Evolution is the only rational explanation for the tableau of one looking out of the window with a Bible on the desk.
I am not sure I understand. Medical science is the only theory taught in medical schools (or useful in the office or hospital), but it does not mean that God does not exist. Or am I missing your point? Thanks.
Put another way, a strictly materialistic explanation such as evolution is the only theory an atheist scientist could be willing to consider, given the implications of design theories. If said atheist wants to maintain his atheism, he must find a way to believe that life as we know it came from purely undirected, unguided, blind, natural processes. Any alternative is quite literally âunthinkableâ.
Obviously, there are atheists that have changed their minds by looking at the evidence, but in doing so they have given up their atheism. But the more committed someone is to atheism, the more difficult it will/would be to see evidence of design if it in fact were there to see.
(The only exception I could see is something like directed panspermia, such as Francis Crick proposed⌠but I think many recognize that this hypothesis only moves the problem of design rather than âsolvingâ it.)
It would be similar to some extent of discussing Jesusâs resurrection with someone who is a committed atheist. An atheist would of course prefer any naturalistic explanation (stolen body, conspiracy of lies, group hallucination, invented myth, buried while still alive) to considering the possibility that a miracle occurred.
(Put another way, my larger point is that âmethodological naturalismâ guarantees that its practitioners will arrive at the same explanation as would those who embrace âphilosophical naturalism.â)
The fossil record does show evolution.
We see different geological layers making you the earthâs surface. In these different layers we see different species. In these different layers we also donât see different species. Such as we donât see T-Rex and Humans in the same layer. We can see only tetrapods in some layers, and as time goes on we see bipedalism. We see only moss in some layers, and then later in we see flowering plants. So if you go back far enough you donât see any flowering plants or primates. Youâll see conifers and reptiles and ectâŚ
So when we look at these layers we can see clear evidence that these different species exists at different times and did not overlap. We can then look at one type of species. Like primates. We can go back and see only certain types of primates and they have specific morphological traits. Then as we move forward we begin to see them with different morphological traits. Such as knees being slightly different, hands being slightly different, and so on. We move further and further forward and we see those shapes and functions begin to get closer and closer to ours. We see teeth shape develop that was not in the earlier ones. We see bipedalism develop that was not in the earlier ones. We also
See things like there being no tool marks on bones before we see the bipedalism of primates and so on.
We also know that a flood could not have caused corpses to lay down in the way they down down. The fossils are not organized by density, weight, size, or anything. They are organized by eras that contained different species of different sizes.
1 Like
@Kyan2562 the moderatorsâ opinions are the best you can hope for by a country mile here. And those of biologists.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.