Ignore God. Scientists’ goal is to know it all, whether that means God did it or not.
No need for you to try and correct what is not wrong.
Roymond is correct, and you are not.
Evolution is presented as correct and perfect. TV, Zoos, Internet, will all declare evolutionary “facts” as being just that.
I do not wish to go down the rabbit hole of what science terms a fact.
Richard
We both said “It isn’t…”.
It isn’t presented as perfect.
But it is presented as correct
Vanity, vanity, all is vanity
Richard
Evolution is presented just like any other scientific theory. If you have issues with evolution being presented as correct then you should be objecting to all of the other scientific theories that are presented as correct.
False reasoning.
each theory stands on its own, it is not propped up by either other theories or the people who made them.
Evolution stands or falls by it evidence and there is not enough to make it certain or guaranteed “right” (no matter how much you think you have, it is not conclusive, or provable. You can only demonstrate a fraction of what you claim, and a small fraction at that)
Richard
Edit
As soon as the exchange descends to this level it should stop.
@moderators please note. I do not wish this to continue, even if it already has.
It amounts to posturing and opinion
Evolution does stand on its own, just like the other theories that are presented as correct.
The scientific community completely disagrees, so they will continue to present evolution as correct. You could just as easily say the same thing about any theory in science. Flat Earthers disagree that the Earth is a globe, but that doesn’t stop the scientific community from saying that they are correct about the shape of the Earth. Uninformed opinions don’t change the scientific realities.
Then stop responding. It’s not our problem that T’s inconvenient facts don’t support your uninformed opinions.
There are no relevant facts given(IMHO).
I am not comparing theories he is.
Richard
Edit.
If you wish to support posturing, so be it.
I am out of here. (for now)
Pertaining to the topic, a scientific theory is given the title of “correct” when it explains mountains and mountains of independent lines of evidence. That’s exactly what the theory of evolution does.
In addition, when biologists want to understand what is happening in a population through time they use the theory of evolution. For example:
Correct theories are the theories scientists apply to real world questions.
We can use the Germ Theory of Disease as another example. This theory is applied everywhere to better understand communicable diseases. We think it is correct because there’s tons of evidence demonstrating that it is correct. At the same time, there are diseases we don’t fully understand, host interactions we don’t understand, virulence factors we don’t understand, but we still think Germ Theory is correct. Not having every single detail about everything does not prevent a theory from being correct.
A correct theory is a theory that explains mountains of observations, is not falsified by that evidence, continues to make accurate predictions, and is used as the basis for the bulk of research in a given field. That’s evolution. That’s germ theory. That’s relativity.
There are two different verbs, one that means “created (from nothing)” and one that means “made, shaped (from existing material)”. That gives two contrasting themes. The making of life uses the second verb, and further the means is described – the earth “brought forth”, i.e. life came from non-life.
No – not any more than a geologist includes in his scientific paper whether two of his team are sleeping together; first because it isn’t relevant, and second because he can’t actually know.
But what some of those scholars concluded from Genesis sounds just like theistic evolution – that’s the point. You’re arguing labels and ignoring the concepts.
They do. It rarely gets published because it rarely sells.
Defining what questions are being asked, as well as what terms mean, is critical for good communication. Biological evolution and abiogenesis are physical descriptions of the process of creating different kinds of organisms. As physical descriptions, they tell us nothing about God’s involvement. They could be patterns of God’s working, or God could interact with the process in any number of ways, or not be involved in the process, and science couldn’t tell the difference.
Thus, we can say that science supports evolution by natural selection as a good physical description of the process. Anyone disagreeing with that is incorrect - evolution does work well, as far as science can tell. But anyone claiming that the evidence that evolution is a good physical description implies that God isn’t involved is also incorrect; logically, God can create making use of evolutionary-like patterns, so the scientific data alone tell us nothing theological. Abiogenesis is much less easy to assess scientifically, but again is merely a physical process that God could use. If, for theological reasons, we perceive God’s hand at work behind or in science, we might say that evolution and other natural processes point to Him, displaying His wisdom, power, and creativity.
