Posted on 08/06/2017 9:38:48 AM PDT by EveningStar
The 2001 discovery of the seven million-year-old Sahelanthropus, the first known upright ape-like creatures, was yet more proof of humanity’s place among the great apes. And yet Mike Pence, then a representative and now US vice president, argues for the opposite conclusion.
For him, our ideas about our ancestors have changed, proving once more that evolution was a theory, and therefore we should be free to teach other theories alongside evolution in our classrooms.
How to respond? The usual answer is that we should teach students the meaning of the word “theory” as used in science – that is, a hypothesis (or idea) that has stood up to repeated testing. Pence’s argument will then be exposed to be what philosophers call an equivocation – an argument that only seems to make sense because the same word is being used in two different senses.
Evolution, Pence argues, is a theory, theories are uncertain, therefore evolution is uncertain. But evolution is a theory only in the scientific sense of the word. And in the words of the National Academy of Sciences, “The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” Attaching this label to evolution is an indicator of strength, not weakness.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearscience.com ...
Here’s what I mean. I have faith in God who created nature and its laws, mass, energy, time and space.
That is to say, science is part of God’s creation.
An attack on Pence. In the name of science.
Garbage.
Recent "reams of falsified data" refers to some politically motivated "global warming" reports, not to evolution theory.
Basic evolution theory is confirmed by 150+ years of careful research.
In that the number of mistakes is relatively small, the number of deliberate frauds much smaller still.
Such "open discussions" should be required in classes that deal with philosophy, religion or a history of ideas.
Science classes in public schools have long been ruled "off limits" for those instructions.
Only Piltdown man in your list has anything to do with evolution and that was first seen as a hoax over 100 years ago.
Nothing in science depended on Piltdown man so nothing was lost from its exposure.
Not at all, but you anti-evolutionists never take the time to study answers for your ever-so-clever questions.
A totally ridiculous analogy, and it speaks to Origin of Life ideas, not to basic evolution theory.
But natural-science speculations on origins of life focus on what must happen under certain chemical conditions, not on whatever random probabilities might produce.
Regardless, for scientists who believe, their work asks if nature can show us something of how God accomplished His miracles.
And, sometimes it does.
It's important for people to understand that by definition of the word "science" there's no possible way for science itself to explain God.
One reason is, God is supernatural and science, by definition, is limited to natural explanations.
So science can neither touch nor touch on God.
Evolution is a punishment for those who are not good at math.
Um... it also applies to the very earliest archeological expeditions that were cherry picked and faked to epic proportions by the elites at the time. Seriously faked.
I doubt if any of those early archaeologists really thought of themselves as fraudsters.
Most simply had preconceived notions about what they would find, notions based on ancient texts, and then matched what they found to those texts.
Real science, with it's full panoply of C.S.I. type of analyses, took many years to develop.
They’re all fruits of the same evil tree. Evolution is a lie and Satan is the father of liars. Ditto the other examples.
Basic evolution theory can only be a "lie" if its assumptions are lies, such assumptions as: 1) only natural explanations for natural processes, 2) nature worked the same in the past as we see today, and 3) "Occam's Razor" the simplest explanation that works is the best.
Most people, including all scientists, don't think those assumptions are lies and would not accept your association of them or science in general with Satan.
“Basic evolution theory can only be a “lie” if its assumptions are lies, such assumptions as: 1) only natural explanations for natural processes, 2) nature worked the same in the past as we see today, and 3) “Occam’s Razor” the simplest explanation that works is the best.
Most people, including all scientists, don’t think those assumptions are lies and would not accept your association of them or science in general with Satan.”
1. “Natural explanations” cannot explain how millions and millions of lines of code could have randomly arisen in the DNA of every living creature. Neither do the maths support such a foolish explanation.
2. Evolutionists cannot produce a single example of one species morphing into another species in our lifetime. Nor can they prove that the hierarchy of being in which we live is somehow the result of a process that no one has ever observed.
3. Taking away the agent cause, leaving only matter, form, and end makes the supposed science of evolution convoluted, for now the poor material cause has to take on the duties of the agent. The same holds true for the formal cause. And the final cause has to be suppressed. All of this damages scientific inquiry.
“Basic evolution theory can only be a “lie” if its assumptions are lies, such assumptions as: 1) only natural explanations for natural processes, 2) nature worked the same in the past as we see today, and 3) “Occam’s Razor” the simplest explanation that works is the best.
Most people, including all scientists, don’t think those assumptions are lies and would not accept your association of them or science in general with Satan.”
1. “Natural explanations” cannot explain how millions and millions of lines of code could have randomly arisen in the DNA of every living creature. Neither do the maths support such a foolish explanation.
2. Evolutionists cannot produce a single example of one species morphing into another species in our lifetime. Nor can they prove that the hierarchy of being in which we live is somehow the result of a process that no one has ever observed.
3. Taking away the agent cause, leaving only matter, form, and end makes the supposed science of evolution convoluted, for now the poor material cause has to take on the duties of the agent. The same holds true for the formal cause. And the final cause has to be suppressed. All of this damages scientific inquiry.
The hypocrisy is even more pronounced with the endangered species act. In the evolutionist’s eyes, a species that can’t adapt should be doomed for extinction. In their view, that is the natural order of things. If they were intellectually consistent the rescue and perpetuation of such a species would be tampering with nature and should result in some type of ecological disaster.
But the development of fundamental and crucial building blocks of life are not possible through mutations or adaptations. The development of DNA is not a result of chance or luck.
If evolution does exist, and I believe it does, it's because our creator wanted it.
I don't agree there was anything truly "random" about it.
For an analogy, just consider gambling machines in a casino.
They are carefully designed, manufactured & inspected to insure they function as intended.
And what is intended?
To produce a profit for the casino, of course, and if they are working properly, regardless of how "random" they may seem to users, they reliably produce profits.
Also with God's "casino", regardless of how "random" it appears to us, God's plan **always** profits.
blackpacific: " Evolutionists cannot produce a single example of one species morphing into another species in our lifetime.
Nor can they prove that the hierarchy of being in which we live is somehow the result of a process that no one has ever observed "
Of course they can produce and we can observe, but it all depends on your definitions of "species" or "morphing".
So an evolution-denier like yourself will tightly shut your eyes and simply refuse to see what's there to be seen.
blackpacific: "Taking away the agent cause, leaving only matter, form, and end makes the supposed science of evolution convoluted, for now the poor material cause has to take on the duties of the agent.
The same holds true for the formal cause.
And the final cause has to be suppressed.
All of this damages scientific inquiry. "
If you designed a reaction chamber, such as chemists use to produce new compounds, then you would not be surprised to see in your chamber raw materials reacting, uniting & "complexifying" as you intended.
You never personally touched them, but they still did just what you intended & designed your chamber to do.
Now scale that up to the size of the Earth, or even the entire Universe, and ask yourself: if God designed His "reaction chamber" perfectly, how much will He need to intervene to insure it does what He intends?
My answer is: only as much as He intended from the Beginning.
Further, some of God's miraculous interventions may well appear to us as nothing more than the "random" turning of celestial "slot machines".
And your problem with that is what, exactly?
Give a single example. Then we can talk.
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.