Not to mention gravity (intelligent falling)
I am focussed on what is taken, and taught, as the theory of evolution - I have not heard, or read, of any text book, or lecture, that deals with the TOE that can possibly be taken as theistic evolution or evolutionary creationism - so the point that we should discuss is the theoretical basis and thinking that constitutes TEO. In that spirit, people who participate in Philosophy of Science propose many notions and models for evolutionary areas, be they biology, zoology, genetics, and way out to neuroscience. Their ground, or basis, for TOE is understood as “material, chance activity”, summarised as variation and natural selection - I cannot comprehend any serious scientist or thinker who would accept this outlook without accepting that basis for this theory.
I do understand that others look at the theoretical basis of TOE critically and point out many flaws and, in an overall view, inadequate against the claims made of it - and many of these flaws are acknowledged even by proponents of TOE. The phrase by Dawkins makes sense - atheists now feel intellectually fulfilled because they have a TOE that is materialistic. They do not care if it is inadequate - we however, should look past this and instead consider how practicing scientists in the bio-fields, can perform solid research without the shackles of the materialistic TOE. It is this encouragement that communities may bring to these endeavours - not some amateurish idea that contributes nothing, and instead continues the discord (e.g. atheists vs theists, TE vs ID, and such).
It is not my wish to tell BioLogos what to do, but George, your language is fanciful (to put it mildly) - any group that simply says God did it, does not stand astride between two continents (whatever that means). Any theory that has as its basis, (a) nature did it, or (b) it just happened by chance, or (a) God dun it that way, is vacuous at best, and silly at worst.
Science only teaches part of the story @GJDS. In evolutionary creation, we believe this story is incomplete.
We see evolution the same way you probably see embryology. Science has a description of how babies are made that includes only natural laws and randomness. Scientifically speaking, this is description entirely excludes God. Yet, we also, at the same time hold that God “knits us together in our mother’s womb” and that He “knew us from before the foundations of the earth were laid.” These things are true too, and not in the scientific description.
Embryology “excludes” God from the definition because science is limited and incomplete. We, as Christians, complete embryology with God’s revelation to us. This gives us a more complete view.
I imagine (and hope) that you are okay this line of reasoning with embryology. No one is trying to design experiments to figure out exactly how God directly intervenes in utero to knit us. We do not care about this question, because we hold both descriptions to be True.
Why would evolution be any different? To me, evolution is just like embryology.
Hi Joe,
Hope all is going well for you and yours. Like you, I sometimes experience busy periods that make conversations here difficult to participate in; please accept my apologies for the long absence.
Previously in this thread, you stated that you did not have time to read the scientific literature to which I provided links. Moreover, all of your citations, when you have provided them, have been to YEC or ID sites.
Yet you feel qualified to make pronouncements on the contents of scientific literature?
I can assure you that a large corpus of scientific literature exists on the development of novel body plans. If I am not mistaken, one of my links even pointed to a source on this very point.
I want to bring to your attention a Scripture that shook me to the foundations regarding the interaction of science and faith:
The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him. - Proverbs 18:17
My own experience, Joe, is that as long as I wasn’t reading the scientific literature, I was quite comfortable in my YEC beliefs. When I finally decided to listen to geologists and astronomers, I realized that the case for YEC that I had accepted was completely unsupportable.
After that, I spent a decade advocating ID. Again, I was guilty of reading only the literature that supported my views, without bothering to read the other side. I had accepted the case without allowing the other side to come forward and examine it.
When I started reading the tertiary literature in paleontology and biology, though, I realized that the ID case against evolution was extraordinarily weak, while the case for evolution is very strong. In such a situation, I felt compelled as one who testifies to the truth, and the importance of integrity, that I had to figure out how to incorporate biological evolution into my worldview.
I still believe, as you do, that life exists because God, in His wisdom and creative power, willed that it should exist. That is the main point of the first Genesis creation account, in my view: before there were stars, planets, and various forms of life, God said, “let there be…”
It is possible to believe, with full intellectual integrity, that:
- Biological life points to a living God who created it, and
- He created the universe in such a way that its forces would bring forth the biological life He intended.
Then the theory of evolution, like any other scientific theory such as relativity or quantum mechanics, becomes an exploration and explanation of the mechanisms God built into the order of the universe.
I recognize that what I have outlined is very sparse account of science and faith. A scholarly community has developed around the issue. If the issue interests you as much as you say it does, I urge you to read broadly in the field.
