Thinking it was just semantics was a really dim response – but not surprising given the reason behind it.
It makes me think of the walk I took my pup on today: We passed the Roman Catholic church, which has outside of it a statue of Mary. As is almost always the case, my thought on seeing the statute was that her robe should be blue, not white. The connection is that someone, if I had said this out loud, might have decided to get a can of nice blue paint to paint her robe with . . .
totally oblivious to the idea that there might be a specific blue associated with the robes of the Virgin.
That song brings me to tears (as do many, regardless of genre – the unresolved yearning in the music and lyrics but with no answers, the answers that we have). CCM has a place. I like some Christian C&W too, but the association of some of the artists with Christian Nationalism dampens it. Then there was Kieth Green (with Bob Dylan on the harmonica on at least one cut ; - ).
The crit is the difference between active andpassive.
THe view pf evolution I am hearing is that God has a passive role. The structure is in place and that is enough. I\t is not. For humans to be the specific creation of Christianity God has to be active.
And that is what has been argued here for the last week or more, but never explicitly. It is all semanitics and philosophical viewpoints.
If peopple are claiming that God is in evolution (Because he is in everything) they are missing the point.
I have not been promoting ID in the way you are clainiing it.
the point is that science is based on challenge as in trying to find the best solution to understanding, it can only prove things to be wrong. As such it is built on challenging science or scientists
But then you object when I say that God providentially intervenes, undetectably. At this point, however, we have stopped talking about science when we start talking about God.
its a red herring as the evolutionary trait is beneficial for the female and the species, not the individual, let alone to the all important males . Just checking
Parent-child relationships tend to be altruistic - at least in the past they were - as the behaviour to raise the child is at cost to the individual. The self is there seen outside the individual in the lineage. It is hard to understand for modern man - or woman (just had to think of Loretta here) who has children as an accidental by-product of a recreational activity and does not have the concept of lineage dependent past and future self.
The trick of altruism is that it demonstrate that it is not benifitital to the individual self but to the higher level self, e.g. the species or the overall system. The “self” is not the individual component but the system it is embedded within.
God’s command to love thy neighbour like they self reflects that as it includes the expectation of the individual to lay down their life for the sake of said “self” unlike the more narcissistic modern interpretation of “love ones neighbour like oneself”
In biology, we do not call behaviours that promote the individual’s own reproductive success altruistic. Thus, energy expended in the care of one’s own offspring is not altruism. Thus, the male spider by letting his mate eat him and thereby produce more offspring that he has sired is just part of his reproductive effort, not altruism.
I agree that God’s command for humans to lay down their lives for a (stranger/ enemy) would be considered altruistic. But this is not what’s going on in the example of the spiders.
In my view, it is not a matter of God being active or passive in creation. God is transcendent. If God works as a hidden variable, we can never detect that in nature, or distinguish His working from natural law and chance. As corporal and material beings, the essential limitation is on our side, not God’s.
I do specify it and I do not ignore it – I just did. I just don’t claim it to be science nor suggest it belongs in a scientific discussion.
Please show us how it is specified and detected in The Science of ‘Theistic’ Evolution According to Richard Gillett – I expect that to be the title of your forthcoming NYT bestseller in the science humerous fiction category. It is a serious question however.
All you do and all you can do is talk about it. Science is about methodology. Please show us how you do science with God in it. You can’t. There’s your cognitive dissonance.
It’s easy to pretend that university professors don’t regularly manage to get grants to engage in studies that are deliberately designed as attempts to overthrow the prevailing views – indeed definitely easier to pretend that than to actually grapple with how science works. I had a number of professors whose driving theme in research was to try to shatter one or another “established” concepts in their field – and in retrospect, it isn’t surprising that they made the best instructors.
If God hides Himself when He is doing something that a prophet speaks out about, how much more should we expect His hand to be hidden when He is not announcing His work!
You absolutely need to know how the prevailing theory is supposed to work before you can critique it or successfully find an alternative. Do we see that problem here, I wonder.
The ones in my experience don’t/didn’t regularly manage to get any grants for anything, so my views on the subject are a bit different from average.
Of course, the ones where I actually know that are also the ones whose research is/was in fields that virtually no one will pay you to do, like systematic invertebrate paleontology.
This just shows that you have no idea. And I have been wasting my time.
It is not about specifying It is not even about what I may or may not believe
It is about you promoting a theory that does not (cannot) include God. And therefore confirming to those reading that there is no God.
It is about you objecting to me for including God in the conversation because it is science Therefore showing that God and science cannot be mixed.
On one hand you claim God is in control but you only show controls that exclude Him.
Even if you believe that God is part of evolution you deny it in the way you argue.
You are so obsessed with science not showing God that you are telling people that God is not part of it.
I cannot do what you ask. Because scientifically it is impossible. (as llong as you insist on abiding by scientific rules) AKA If you are going to argue against science you must use science.
I cannot give you an argument about (or that includes) God in a field where He does not exist.
. Just checking 
