Christian, evolution and origins

Hi Nelson,

Do you mean this something like in the context that Darwin spoke of “evolution” only once in the final paragraph of the original 1859 OoS manuscript (though he used it more later)? Is that why you use “evolution” in quotes?

Otherwise, do you wish to instead challenge Herbert Spencer’s notion of “evolution” (he wasn’t a natural scientist) involving “progress”, rather than merely “descent with modification”?

Darwin gets bashed (and misinterpreted) from most sides now, and “Darwinist” isn’t a term that anyone wishes to accept at BioLogos. Most people are post-Darwinian these days, at least in sentiment.

Speciation, rather than specification?

Good wishes in your (re)search.

1 Like

Gregory thanks for your correction I mean speciation.

I question the notion of a natural tendency towards biological evolution, I think such concept is a prejudice or superstition. The species were programmed to develop as they did by genetic instructions.

Then we should be able to see that program in the genome. Any evidence that it is there and can be seen? What is the next step that you predict the genetic instructions will take?

1 Like

Phil, there are good reasons for such instructions to be undetectable, since science could be used for good or evil purposes, right?

So you are saying your statement is based on undetectable evidence?

Metaphysical inference.

I wonder if there are highly respected philosophical journals which one can point to show ones own ideas are consistent with the philosophic consensus? Since appeals to authority are generally looked down on.


MarkD, there is a long tradition in metaphysics centering on inference but the prevalent fashion in modern times is towards a “scientific philosophy”.

As far as I know inference these days is not respected as it was long ago, but such turn of events did not stop me writing a book based on inference.

If the biological magisterium originated it. There could be no prejudice or superstition or metaphysical inference or evil purposes behind that. Just science. It would have to be some science.

Maybe so but it seems there are many schools and approaches at least. So even if you’re in a minority you probably not alone. What I think all philosophers should do is clearly differentiate where they think they have an argument any reasonable person should be persuaded by versus where what they have at least makes intuitive sense for themselves but others might see it differently. That is the charm of science: every claim is backed by reasoned arguments backed by evidence. Of course not every field has such a tradition of peer review and challenge, but then not every claim is empirically based either.

What are the premises and reasoning for this inference?

I suspect that much of what you consider to be undetectable is in fact detectable. The fact you weren’t aware of the plate replica or fluctuation experiments that demonstrated the randomness of mutations makes me think you may not realize the discoveries that have been made in biology. You sound like someone who is philosophizing on physics without knowing of Newton or Einstein.

1 Like

Could you take a look at my book website to get more details about my frame of mind?

You are right about me not being properly informed about scientific matters, I am today in similar situation than that of ancient philosophers operating almost exclusively by inference and common sense.

You’re welcome re: speciation. I’m not a natural scientist either, just amateur onlooker.

On the site you link to with your self-published book, it says:

all the facts of “evolutionary” biology are actually facts of intelligent design. Biological evolution is a modern myth which emerged out of misinterpretations of the theory of natural selection’s highly successful scientific results.”

Do you mean “ID theory” by the Discovery Institute & its fellows, or just “facts of ID = God-did-it”, or both?

It seems to me that ID theory is a kind of “theistic science” attempt, while generalized “ID = God-did-it” usually comes across as positivistic apologetics. A combined “theistic science apologetics” is preferred by others in the IDM. Not my taste, frankly, but perhaps some feel a need for it.

ID is a fundamentalist religious belief in the same universe as YEC with no foundation in science - or ‘metaphysics’ - whatsoever.

It looks rather detached from the actual biology. There are very real things that scientists are trying to explain, such as the nested hierarchy, patterns of similarities and differences in genomes, and the fossil record. If you want to challenge Evolution as a reliable explanation for the biology we see then you are going to have to tackle those subjects.

The reason we invented science is that inferences from common sense and human intuition are notoriously unreliable. Before modern science, naturalists were within the Rationalist school which is where you appear to be me. Then the Empiricists came along (e.g. Francis Bacon), and with it came the Scientific Revolution that we are reaping the rewards of today.


Hand of God the back of God, the breath of God, sit on the right hand of God…all anthropomorphic expressions or human traits so we can understand power, position, authority when God is spirit.

Nothing to see here. Nothing knew.

1 Like

“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.