Cheers,
1 Like
No, but one encounters a good many theistic evolutionists who deny that God intended any particular outcomes from evolution (for example, being pleased when an intelligent ape evolved, and choosing mankind as a result). Such an approach puts a very different complexion on what “knitting me together in my mother’s womb” means. Is it any more than “God created the autonomous natural process that made a person like me possible”? If EC does not articulate a clear doctrine of special providence, then the connection between God as Creator and evolution as his tool remains nebulous - and controversial.
Similarly, much ink is spilt, even here, on arguing against the need to believe in a historic Adam, on the basis taht our demonstrable our continuity with our evolutionary ancestors rule it out. But unless that is habitually discussed together with what you say about the inability of evolution to account for an immortal soul, EC is open to the charge that it is in practice naturalistic. Over 6 years here I cannot recall anybody who discounts a historic Adam giving any positive account of how a continuous evolution can be accommodated to the discontinuous phenomenon of “immortal mankind”. Though I have heard a number say that we don’t need to believe in an immortal soul, given the problems it raises with evolution… If not Adam, then what? “Evolution”, as you rightly say, is not an adequate answer, but to be taken seriously EC must provide a better one in keeping with the “creation” part.
There was violence done, Joe, but not to the Scriptures. It was done to Karl Giberson.
You see, the very next sentence after the partial paragraph quoted by whatever YEC site is this:
“I discovered, however, that this was about where Dennett’s acid ran out of steam (or whatever acid runs out of when it stops dissolving everything). The acid of evolution is not universal, and claims that evolution ‘revolutionizes’ our worldview and dissolves every traditional concept are exaggerated.”
Giberson then makes a series of affirmations:
For starters, what eactly does evolution have to do with belief in God as creator? It rules out certain mechanisms…but others remain…
And then:
The central idea in Christianity concerns Jesus Christ and the claim that he was the Son of God, truly divine and truly human…
And then:
Christianity merges the Incarnation with the belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Christ’s Resurrection offers hope that we too can have eternal life and one day be united with God…
The specific doctrines in your list, Joe, are the details of a literal-historical hermeneutic of Genesis 1-3. Do you really wish to claim that favoring the framework hermeneutic over a 6-day literalism is doing violence to the Scriptures?
Do you really wish to claim that the doctrines of Scripture are inextricably linked to 6-day literalism?
A couple of concluding points:
-
In the context of the book, Giberson’s phrase “nearly everything else I counted sacred” is a reference to the YEC beliefs that he was so passionate about.
-
This is the second time in this thread that the source(s) you have cited have been shown to cut off quotes in a very misleading way. Clearly, the source(s) is(are) not worthy of your trust, or ours. It’s time to implement Proverbs 18:17, and find better sources on the relationship of faith and science.
3 Likes
I’m confused by your comment. Have I not just articulated this clear doctrine of God’s special providence? Have I not just articulated that natural evolution alone cannot produce an immortal soul?
In my view, evolution is merely an incomplete description of how God formed us from the dust. It tells us nothing about how He breathed a spirit into us. Moreover, it is compatible with a historical Adam and Eve.
And, thanks for your concern, but EC is taken seriously. =)
Amen. The Resurrection and our true experience with Him.
This is enough for confident belief. Why does evolution need to be false also? For me, Jesus is more than enough.
1 Like
Joshua
I was not doubting your affirmation of special providence - just questioning your speaking as if it were the view of all ECs. I’ve been posting here (as I said above) for six years +, have read literally thousands of posts, and articles and books not only at the popular end, but those of the academic “theoreticians” of EC, and have always self-identified as a theistic evolutionist… I even had an article on BioLogos, not to mention writing something like 1.5 million words on my own blog. So I’m scarcely unfamiliar with the field, nor unsympathetic to your own position.
But in practice current theistic evolution appears to embrace (and is perceived from outside to embrace) a very mixed bag of theological positions from Open Theism to Panentheism, Open Process theology, and others, and often to be less than clear as to which it considers valid, and which it doesn’t.
It was the academic TE Robert J Russell who described much of contemporary theistic evolution as “statistical deism” (he actually suggested it was the default position), and the excellent David Wilcox (a TE long involved in the ASA and with a strong doctrine of providence in evolution who has, as far as I know, never written for BioLogos) who uses the term “semi-deism” for what he has observed around him.
So I’m with you in maintaining that the historic Christian doctrines are entirely compatible with anything that modern science can turn up - but have experienced many instances of being criticised by other TEs when I have waved the flag for some of those doctrines, and most notably that of God’s providential government of creation. Anti-evolutionism is far from being the only reason many American Evangelicals have issues with Evolutionary Creation (I am in England, by the way, where the culture wars have much less hold).
