Another fabrication. There is no such thing in scripture.
But I also agree evolution does not guarantee any result. But why should science claim any such thing?
Meteorology certainly doesn’t do that either. So it is when you get hyped about some particular result, as in your made up claim the results of evolution being specified in scripture, you call a science godless when it doesn’t support your religious claims. So if you decide to preach that a storm (like Katrina) was sent by God in judgment, then you would call meteorology godless because it explains the storm all in terms of natural causes (how dare it even seem like it is contradicting your divine message!). No, meteorology and biology (evolution) are not about God, like so many many many other human activities. But just because God isn’t mentioned doesn’t mean it denies that God has anything to do with things. It simply focuses on the natural processes involve and has PROVEN without a doubt that this is a valuable human activity, even if it doesn’t support the grandiose self-importance of religion mongers.
“ToE excludes any sort of guiding or influence from God, basically because God is invisible to it. And that is the difference. Scripture claims “God created all animals according to their kind.” ToE claims otherwise.”
“Whether you like it or not God is not a part of ToE so it is godless. I do not care what stigma you attach to that phrase, it is correct.”
“The point about Evolution is that it is used to deny God or userp Him.”
You are continually pitting science against God.
So why doesn’t the same thing apply to meteorology? Meteorology is godless. It denies that God is involved in weather in any shape or form. So why don’t you have a problem with the science of meteorology?
What in the world are you talking about? Ecology is a huge part of evolution.
That’s true of EVERYTHING in nature, not just ToE.
My brothers are devout Christians, one of which actually works in university campus ministries. I have heard him say many times that he believes his 3 girls are a blessing from God. I know my brother pretty well, so I think he would agree that each of his children is part of God’s plan for his life. He would also agree that the science of human reproduction would say that if we went back in time that he would probably have a different child instead of the one he got. In fact, all three of his children are different from one another.
So what gives? He won’t deny the accuracy of the science which says there is no evidence that his kids were planned, but he also believes that they were.
The same would apply to weather. There are Christians who will believe that a set of storms that relieves a drought were part of God’s plan, yet there is nothing in the science of meteorology that would indicate that there was any plan.
We could say this about EVERYTHING in nature. However, you want to separate evolution as a separate case, even though it isn’t. How do you explain this?
It is abuot principles. As in the way the theories are constructed and formed and the basis by which they are made. Scripture has something to do with it but not in a YEC manner. I do not take Genesis as literal, but I do believe that God created… and ToE does not allow for that other than the "Light the blue touch paper and retire immediately " principle. Which basically mans that we are a cosmic fluke and not a product of Gods specific creation. Toi nsert God anyware, even invisible, into ToE makes it TE. . ToE is the scientific view with all the scientific explanations which do not include God.
However, the weather works fine under that principle. Even if Scripture says that god sends the rain, He can do it by the way it as set up to work. Likewise most of science is concerned with understanding th principles set in place.
My problem with ToE is that it is based on chance which I consider not a basis God would use.
I find it very frustrating for people to keep throwing other science at me as if i would object to all science. I do not. I do not even object to all of evolutionary theory, only ToE (zero to human) because I do not see God using such a system based soley on chance and survival. That contradicts what I know of God.
In general, there does seem to be a gut reaction to being related to other species from those who reject the ToE. They seem to think it somehow harms the dignity of humanity in some way, or makes us less special. This is an emotional and subjective reaction, not the objective reasoning we use in science. I try to always remember that we humans are made up of both, an emotional subjective side and a reasoning objective side. Sometimes those two halves of humanity clash. This is true for all of us, me included. I suspect that this is the main reason why evidence is not effective in many cases.
Different aspects of mutations and types of mutations vary in the degree of randomness. Some mutations are more likely than others. Certain organisms have higher or lower levels of mutation, and different parts of the genome are more or less likely to mutate. Mutations in a gene involved in error-checking increases the rate of other mutations. Environmental stress can trigger support molecules (chaperonins) shifting to protecting the core rather than helping more ordinary proteins, thus making the effects of any mutations more exposed. Selection and genetic drift affect which mutations persist in a population. Thus, there are constraints, but whether any particular mutation happens is best described by a probability.
Meteorology is the scientific explanations which do not include God.
Germ theory is the scientific explanations which do not include God.
Gravity is the scientific explanations which do not include God.
All theories in science are the scientific explanations which do not include God.
But the science of meteorology does not include God.
Also, why can’t the ToE be the way that God set it up to work?
Then there are huge swaths of science that you would need to reject, quantum mechanics being one massive field. You would have to reject the kinetic theory of gases which also relies on chance. You would have to disagree with basic human reproduction which says that the genome of a child is a product of chance even though people like my brother think they are part of God’s plan.
We are pointing out the hypocrisy it requires to reject the ToE for the reasons you have given and still accept the rest of science which has those very same problems.
Then how do you explain the data that demonstrates that very thing? How do you explain the distribution of the sickle cell trait in humans as compared to the presence of endemic malaria?
Yes, you are pitting science against God. You are saying that unless the ToE incorporates God that it is against God. You have stated it clearly many, many times.
That is absolute garbage. You are deliberately taking an all or nothing viewpoint. I do not accept every Cristian Doctrine, why must i accept every Scientific theory? Are Scientists infallible?
Science is the understanding of God’s creation. It does not have to identify the creator in any other place except creation.itself.
ToE is about the creation of humans. And that is the difference.
If you flip a fair coin, it has a 50/50 chance of being heads or tails. Any given radioactive atom has a certain chance of decaying or not during a given period of time. There are lots of things which, from a human perspective, are clearly well-described as “chance” events. But the Bible portrays God as sovereign over the outcome of casting lots or other “chance”-based divination. Whether God specifies every outcome in detail or allows a degree of flexibility in the details while determining the overall result is rather debated between Arminians and Calvinists. But the human perspective, from which a “chance” model is our best option, is all that science can do. If I flip a coin to decide whether to get vanilla or chocolate, no amount of study of the coin and the laws of physics affecting its motion will detect that I have a specific purpose for that action.
Of course, there are bad atheistic to deistic arguments claiming that chance in evolution removes God from the picture. But no sensible Christian has ever been troubled by the fact that coin flips display a probabilistic pattern. Biologically, there’s no good reason to doubt common ancestry of all known living things, but theologically that’s just our best model of how God created various kinds of organism.
The basic problem is when personal reasoning is made ultimate, rather than bowing to the evidence, whether it’s atheists dismissing the Bible for not being atheistic or antievolutionists dismissing the evidence of evolution because it doesn’t fit their interpretation of Genesis.
Then show me a scientific theory that incorporates the actions of God.
Humans are part of the creation, so why wouldn’t the same rules apply to humans that apply to the rest of the creation? Why are you singling out the creation of humans from how everything else is created in the very same creation?
I am sorry, but this is not about the dynamics of chance. There was at least one person n this forum who claimed that chance does not exist. I am happy for chance to exist. it must, There would be no point in life if it was Calvinistically pre-ordained. It is becasue i accept chance for what it is that I object to ToE. If there is no “chance” in ToE it is no longer ToE. it is TE. But also the “controls” of Toe (survival and adaptability) are negated because the survival is by design and not by effectiveness against competition.
I have made it clear from the start that I believe in TE. ToE is not TE it is the antipathy of it. Whether people want to superimpose that view onto all science is up to them but I do not. I do not have any problem with the rest of science. Basically TE takes out chance one way or the other. (I do not really care how)
The problem I have with TOE is that it thinks it can still create us from zero, by chance. I do not think it has that ability, do not think that the evolutionary process can achieve the changes it claims. it is as simple as that. Insert God and evolution changes. All the problems of large or directional change are negated. ID is fulfilled and IC is negated.
