Creation vs. Evolution: Paradigms

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@Klax

It is saying why go there? It is saying that proposing traceless, utterly undetectable divine guidance in nature that looks at every level as if it is unguided is completely absurd, totally meaningless.

I think this is imposing a value system on the scientific process that not all scientists share. Lots of scientists see value in exploring the ramifications supernatural realities, thinking about theology, ethics, and the transcendent and how such things overlap with the natural world. It’s just those interests are outside the realm of scientific inquiry, or at least what has traditionally been considered scientific inquiry. When you start getting into the science of the human mind, maybe the lines get blurred somewhat.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Christy

@Klax

It is saying why go there? It is saying that proposing traceless, utterly undetectable divine guidance in nature that looks at every level as if it is unguided is completely absurd, totally meaningless.

I think this is imposing a value system on the scientific process that not all scientists share. Lots of scientists see value in exploring the ramifications supernatural realities, thinking about theology, ethics, and the transcendent and how such things overlap with the natural world. It’s just those interests are outside the realm of scientific inquiry, or at least what has traditionally been considered scientific inquiry. When you start getting into the science of the human mind, maybe the lines get blurred somewhat.

Robustly done. Tea-time! Shall edit later.

Later

That led to the first legal meeting of 6 times three connected gardens makes 18 and I ended up looking at two of the three Leo triplet galaxies, M65 & 66, 35 & 31 mly away.

Right. I cannot see how any scientist of faith (including the guy whose telescope we were using) can propose undetectable divine guidance of nature. Or why. Or when. Or where. Or how again at the next level down. Apart from in and around incarnation, a most specific (class of) instance. But not generally. Not in consciousness, evolution=life, abiogenesis on down to the origin of universes. Except as an unnecessary Thomist-Jungian tenet of faith. That God couldn’t get it right first time from eternity. Nothing in science requires faith. To imply that science allows for faith is an imposition, the imposition. It does not need to. At all.

But yes, of course, if Jesus is the real deal, then so is transcendence. And science and rational deduction beyond the empirical should sketch outlines of God, frame theology and His ethics. I’m not sure if there are any human ethics which are unique to Christianity? As in I can’t think of any at all. [I can however think of many deeply flawed, appalling expressions of ethics in Christianity, show cased on this site.]

Science wants for no faith. Faith wants for science. If God is real, that doesn’t change science.

I’m intrigued by what difference the science of mind could make?

[Chris_Falter]

@Gregory

BioLogos is officially against “evolutionism”, even though its official anti-evolutionism gets very, very little attention, closer to silence on the Forum.

The first half is right, but you seem to have missed the anti-evolutionism in this very thread. You just have to look carefully; it doesn’t always get advertised with a network news chyron. For example:

@Christy

They were committed to methodological naturalism in science. That doesn’t mean they would assert that the natural world is all of reality or that science is capable of investigating all of reality.

The assertion that “the natural world is all of reality or that science is capable of investigating all of reality” is at the heart of evolutionism. Christy disputes the veracity of evolutionism by pointing out that early geologists and biologists accepted evolution and an old earth while simultaneously disputing evolutionism.

@Christy

Science does not have the tools to investigate God. Presenting a natural explanation of something in no way entails “therefore God wasn’t involved.”

Evolutionism claims that science is the only valid epistemological method. Christy disputes that claim quite vigorously.

Best,
Chris

[Chris_Falter]

@DavidS

I am an educated person - not a scientist, but aware of the main lines of evidence for evolution.

Hi David -

Everything you have said after making this statement in the opening paragraph of your opening post clearly shows the exact opposite of what you wrote. At no point in this long conversation have you demonstrated any awareness of the main lines of evidence for evolution–any awareness beyond the caricatures made by ICR, anyway.

Even if you do not change your opinion of the truth value of mainstream biology, I hope you will change your opinion of yourself. To any meaningful extent, David, you were entirely unaware of the main lines of evidence for evolution right until the moment you posted here. This thread has given you the opportunity to change your level of knowledge; I hope you will take advantage of the opportunity.

Best,
Chris Falter

[Chris_Falter]

@DavidS

However, methodological naturalism does commit one to saying “I can only accept natural causes for the phenomena of nature.”

David,

You evince a complete misunderstanding of methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism provides scientific explanations, but it does not and indeed cannot exclude prior causes related to personal agency or ultimate causes such as God’s will.

From wikipedia:

In a series of articles and books from 1996 onward, Robert T. Pennock wrote using the term “methodological naturalism” to clarify that the scientific method confines itself to natural explanations without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and is not based on dogmatic metaphysical naturalism.

@DavidS

Even if all the evidence pointed to six-day creation and a Global Flood, methodological naturalism would prevent scientists from concluding them as true.

This is completely and utterly wrong. In principle…

• Radiometric dating could show the earth is only about 8000 years old.
• A global, ubiquitous, miles-deep, single sedimentary layer could point to a global flood.
• Genomic studies would not be able to point to an era when kinds of life that currently exist did not exist.

It is true that methodological naturalism would not be able to point to God’s hand as a causal explanation. However, given appropriate evidence it could easily point to the three conclusions I listed, and many others, that would be consistent with YEC.

@DavidS

The theory of gravity, for example, has no theological implications that I can see.

I respectfully disagree. The Big Bang theory–a scientific origins theory par excellence–emerges directly from applying the general theory of relativity (i.e., Einsteinian gravity) to today’s observations of the ongoing expansion of the universe.

Best,
Chris Falter

EDIT: changed preposition (“by” to “from”)