Thanks for the reassurance. I just endured a bruising blog war. Some of my defensiveness is residual from that.
And you make a good point. I do not speak on behalf of everyone. Just myself (@DeborahHaarsma , I’m sure, is breathing a sigh of relief). I think my position, nonetheless, is part of the BioLogos camp.
I think BioLogos is a big tent on this, taking in everyone that affirms their Belief statement. The more well-known members often explain a version of evolution that is almost deistic, barely even theistic to many observers.
Ultimately, BioLogos will probably benefit greatly as more “theistic” voices in the camp rise in prominence. I say this with no disrespect to those who have come before. It’s just that many think that BioLogos is advocating a view of creation that is indistinguishable from deism. I don’t think this is an accurate characterization, but adding some different voices to the mix could make this more clear to the public.
Well… that was a lot of intense preparation … with not much of a conclusion.
If most of us ordinary folks are in agreement that Science almost certainly cannot PROVE Evolution is assisted by God … then we are left with FAITH.
The men and women who by FAITH uphold God’s existence and relevance to humanity … and yet by Science are also convinced of the Earth’s age well exceeding MILLIONS of years … DO stand astride two worlds.
BOTH the realms of FAITH and SCIENCE.
.
.
In contrast, we have Evangelical YEC’s … who by their FAITH accept all sorts of Biblical figures of speech as REAL … and OPPOSE the testimony of science regarding the age of the Earth.
FAITH ALONE.
.
These YEC’s are the ones who do not stand astride anything. They have hunkered down in just one world… and that world is NOT the world of Science.
This is the sort of thinking that maintains and encourages the culture war mentality, and contributes nothing to a better understanding of the faith-science harmony.
The approach commences (for those with faith) by considering the big ideas in science, and understanding ones that have been tested sufficiently to warrant acceptance. These ideas have been discussed extensively, and include scientific insights into “beginnings” of the universe, the constants (often added to fine tubing) that science requires (needs to be science), the mysterious capacity for human intellect to access nature and render that understanding comprehensible (via maths), the incredible diversity and our ability to differentiate and characterise elements, compounds, particles, forces, and so on, that make up nature, and then we go into areas that are less well understood, such as the origins of life, the mind of human beings, notions of morality (good and evil) - obviously, if we are serious about examining our faith and understanding science (and other areas), we cannot select any one small area of the sciences and become obsessed with it.
My view is that the culture war has led to two contrasting outlooks that centre on an inadequate (TOE) which is inadequate even for biology, let alone as a basis for all sciences (maths, physics, chemistry, material sciences, engineering, agriculture, as well as biology). The contrasting outlooks of this culture war are equally at fault, and drag all sorts of faulty notions into the theological understanding of Christianity, an understanding that spans 2000 years, and goes further back to perhaps 5-6000 years of discussion, life experiences, historically significant events, During such a lengthy period, there have been many critics and opponents of the faith, including wrong teachings, philosophical arguments, political opposition, persecution, and so on. The faith has withstood these tests, and it would be wise for us to understand why it has, and why TOE is used in the way it has now. This is what a serious student would seek, and would do - this is what is meant by having an enquiring mind and eager for the truth.
Your assessment of faith is similar to your understanding of science and philosophy - all sorts of statements, drawing on any novelty and speculation out there, and then claiming you are a student and yet you do not hesitate at making pronouncements and ideas that are poorly thought out.
I have stated on occasions that evolution is an inadequate theory, is semantic in origin and within the scientific outlook, and as such, our understanding of it should be confined to a paradigm in biology - some workers in this field see it as a work in progress.
My comments are aimed at encouraging those who are interested, to consider the wider ideas of science, and philosophy of science, to gain deeper insights into the harmony between faith and science. Controversial ideas and rampant speculation are distractions in such an endeavour.
@GJDS… so… I rush to make poorly thought out ideas?
I’m still waiting to learn something from you… anything really, that you think constitutes something really well thought out.
You seem to want to use the Atheistic versions of evolutionary theory as a club against BioLogos.
And yet, amazingly, when someone introduces God’s participation in the evolutionary process … you impugn that person’s motivations or abilities, and imply that they are hair-brained for doing so.
And yet @Eddie climbs all over individuals who are not WILLING to stand behind the very concept for which BioLogos was created: to teach that God IS involved in the evolution of life on this planet.
You should work out your issues with Eddie I think; then you two can arrive somewhere in the middle.
