a clear and repeated explanation seems to you a "word salad" indicates incomprehension.

245 posted on 06/15/2012 4:37:19 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
papertyger: "by what method or evidence do you "readily" detect the hand of God?"

FRiend, you really need to talk to a good minister-priest about these matters.
I am not the one to direct you on a path of religious discovery.
Some people spend their whole lives studying such things, and that's who you need to talk to.

What I can tell you is: look at it logically.
If God created the Universe -- and I'm saying that is an undeniable truth (as in "We hold these truths to be self-evfident...") -- and if as the Bible tells us God was pleased, declaring His various creations "good", then we have to conclude that whatever we see is what God intended us to see, including evolution.

Logically then, what science calls "laws of nature" are really God's Physical Laws; what science calls "scientific theories" are really God's plan for the physical universe; and what science calls "random events" are really God's way of letting reality play itself out, much like for example, a great orchestra plays a musical "theme and variations".

God obviously enjoys the variations (the "diversity", if you will) as much as the main theme itself.

Of course, many scientists understand all this perfectly well, and are highly religious.
But science itself, by definition of the word "science", is built on basic naturalistic assumptions -- meaning natural causes for natural events.
The term for it is "methodological naturalism" -- and it well defines the difference between what is "science" and what is "something else", including religious faith.

So even if a scientist can see the obvious Hand of God at work, he/she has to call it something else, such as "random mutations", or "complex weather patterns", or "ecological diversity", or, yes, "evolution", etc.
Indeed, scientists themselves, as I've posted here before, have terms for what to me looks like "God directed randomness", terms found in Chaos Theory, terms like "the butterfly effect" and "the strange attractor."
I call that "strange attractor" writ large the Great Attractor, which is one aspect of God's plan for the Universe.

papertyger: "Futher, on what basis do you dispute "scientific" evolutionists' dogmatic insistence no "god" is necessary to explain what they observe?"

I don't dispute anything science does based on it's methodologically natural assumptions.
I simply assume that whatever science finds, and however science explains it, was put there by God for His purposes.
But science is not going to tell us what God's purposes for us are, since those are beyond the scope of methodological naturalism's assumptions.
It's why we have a church, ministers, theologians, etc. ;-)

246 posted on 06/16/2012 5:48:47 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
allmendream: "The Bible says "The dice are cast into the lap - but every result is from the Lord.' "

Thanks for that quote, it expresses one point I've been trying to make here. ;-)

247 posted on 06/16/2012 5:50:52 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: annalex
annalex: "That a clear and repeated explanation seems to you a "word salad" indicates incomprehension."

Of course, I understand perfectly well what you're trying to say -- I'm simpling telling you that in terms of actual scientific word definitions and language, what you are talking is meaningless "word salad".
That's why you cannot legitimately claim that you're speaking of and to science: because you are not using scientific words or reasoning correctly.

It's also why I keep telling you to take some time off, crack open a book, go back to school, learn something about real science before you continue jabbering scientifically meaningless "word salads" at it, FRiend. ;-)

248 posted on 06/16/2012 6:02:33 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

It also looks like a robot got stuck in his programming and emits “cancel retry ignore... word salad... word salad...”

Like I said, cults are fun to make fun of.


249 posted on 06/16/2012 7:23:24 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: annalex
annalex: "It also looks like a robot got stuck in his programming and emits “cancel retry ignore... word salad... word salad...”
Like I said, cults are fun to make fun of."

In terms of real science "word salad" is all you can blather.
So I keep suggesting you should crack a book, go back to school, learn something about real science.

But you keep responding, in effect: that's not what you want to do.
What you want to do is "make fun" and "ridicule" science as "cult" and "voodoo", and for that purpose, "word salad" is a perfectly adequate weapon.

So you're happy doing what you do, and I'm just saying it's not a very serious enterprise, if "word salad" is the best you've got, FRiend. ;-)

250 posted on 06/17/2012 3:25:47 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-278 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson