Ken Ham’s an Oz with a huge US following. Go figure. Proves my point…
Aye, WCG, PT. United?
RC! Armstrong was rabidly anti.
Sorry, the apostrophe is superfluous.
And that sentence belies your sophistication. The True History of the Kelly Gang is a challenge as it is one continuous sentence. A remarkable feat.
So, you a cradle RC?
And I am brutal but fair, and intrigued at your ignoring the elephant in the room.
The fact that these new phyla require oxygen in order to live is quite sufficient.
When you compare nonzero evidence of any scientific hypothesis to the zero evidence of theological rhetoric, the ratio is infinite. As long as you continue to put up religion as something akin to science you will only succeed in supporting the atheist agenda to cast religion into the role of primitive science. Better to accept the role of religion in supporting the need for subjective participation in living ones life, rather than playing this losing game of competing with the objective observations of science.
Couldn’t agree more.
There are times when people approach science like it is a life philosophy that is supposed to have an answer to everything. That’s not what science is. One of the most exciting things about science is the simple phrase, “I don’t know”. At the heart of science is the humble acceptance of our ignorance, and a passion for methodically filling those holes in our knowledge.
Told by whom?
How do you look at a fossil and determine that the species was the result of a saltation event?
It is worth mentioning that phyla do not exist in nature. Phyla are a human invention that we use to categorize groups of species. The only taxonomic level that actually exists in nature is species. If we were to back in time and categorize life as it was then we would classify the first species of each phyla as just a new species, perhaps a new genus. The only reason these species are now considered the ancestors of an entire phyla is because of the amount of time that has passed and the success of their descendants.
There are a few that come to mind as one that have an obvious explanation. One is the sinistral species of Busycon (whatever Petuch, Hollister, and the like have said about generic assignment). The flip in coiling direction is known to be a very rare (usually) mutation in most snails. A few groups are normally sinistral (e.g. Planorbidae, Physidae, and Triphorinae), and a few random species elsewhere are consistently sinistral. The main point is that sinistral individuals can only mate with other sinistral individuals. Hence, as soon as a population appears, it could be considered a separate species (assuming that sinistrality is rare). Eventually, they may diverge noticeably from their dextral counterparts.
Another set of cases are groups that have so few fossil occurrences that trying to draw any hard conclusions about when they appear is impossible. Examples include Tjaernoeia (of which the only known fossil is sitting in a vial in my collection), and the family Cornirostridae (which have virtually always been put in other groups). It helps if the organisms’ remains are very similar to those of other groups, and are also tiny. [let me clarify-the largest specimens known of those two groups are about 2.5 mm across]
Well, sure, somebody indeed can say that if it works well by itself that there is no need for God to exist. But the same way you could say that Bible causes people to lose faith and has potential to erase God because some of them will interpret God as cruel and self-contradicting and conclude he doesn’t exist (just as many atheists do).
But we aren’t going to trash the Bible just because it can be interpreted like that are we? Just the same we won’t trash science just because someone interprets that God is unnecessary on it’s basis.
Another example is how one could say hundreds of years ago that trying to explain weather without God’s influence will make God unnecessary and therefore we should ignore science that tries to explain the weather but here we are, accepting modern understanding of weather and while some for sure will use it to say “there’s no need for God” believers don’t have any problems with it.
One may be afraid that when we dig too deeply, there will finally be evidence for things like: God doesn’t exist (or doesn’t care about us), christianity is a hoax, world is completely deterministic, free will is just an illusion and etc.
It may be true, but hiding from it won’t make it disappear.
At the opposite side, if personal God truly exists, then from digging deeper and deeper we will see God’s presence and by extension, importance of humanity more clearly. At least if we assume God doesn’t try to hide from us. And I don’t think he does.
So I think the only solution is to accept science, because if world is not made from only mechanical processes then it can be only be proved with science’s unability to reduce it to said processes. And be alerted, I am not asking people to try to measure something scientificially, fail, and say that because it doesn’t work it was made by God. But I rather mean something like Uncertainty principle, science being able to prove that it’s not possible to predict or calculate something.
I’m not asking you to be a spokesman for ID. I’m asking you to expand on your own statements here. You wrote earlier, ‘Biological evolution does a poor job of describing the pattern of stasis followed by saltations that is evident throughout the fossil record. […] ID does a better job than Darwinism ever will.’
How does ID do a better job? What does it actually offer as an explanation, in your view?
So did Newtonian mechanics. In neither case is it an argument against (or for) the scientific accuracy or usefulness of the model.
Every evolutionary theorist thinks the Modern Synthesis is inadequate, which is why so much has been added to evolutionary theory since the Synthesis was formulated. Note that Muller very much does not propose anything other than natural explanations for evolutionary change, nor does he really suggest that physical processes other than those in standard evolutionary theory are at work. What he wants to change is the way we conceptualize those processes in our theorizing. He may be right that there are more fruitful ways to think about the process of evolution, but that question has essentially nothing to do with theism or ID.