Heck, it never ends.
Again for the nth time, can you provide any reputable scientific paper or text that provides a non-atheistic version of evolutionary theory? I mean a scientifically developed one.
Since you challenge me to make a positive contribution on this site @gbrooks9, I offer the following thoughts and point of view:
It is generally understood that what we regard as laws of nature include outcomes to the human senses (and to reason) from nature’s activities, or phenomena - these responses may be quantified by observation and hypothesis and tend to suggest an instrumentalist attribute of a human being in a world of objects. I would argue against instrumentalism, but I believe a non-passionate view, or a sensible one, as an indifferent response to nature, is reasonable. Observations of nature and hypothesis by scientists are activities of a reasoning human being and cannot be law-of-nature; in that a human being measures, weighs, calculates etc., the human being is ‘active’ in thinking and measuring, and thus his activities are within nature. In this way, it is difficult to differentiate between activities of a human being and those of an object; all consist of activity of matter in time and space, (in motion or in a dynamic state) and thus considered explicable via the scientific method. It is thus erroneous to believe that we humans are able to bring a law into existence when providing a theory, a hypothesis, or a formulation. The difficulty faced by us is that of differentiating between ourselves as reasoning beings, and the objects of our inquiry - since both appear to be in the world. However, the subject-object or ‘both are in the world’, arises from a human being, not from the world. This actualises into language activity, which leads to a differentiation between the world of phenomenon/ dynamics and that of human reality - although it may be reasoned that both are activities and thus explicable in time and space by the scientific method.
If nature’s laws are known, a person’s actions and anticipated consequences should be explicable, but may not necessarily be changed simply through choice. The dynamics of any natural system would be the same whether these were, or were not, understood – even if one were to think to conform to such dynamics. Science attempts to provide explanations or descriptions believed to encompass the universe. A ‘law’ as something that may be considered as arising from reason applied to an object is unnecessary. It may appear, however, that ‘mega-knowledge’ is sought to enable a human being to attain to a complete understanding of the phenomena and its objects, and this may provide an intellectual perception, or inference, that objects behave according to some principle; or, objects are required to be as they are by a ‘something in their being-ness’. This search for an explanation of everything, or a universal, arises from a human being’s intellectual questioning and doubting. A scientific law is an articulation, or combination, of words and symbols, to provide meaning of the world of objects to human beings. It is unnecessary to argue that a law is present (or it has been added by the human being to the universe) to ensure the universe is what it is. We may reason that the universe is ‘lawful’ because it continues to be what it is, and also we may conclude that there is a finality, or that we may ‘finally’ or ‘completely’ understand it; we may also seek comfort from an ideal, suggesting that the universe and our understanding of it may become one and the same, or everything will finally be totally reasonable. The essential question in natural studies is therefore the intelligibility of nature – how is it that human reason and intellect can access natural phenomena and natures ultimate realities? One response to this question is the attribute often termed ‘image of God’ to humanity.
It has been suggested we may see the ‘mind of God’ in the universe, but the discussion on the meaning of the word God negates such a view. The impact of the vast universe on the human senses, however, may be overwhelming, as we seek to understand its beginning and end. The universe does ‘talk’ to us of God (in its silence). This is shown in Psalms 19:1-14. The writer of this psalm shows us that it is the law of God that he understands, and through the law of God, he hopes to be free from error and those that indulge in error. The universe cannot reveal God. Our senses may be influenced by the silence, and our reason may comprehend the glory of God that the heaven declares. In this way we may understand beauty without feeling we have ‘invented’ it. In this silence, we do not listen to our own feverish mind constantly trying to explain to ourselves all that our senses may respond. Rather, the glory of God proclaimed by the silent beauty may lead us to wish we could share, and be a part of, such splendour. The Universe in all its splendour points to its Creator’s Glory, and similarly to the beauty that is found in the Law of God.
Currently astronomy and particle physics have been popularised and discussions have dealt with the origins of the Universe. The many difficulties faced by evolutionism are at times put to one side by the notion that the Universe is anthropomorphic – i.e. a Universe evolved that was conducive to the evolution of life and human beings on earth. The origins of the Universe appear to have crystallized into the big-bang theory, although others speculate alternate notions. Generally the view has been that God is the cause of causes, or the primal cause; since no-one witnessed the event, we cannot discuss this notion as a verifiable/testable theory– but people may feel this is sufficient, since the Faith teaches us that God can do anything. It is necessary, however, to consider the scientific view point as serious and believe that scientists are interested in obtaining a good understanding of the Universe. The scientific method requires theory to be tested – in this case, tests are performed using particle accelerators to obtain data on the particles that constitute the Universe. These tests rest on theory devised by theoretical physicists and are, generally speaking, mathematical expressions that encapsulate the thinking of the theoretical physicists and leading mathematicians. It appears appropriate, to my way of thinking, to consider the language of mathematics when examining these activities. We have examined the limitations of language when considering the meaning ‘God’ and concluded that all godly attributes were singular and human language was insufficient to give full meaning to these. The Universe, however, is accessible to human sense, and it appears reasonable to assume that a language such as mathematics would be sufficient when examining the Universe. Difficulties however, stem from a human assumption, in that the origin of the Universe may also be considered as a singular event; in this case physicists cannot dealt with such an event using the laws of physics; i.e. they contemplate notions in which the laws of physics may not apply. Indeed, notions such as “nothing existed” (nothingness!?) are difficult ones for science, and thus it may be inappropriate for science to think it can define a beginning per se.
Quantum mechanics and quantum physics generally commence with an equation that describes the energy of a system as a wave. Once again, we commence with a system – not a beginning. However, these comments point to difficulties that human being must of necessity experience when considering such questions, because we are ‘in the world’, and in this case, we cannot be ‘above the world’ and position ourselves in a privileged position (transcend the Universe) to analyse beginnings and ends of the totality of all that can be know. The scientific method does enable us, however, to examine physical reality in the Universe and dispassionately draw conclusions from our observations. If physicists conclude the wave equation may be expressed as the sum of the forces in the Universe and these are measured in some way, then in theory such an activity conforms to the scientific method. If astronomers observe galaxies that provide light that has travelled for an enormous amount of time, than this too is reasonable. However, if scientists perform mathematical calculations and conclude that these observations lead to errors that are so large that under ordinary circumstances such results would be rejected as unacceptable according to the scientific method (e.g. cannot account for 94% of the calculated Universe) than such activities must be considered speculative. Otherwise, we have the situation found so repugnant to scientists, in that irrational dogma replaces reason. These scant remarks serve to indicate that the phrase ‘laws of nature’ is understood within (and thus confined to) the physical sciences.
1 Like
We might agree. The scientific definition of evolution is confined to a (successful) paradigm in biology. And, of course, like all things in science, it is a work in progress. The definition in science is “common descent”, and the mechanism has shifted over the decades. This is what enables us to consider “evolution as God’s way of creating us,” including notions like His guidance, without disputing the scientific definition.
However, in biology, evolution is not inadequate. It is the lens through which everything is understood. It is the explanatory framework by which new hypotheses are conceived. It makes sense of too many things to be called “inadequate”.
Outside biology is another case altogether. Evolution does not explain how we have an immortal soul, or the morality. It is woefully incomplete. Evolutionary Creation, which is not the scientific definition of evolution per se, is one faithful option here. Thought it may not be ultimately true.
I’m joining this late @GJDS, so bear with me. Your question seems like a non-sequitur. I know of no scientific paper that properly teaches theistic evolution. At the same time, I know of no scientific paper that properly teaches atheistic evolution.
Science itself is 100% blind and silent about God’s action and purposes. For those out science, this is often confusing, and mistaken for atheism. However, the absence of language about God (within science) is not the same as denying His existence. It is widely understood among scientists that science cannot properly speak of purpose, the existence (and non-existence) of God, or of when God does or does not act.
I do sense some frustration too. I do appreciate your contribution. Thank you for joining in here.
“… I know of no scientific paper that properly teaches atheistic evolution”
I have given examples of such writings; for example, Rosenberg who writes, “The progress of neuroscience will eventually force philosophy to adopt eliminativism. It has already advanced enough to force the philosophy of mind to take eliminativism seriously. But eliminativism is widely held to be incoherent.”
The basis for this outlook is that natural selection has “deluded” humans into believing we have minds, and once evolutionary thinking is properly engrained within the sciences generally, people will be able to perform experiments to show how the brain has evolved, and all notions of mind, unique personality and self-identity, will be eliminated and we will be just a bio-circuit, doing what any animal (or material thing) does…
I think with some effort, other papers can be obtained to show that atheistic evolution is equated with the paradigm in biology. Some more effort may be needed to follow the patchwork of changes in claims, and attempts to rescue TOE from scientific scrutiny. But the serious criticism, to my way of thinking, geos back to (perhaps) the TOE is a semantic statement, and the only paradigm in the sciences that cannot be derived from first principles (mathematical rigour), nor can we perform straightforward experimental verification of its fundamentals (which by definition ought to be equated with first principles).
