Indirect Creation of the Species

I have a new theory of indirect creation of the species I would like to discuss with you in this forum.

Initial question:

Is “evolution” the only possible explanation for biology facts or just one interpretation (a mistaken one) which does not preclude another interpretation such as biological development ruled by genetic instructions of supernatural origin, triggered by environmental events?

Are you seriously saying you have a scientific model that rivals current evolutionary theory for explanatory power? “Theory” in scientific parlance does not mean “guess” or “untested hypothesis.” It means a well-supported model that pulls together multiple lines of evidence and tested hypotheses.

I would be curious what evidence you think exists for genetic instructions of supernatural origin.

Christy, I am a self-taught philosopher concentrating on metaphysics and philosophy of mind, not a scientist. The subject of the origin of the species, emerges as a special case in which scientific evidence has been available (beginning with Darwin’s work) but it has not been correctly interpreted up to our time.

My argument is metaphysical, rather than scientific.

It is by inference that I have figured out “Natural Selection” is not in fact natural, and there is no biological evolution only biological development which obeys a genetically programmed Intelligent Design plan.

What is most interesting in the subject at hand, are the facts of “evolutionary” biology being facts of intelligent design provided you interpret the big picture scenario correctly.

Therefore I do not have a competing scientific theory that would prove “evolutionary” biology science wrong, what is wrong is the commonly accepted interpretation of such facts.

An important factor to successfully counter the commonly accepted interpretation (biological evolution) is to enter into metaphysical considerations with the purpose of reaching a deeper understanding of both existence and perception.

That has been my work in the last few years and it takes a metaphysician to reach deeper than what the scientific method is able to unveil particularly when interpretation of results must go beyond logic and math.

Did I respond to your post in a suitable manner, and do you still want to discuss?

It’s hard to discuss something honestly when it just sounds like nonsense. So to better understand it I want to select a point in time.

Did God program a single cell to divide and over a long period of time that programmed cell reacted to external forces becoming all the plants, mushrooms and animals we see.

Or did God create thousands and thousands of animals already full formed and over time they’ve adapted into everything we see?

As suggested by “evolutionary” biology facts it was a single cell (I call it prototype) leading to all the species not by random events but by programmed reactions to external world pressures.

Should we talk about what is possible, it could have been more than one initial prototype; to either account for each human race or to extend to each of the human languages.

To be honest, when I hear these arguments, what I think of is something similar to this.

Someone comes in and says that they have competing theory with how personalities develop and that psychologists have it all wrong. It has very little to do with biological nature and nurture. That it actually stems from hermetical understanding of astrology. That this recondite understanding of celestial movements influence the development of the fetus. Then as the homo sapien is cultivated in the womb and birthed the descendants of the same star dust they are made of helps tune them into what the cosmos needs them to be in order for civilization to not spiral out of control.

But when I see arguments like that, they just seem so out of touch with anything logical, that you can’t help but to just think, “ Do I really want to stop reading my Bigfoot massacre horror novel “ just to waste my time in hopes that if some random high school kid working on a project does not read it and think it’s something of substance and it holds them back from developing a healthy scientific understanding.

If that makes sense.

Maybe this will work better.

Can you link me to 3-5 scientists that have published peer reviewed papers that share a similar understanding to what you believe or can you cite a few books that showcase your thoughts?

Or are you the main, or only pioneer to come into this interpretation of the data?

1 Like

Thanks for your opinion SkovandOfMitaze, metaphysics has a long intellectual reputation and in this special subject it can be backed by solid scientific evidence.

Well I look forward to putting down my book to read whatever relevant links you share by scientists that undermine the theory of evolution.

I used to support the ID idea, and its proponents think that it is scientific. It is not – the neutral theory of evolution can indeed produce complexity. I think our intuition is correct, but it is evolution itself that is designed and providentially guided. There is also a theological reason why God doesn’t want ID to be proven.

SkovandOfMitaze, just consider in the past people laughed at George Berkeley’s immaterialism until modern physics corroborated it, and as far as I am aware of when that took place no one retracted their insults. No one busy in intellectual pursuits should worry about negative comments.

Dale, my version of Intelligent Design is not scientific and needs not to be, since biology supplies the science part of the total package, but the metaphysical explanation is mandatory to reach into reality away from just logical rethoric.

Providence is metaphysical.

Sure. But we can use that for anything though. For me your final statements said it all.

You have a unscientific explanation that undermines a scientific theory based on abstract philosophy.

Whatever use metaphysics might be outside of the material world, it is the scientific method, the testing of hypothesis, that has proven itself in understanding nature.

This is not to deny all value to philosophy, much of which has nothing to do with science. I do not even mean to deny all value to the philosophy of science, which at its best seems to me a pleasing gloss on the history and discoveries of science. But we should not expect it to provide today’s scientists with any useful guidance about how to go about their work or about what they are likely to find.
Steven Weinberg - Dreams of a Final Theory.

Scientific theories are the interpretation of facts in the domain of nature. If you do not have a scientific theory, what have you to contribute to understanding of biological evolution or development? Do you have a confident grasp of biology and genetics?

To evaluate scientific evidence and scientific arguments, you need to do it on scientific terms. You can’t simply replace a scientific argument with a metaphysical one.

That is not going to be compelling to all the scientists who have empirical evidence for natural selection that you have not disproven.

Again, if you are going to contest a scientific interpretation, you have to do so on scientific terms.

I agree that the scientific method is not an appropriate tool for accessing all truth. But it is effective for what it tries to do. I am highly skeptical that someone who doesn’t understand the science can effectively point out where it has been “wrongly interpreted.”

5 Likes

Evolutionary theory explains what we observe in nature better than any other theory. Untestable ideas of direct divine fiddling have no place in science. Since we know nothing of how God does what He does, how could that possibly be of interest in science? There is a branch of philosophy concerned with science but it isn’t in competition with science. It doesn’t propose ‘scientific’ theories based on philosophic ideas. Seems to me your idea is theological since it is more about what you think God does than about how we mere mortals can explain what we see in nature.

4 Likes

Ron, Christy, and Mark thanks for your comments. I have written and self-published a book in which I present my arguments as my original metaphysical persuasion but reading your forum rules it seems like I am not allowed to promote it here, right?

If anyone is interested in reading it please send me a private message and I will give you my book website address. In the mean time I could reply to each of your comments but you should be advised beforehand it could take considerable time to cover all the issues needed for you to understand why I take the position I take.

In my book I have re-defined existence and perception, among other things therefore I have a metaphysical and philosophy of mind basis for my arguments which you are not yet aware of.

The metaphysics and philosophy of mind arguments I made in my book need to be known prior to understanding my position as I declare it here in a few words. Should I go on replying to each of your comments?

Evolution is the best explanation we have for what we see in biology. No theory can preclude other explanations, but a theory can be the best explanation.

The analogy I often use is a crime scene. A forensic scientist can find fingerprints, DNA, shoe prints, tire prints, and fibers that all match the defendant in some way. The prosecutor puts forward the conclusion that the defendant is guilty. However, the forensic scientist nor the prosecutor can preclude the interpretation that God planted all of the evidence at the crime scene and that the defendant is actually innocent.

This is why science uses the law of parsimony. If we have a well evidenced and strongly supported natural mechanism then we don’t throw out that explanation just because a supernatural intelligence could have produced the same observations. If we didn’t have this law of parsimony then we would have to throw out every single theory in science, even the ones that you probably accept as being true.

3 Likes

I would suggest that you look at some classic experiments in microbiology.

https://www.genetics.org/content/28/6/491

In both cases they started with a single bacterium and let it divide. They challenged the bacteria with either antibiotics or bacteriophage and they found that only a tiny fraction of the bacteria had mutations that were able to fight off those challenges. Moreover, those mutations happened before the challenges, not as a response to those challenges. All of the experiments since that point have demonstrated this same thing, that the processes which produce mutations have no statistically significant correlation to environmental challenges. Simply put, the process of mutation is blind to the needs of the organism, at least in a statistical sense. If beneficial mutations were a direct response to the environment then we wouldn’t see just a tiny percentage of bacteria with mutations for antibiotic or phage resistance, nor would we see the specific results in the two sets of experiments in the papers above.

1 Like

The general outline of the origin of species is by this point well understood by the modern evolutionary synthesis, and supported by incontrovertible paleontological and genetic evidence. From the cambium forward at least, we have a pretty good idea of how we got here. Why should we be in the market for a solution when a scientifically robust one is already well established? That riddle is solved

“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.