In effect, ID introduces the possibility of God into the equation when faced with certain observations that science cannot explain. I’m glad someone is allowing science to be used in arguing for the existence of God.
Unlike Newtonian mechanics, evolution directly relates to the orgins of life on earth, including humanity, which in turn directly relates to the question of the existence of a Creator.
Re cosmology, I’ve come across atheists online who claim that the formation of stars is a “fairly simple” process that is understood by science … this is just one instance of how they use “science” to dismiss the need for a Creator. But how can anyone possibly know exactly what it takes for a star to form? My rely to their claim is,
“Well, you would know, having built many a star yourself.”
Likewise, to those who claim to know to how novel body plans and organs evolved, I say,
“Well, you would know, having produced many organisms with new body plans and organs yourself.”
Wow. I think it’s fair to say that’s a RARE fossil!
Science is not pro or anti supernatural. Science cannot , and does not answer questions about things like does Yahweh, Baal or was Lovecraft unknowingly a prophet for a multidimensional cosmic creature that inspired his writings. Lack of evidence does not mean it’s evidence for something to not exist. So just because I don’t need supernatural influences to understand how a hurricane develops does not mean I need to say Yahweh is fake. Just because I don’t need supernatural force as a value in a equation of how trees grow does not mean I have proof Yahweh is fake.
Consider how the Bible says They make babies in the womb. I don’t need magic to explain how a man gets a woman pregnant. We don’t need gods to make all kinds of things to work. None of that equals atheism.
So if a person thinks just because some specific event can be explained without the use of the supernatural influence and therefore it means God is fake then that person is being influenced by two paradigms that are false.
The paradigm of atheism that says since Yahweh is not needed they are fake.
OEC / YEC / ID that says it’s fake science being employed because real science indicates the supernatural is necessary for it to work.
So they are in a position of influence that demands science or god to be fake. They are stuck between a imaginary rock and fictional hard place. With the views of something like evolutionary creationism / theistic evolution which just means a Christian ( in our case ) that accepts science and don’t demand a need for the supernatural to explain the processes and we hold to those truths without needing to compromise our belief in Yahweh or his son Jesus Christ. So while atheism or ID type beliefs may encourage a person to pick one or the other the Bible and scientific research does not. That’s why ECism is important because it’s showing a nice bridge that the others pretend does not exist to travel down. If science is going to result in someone thinking there is no god the YECism or ID has no hope of reslly helping them. But EC still can.
Post deleted
Post deleted
Really? The fact that an organism needs oxygen to survive is evidence that an increase in oxygen levels will cause new body plans and organs to evolve?
When did I “put up religion as something akin to science”?
Science is methodological naturalism … that’s quite a different animal to religion, I should think.
Well, if science was about oversimplifying complex topics to extremes and stating they are simple it would be cause for concern, thankfully, it’s not.
One can obviously explain something in few sentences, just like I can explain beginning of universe as “Just a very small thing with a lof of energy inflating into a very big thing”. But that doesn’t give this topic justice and is probably not even correct.
Science on the other hand, tries it’s best to understand the topic as well as possible with logical and reliable methods, the atheist in question probably was exaggerating to make a point but he would probably fail to explain how exactly it works, what happens inside, why it happens, just like in any fairly complex topic, there could be book or five to explain it and there would still be something to add.
Thanks to science we can more fully understand how complex this world is and so we can be more amazed with God’s creation. Some may try to convince others that science is on their side and proves their ideology but that’s not true. Science doesn’t side with no one, it simply tries to explain things.
I didn’t know Ken Ham is an Aussie.
I hung out with some folks from The Philadelphia Church of God. I still read “The Trumpet” magazine.
I became quite anti-Catholic myself.
I was brought up in a very Catholic environment, but after I left school I drifted away from Christianity. Many years later I was drawn back to Christianity via various non-Catholic forms, then eventually back to the Catholic Church.
Well bugger me dead … I’d fair-dinkum never heard of Aussie-speak referred to as “Strine”.
What “elephant in the room”?
Told by saltationists like Gould and Eldredge, for example.
I don’t look at fossils and I don’t determine anything from them. Instead, I listen to experts like (the aforementioned Gould and Eldredge and) German paleontologist, Gunter Bechly, who is also a “saltationist” … and an advocate of ID.
(Günter Bechly is a distinguished scientist who has authored or co-authored about 150 scientific publications, has discovered and named more than 160 new species, and has 10 biological groups named in his honor.)
The number of fossils known from only one good specimen is impressively high. But, it’s not too often that a superfamily is known as a fossil from only one specimen, but Tjaernoeia is that way (there are only 4 known recent species, all rare and deeper (>40 m) water). Tjaernoeia is about as similar to anything else known (Murchisonellids seem to be closest) as tyrant-flycatchers are to wood-warblers (or alternatively, pittas to old world sparrows).
Given that there are recognizable murchisonellids in the Devonian, that is an old split.
That is god of the gaps thinking. And as scientific knowledge grows and the gaps get smaller, this god gets smaller also, and more irrelevant.
“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.
