A quick question

Are there any scientific research groups, museums or universities that do research to support EC?

I’m going to have to suggest no, because EC is not science – it is a Christian perspective about science, and evolution in particular.

5 Likes

EC accepts the facts of evolution, the normal kind, the kind all scientific institutions, museums, and universities study. It brings the facts of evolution into the discourse of theology and proposes Bible interpretations and theological constructs that harmonize with scientific facts. That is not science. Science can’t study God’s role in evolution using the tools of science.

8 Likes

This, as a Brummie (link just for you @Christy) would say, does my 'ead in.

Of course it can. (One mere assertion to another.)

There is absolutely no warrant, whatsoever, no gap in evolutionary evidence and theory, and greater ontology, that requires God, at all. And it doesn’t matter how many times and ways this is said: Atheism requires theism. Which is why science isn’t atheist. Theism and all theology is a null, a void empty of emptiness, absent absence, in science. Nothing can study God’s role in evolution as He has none, even if He were (note my use of the subjunctive; there is no warrant, as above, for that proposition either, except, of course, the ultimate what-if of Jesus) the ground of being. To say ‘Science can’t study God’s role in evolution using the tools of science.’ is as meaningful as the Walrus’ eleventh stanza discourse. Syntactic but non-semantic. Specious. Pseudo-intellectual. Nonsense. Implying that there is a role and that non-science, non-philosophy, non-rationality, belief, can validly, in fact superiorly, gnostically, adeptically, occultically, esoterically determine it. It has always been thus since the awesomely self-repudiated Aquinas.

As the CHRISTIAN philosopher I’m forbidden to name realised, existence is absurd. To believe that God grounds it (deism) requires only and nothing but faith due to the proposition of Jesus (theism). And that changes nothing in between. Nothing whatsoever. And is still multiply problematic to say the least. [Only American evangelicals - not you or any of the brains trust here - can claim to be cerebral and rational; at least they don’t claim to be intellectual. Mainly…]

All will become clear in the transcendent… won’t it? I doubt it, God will still zen, but all will be well for all, so it won’t matter. The mystery never ends.

Doing research to support a theological view is contrary to the methodology of science – it is the very definition of pseudoscience. It is what the creationists do and therein lies their dishonesty and the falsity in what they are calling a Christian version of “science.”

3 Likes

Thank you, Christy, for your answer, you’ve been very helpful.

2 Likes

I think that you will find most rue evolutionists will admit that there are missing links, and areas where the evidence is either limited or even physically impossible.

And as for your tirade against putting God into Evolution… If God is the creator then Evolution is part of His creation, so He is automatically involved. period.

Richard

The only transitions I know of that would be impossible to find fossil evidence for are ones between groups of monocellular organisms that lack distinguishing anatomical features.

We do not have confident examples of most Pre-Cambrian transitions (e.g. Kimberella might be an example of one, but we don’t know which), but part of the problem for animals is that generic worms still look like generic worms, whatever their taxonomic affinity.

However, there are some tranbsitions which we have very good evidence for, like rostroconchia to bivalvia and scaphopoda, early ungulates to cetaceans, early archosaurs to birds, etc.

2 Likes

Just to check your standard for declaring the transitional record incomplete, I wonder if you would accept my mother’s and my fossilized remains as a complete record of the transition from my grandfather’s kind to my nephew’s. I’ll take my answer off air. Thank you. :wink:

1 Like

@Wyme, thank you for your question.

I would agree for the most part with what the others have said. EC is not a science. It is an understanding of how God uses evolution, so it does not have to do any special research to discover how God works. All experiments confirm or deny that God is working through evolution.

Where I would argue with what they say is that they are talking about the genetic side of evolution, which is only one half of the issue. There is less agreement about the natural selection side of evolution. This is important because the two strongest arguments against evolution are not scientific, but logical and theological, and they can be tested only by research concerning natural selection.

As you know the theory of evolution as established by Darwin is a combination of the process of variation, which is completed by the process of natural selection. As I said we know much about the former, but how the latter works seems to be a mystery.

Scientists agree that the process of variation is a random one. Theoretically the process of natural selection is not random, but until we know better how it works, WE DO NOT KNOW that.

We know that order does not come magically out of disorder. That is a fact born out of centuries of experience. Until we know better how natural selection works to create a new order out with variation we cannot really answer the logical and theological arguments of ID.

The deleted was mostly my disappointment about evolutionary evidence. Not really my topic of interest, let truth decide.

Yeah, other than such a case, it is not a matter of possibility but probability. It is unusual circumstances which produce fossils. And it seem likely to me that most evolutionary change occurs in small populations on the brink of extinction because that is where variations have the most impact. Fossils are mostly from large stable (unchanging) populations. Thus gaps in the fossil record are to be expected.

But this is largely irrelevant now because the links can be found right in our own genetic code.

What, that it so explanatorily powerful that there is no need for ID - theism - of any kind? Except for the posit of incarnations of course.

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.