Let’s look at the case of the HbS allele (the sickle cell trait that confers resistance to malaria). If one parent has one copy of the allele and the other parent has no copies then about half of their children will get a copy of the allele and have some resistance against malaria, often enough resistance to allow them to age into adulthood and have children of their own. Whether a child gets this allele is a coin flip according to the science and according to the data. Children without this allele have a higher chance of dying from malaria in childhood and not having children of their won. From what I have heard, malaria is the deadliest childhood disease right now.
So how do you approach this issue? The pattern of passing on the HbS allele is consistent with our models of chance with a 50/50 chance of passing on a given allele. If it is by design, would you expect a 50/50 chance of passing on this allele? If so, why?
Added in edit:
A good website with the basics of the sickle cell Mendelian genetics, including probabilities.
Another assumption which you are inserting into the theory. Though this is probably because others have abused the theory in this way.
The filters are only survival and reproduction. Competition is just one strategy and far from the most significant. Cooperation is the most important and successful strategy by far. Even the creativity of finding an unoccupied niche is a more significant strategy than mere competition. To be sure, competition does work, and not just in evolution, but also in the free market. Competition is even a strategy which God has employed in the redemption of mankind.
Does God allow Sickle cell anemia? Or mongolism? Or any disease for that matter?
Does God have to be in control of the minutia? All or nothing> Again!
No.
TE does not mean God directs every single change (deviatio) or every single adaption. In fact the extent of His involvement is highly debated. All I (we?) care about is that he is more involved than ToE would suggest. Maybe setting parameters, but not being so precise.
When will you understand that it is not the whole thing that is in question?
It is never “All or nothing!”
The world shows balance and to a greater or lesser extent order. But there is chaos, and uncertainty and chance! I am not saying that there is no element of chance in TE,.
“But also the “controls” of Toe (survival and adaptability) are negated because the survival is by design and not by effectiveness against competition.”
If survival is by design, then this would include HbS and how it is passed on. I was wondering how your ideas related to this example.
I think this may be a good example to find some agreement. I suspect you would agree with the statement that HbS is passed on in a manner that is consistent with chance, as described by the ToE. I haven’t seen any data showing deviations from what we would expect from chance. From a scientific view, chance is sufficient for explaining the rate at which this allele is passed. At the same time, the ToE makes no claim that God is not involved, only that the data is consistent with what we would expect from natural processes. Again, that’s what the ToE says.
You additionally believe that God is involved in some way. That is TE. It doesn’t deny the conclusions made by the scientific theory, it only augments them with theology.
Since you want to talk about “all or nothing”, I would suggest that this is exactly what you are doing. The ToE does not state that God is not involved. I will say again, the ToE does not say that God is not involved. What the theory does say is that the data is consistent with known and observed natural processes. No scientific theory can say that God is not involved in nature. However, you want it to be all or nothing. If a scientific theory says that there is no evidence for God’s involvement, you want it to go all the way to saying God is NOT involved, ever. You claim that it is never all or nothing, and yet that is the very thing you are championing.
Just had a thought now on this, how would probability be determined without understanding all the causal factors? If DNA mutation can be affected by the apparent indeterminacy of quantum factors?
It may be noteworthy to observe how physical or naturally occurring events, like the waves of the ocean, approach randomness, but the point at which something becomes truly random, quantum indeterminacy, it is arguably no longer random…
You can empirically determine the probability distribution. In other words, observe a bunch of mutations and chart them.
Where randomness is related to fitness, you could map mutations in different conditions and determine if there is an increase or decrease of specific beneficial mutations in response to those conditions.
One interesting experiment:
They incrementally increased the size of the DNA bases, and this decreased the mutation rate until the DNA bases were too large to fit into the active site of the polymerase. This seems to indicate that some mutations are due to a loose fit between the DNA base and the enzyme that copies DNA. I would think that this would fall under the quantum domain, but could be wrong. Nonetheless, this isn’t a mechanism that could differentiate between beneficial, neutral, or deleterious mutations.
When something becomes truly random it is no longer random? What does that mean?
