An antibody comes from a cellular process which is only partially stochastic. I stipulate that it is possible that a cellular process may be responsible for some evolutionary change. As far a life’s big innovations, I am highly skeptical.
I got it.
This is contrary to the universal common descent hypothesis that all life started from a single ancestor and emerged solely from reproductive processes.
If God took care of that, whatever specifically that is, we have a very different hypothesis.
There is always a difference between Evolution-without-God and Evolution-with-God.
I feel you are lumping all of BioLogos into the “without-God” camp, when in fact such a “lumping” misses the very point of BioLogos.
Hi George
I do understand from your prior comments that BioLogo’s includes participants that do not believe in universal common descent in its entirety as described classically by Darwin.
Darwin defined universal common descent as the diversity of life unfolding from a single common ancestor from initially cell division and ultimately sexual reproduction.
And yet we can see from your description above that you still have not internalized the nature of BioLogos and what it teaches.
There is nothing in your definition that accommodates the possible BioLogos viewpoints.
I would revise your sentence accordingly:
Mr. Abcdefg ". . . defines universal common descent as the diversity of life unfolding from a single common ancestor from initially cell division and ultimately sexual reproduction, without any assistance or intervention by God.".
I’m quite sure there are those within the BioLogos fold who agree with me that God could have arranged Universal Common Descent … and probably did.
Would you agree that this is a very different hypothesis than one that takes away the possibility of God’s intervention?
Oh, absolutely, @Billcole. But if you are going to dispute people on BioLogos, you can’t just treat them all like they are pure Darwinists.
There’s a full range of Christians, I find, with any number of positions between God doing it all verses God hardly doing.
But if you are going to dispute on biology … it seems unfair to be adamant about biology and yet be completely vague regarding the Time Frame !!!
What’s the point of attacking biological minutiae … and yet say: but I have no idea whether the Earth is 5000 years old or 5 billion years old?
As far as I’m concerned, it’s the geologists and physicists who have closed the debate … not the biologists.
False. Darwin didn’t say anything about cell division.
Are you reading what Darwin wrote or are you limiting yourself to hearsay?
1 Like
BioLogos does not take a hard stance on the nature of God’s action in our origins. Maybe He intervened. Maybe He didn’t need to because He expertly set up the process.
2 Likes
Nice summation, @Swamidass. But I’m inclined to say these are the TWO (2) scenarios for God’s intervention, rather than characterize the former as intervention and the latter as non-intervention.
God is at work in both scenarios… which in my view is the only thing that really matters. If we are going to differentiate them, I would say the latter is accomplished only by naturally lawful causation… while the former scenario calls for at least some moments of non-lawful causation.
I found this article an interesting theory that brain size increased with the need to catch smaller, more cunning prey, and then shrank a bit with adaptation to farming.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.