Similarly, we can observe that the universe is vast and most of it is unsuitable for biological life. Do we see that as evidence that we are mere insignificant specks in a universe indifferent to us, or that the universe is hostile, or that God’s power and plans are vast beyond our comprehension, yet include personal care for us? It depends on your philosphical position. Likewise, any event can be interpreted from deterministic or free-will viewpoints.
You have no authority to claim that. Evolution will never be proven that precisely that such a claim could be made.
It is precisely this arrogance and dogmatism that I have argued against and other scientists here claim does not exist.
Richard
I do have some authority to claim that, as my research focuses on evolution and I have a good idea of what the general scientific picture on the topic looks like. But again, we need to define terms. What does “a good physical description” mean? Is it “as far as we can tell, matches up” or “is unquestionably correct”? Does “supports” mean “proves” or just “agrees reasonably well”? And again, by “evolution by natural selection”, I mean the physical process, rejecting claimed philosophical implications relating to God’s involvement. On theological grounds, I believe every natural process, including evolution, is God’s work, but physical descriptions can’t get at such questions.
You are reading additional claims into the statement that are not intended.
It doesn’t exist. Working well is not the same as working perfectly or precisely or being proven.
The theory of evolution works well because it has predicted and continues to predict many, many of the results produced by genetics, zoology and palaeontology, ranging from chromosome fusion remnants and gene cladograms to species and fossil distributions.
If it didn’t work well, it would have been abandoned long ago. Instead, it is being reinforced as new genomes are sequenced, as fossils are uncovered, as new species are discovered and as new biological systems are investigated. It is confirmed millions of times every year by researchers in a wide range of disciplines producing results of which most people are completely unaware.
It may not be perfect, and some of the details get corrected by new discoveries, but the overall theory works extremely well and has done for decades, especially since the availability of DNA sequencing.
Only because you do not admit or address the shortcomings.
DNA proves nothing. You interpret what you see to fit the established theory. What you see could be interpreted differently. It is what you do not see that becomes more significant, but that is not really a scientific notion.
No one disputes that scientists are satisfied with their theory. It is just the vanity that any human could possibly think they know what scientists claim to know, so much that they defend it with such veracity.
Richard
By instantiation of the prevenient laws of nature, or providentially below the statistical surface? Over Lessing’s Ditch?
It depends on what is meant by “differently”. Is it possible that the DNA sequences were designed independently of evolutionary processes to look like they fall into a well-supported tree structure that matches up impressively well with fossils and anatomy? Yes; there is no way to tell a difference between those scientifically, therefore it is not a question that science is capable of answering. That they fall into well-defined tree structures is as certain as any physical measurements (the exact topology is never completely certain, though), why is the question where those two models differ, and as has been pointed out already, “The Theory of Evolution predicts exactly this pattern and is thus supported by the pattern being found.” is a true statement, to whatever extent Evolution is guided or unguided by outside entities.
You continue to repeat that, and it continues to be wrong. Every biologist around tries to buck established theory; it’s a good way to form hypotheses. But it just keeps resulting in minor course corrections.
The ‘shortcomings’ as you call them - the various unknowns and gaps - are admitted and widely debated. They are the focus of research. You can read about them on Wikipedia.
The actual shortcomings, anyway.
Vague claims with no details or substantiation are worthless. If you can’t provide a different interpretation of the data - which would require knowing what data is available - or describe what is supposedly not seen - which would require knowing what is seen - all you have is uninformed opinion.
Except that they claim to. Evolution is not just about ancestral trees it claims to know how they were formed right down to the mechanisms that formed them and “chose” them. DNA comparison does not prove those mechanisms yet scientists are claiming that it does.
The difference between guided and unguided is at the heart of the difference between TE and ToE.
I have just answered this.
The difference between guided and unguided will not affect what you see. It is not demonstrable. The difference is theoretical practicalities based on understanding the concepts involved. If you cannot see the differences caused by guidance then maybe you do not fully comprehend as much as you claim.
Richard
“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.