So my criticisms are directed at expanding TOE out of a narrow area of biology, into larger areas of science, and ultimately into theology. I think this is unwise - I have no problem viewing it as something biologists think and argue over.
None of the quotes you give are of scientists properly teaching atheism. The quote you give us of a scientist doing very questionable philosophy, that many (most?) philosophers would dispute. Of course scientists do this all the time, but this is in no way germane to the scientific definition of evolution.
I am not innovating on this position. The point I am making is widely accepted in science by groups like the AAAS, the National Academy, and the NABT. The non-theist Engenie Scott writes:
Because creationists explain natural phenomena by saying “God performed a miracle,” we tell them that they are not doing science. This is easy to understand. The flip side, though, is that if science is limited by methodological materialism because of our inability to control an omnipotent power’s interference in nature, both “God did it” and “God didn’t do it” fail as scientific statements.Properly understood, the principle of methodological materialism requires neutrality towards God; we cannot say, wearing our scientist hats, whether God does or does not act.
Science and Religion, Methodology and Humanism | National Center for Science Education
I’ll point out that this is from the NCSE, the main political body that organized opposition to ID in the Dover Trial of 2005. NCSE is not a theistic evolutionist group, but an organization devoted to promoting the mainstream science understanding of evolution.
To be clear, this God-neutral view of evolution is the dominant view in science right now. Any scientist that tries to argue otherwise is extending science much farther than it can go, and disputing the current consensus. Of course, some scientists do conflate evolution and atheism in their scientific work, but it is not a proper use of science or scientific interpretation of evolution. Thankfully, this happens much more rarely than we might fear, and even when it does you can tell them they are wrong, quoting the NCSE to them if you like.
As to your statements here:
I must respectfully and forcefully disagree on several points.
This make come as a surprise, but there is a very solid mathematical foundation to evolution, and a very strong experimental grounding. This doesn’t make it “True” (because science does not make truth claims), but evolution is very compelling in science.
- Atheistic evolution is absolutely not the paradigm in biology. Period. No scientific theory, not even evolution, makes any statements about God’s existence or action. Any conclusion otherwise would also (for logical consistency) also conclude that the theory of gravity (for example) is atheistic, because it does not explicitly invoke God.
- You use “first principles” in a strange way, as if it means “straightforward experimental verification of its fundamentals.” Just to be clear, you use the terms very differently than we do in science.
- There are several other theories that are derived in a very similar way as evolution, and are not verifiable by straightforward experimentation. A great example is inflation and the Big Bang. Also black holes, the age of the earth, the Higgs Boson, and many many more things. Even things that are “testable” were often settled upon long before their truly seminal experiment (e.g. heliocentricity, general relativity,and many more).
- Moreover, there is whole fields of science focused on “emergent” properties that are not derivable from “first principles,” thinks like protein function (because we cannot derive protein structure from sequence) and (e.g. action of psychiatric drugs) medicine are great examples.
- It is totally false to say that evolution does not have experimental verification. The truth is that it has an immense body of experimental work behind it. To be clear, its not that we have “evolved a mouse from an amoeba” in the laboratory. Rather, if specific mechanisms of evolution are true, they make testable predictions about how biological systems behave today. We can test these predictions in biological systems experimentally, and there is an immense body of work that does just this, finding that predictions from some mechanisms are wrong (e.g. neo-Darwinian positive-selection dominated change) and of others are correct (e.g. neutral theory and common descent). This one of the big reasons that I (as a biologist) say there is very strong evidence for evolution.
- Also, and this is widely underappreciated, there is a solid mathematical basis underlying genomic change in evolution: neutral theory. This mathematically explains why humans and chimps are 10x less different than mice and rats, making precise predictions about de novo mutation rates that we have now experimentally validated. This has immensely important implications for genomic medicine, and evolution really guides the way here.
I think the real issue here, respectfully, is that you are not aware of precise scientific definition of evolution (common descent), the rules of science (that we never explicitly invoke God in scientific theories), the widely agreed upon (within science) limits of science, and the actual science of evolution. I hope I am not being presumptuous here, and I mean no disrespect.
I understand that evolution means different things in pop culture, but in science it has a much more precise meaning. This cannot just be ignored in conversations about evolution.
2 Likes
I appreciate your detailed reply and overall I agree with what you say on atheists and theists regarding science as a non-religious endeavour. Your other comments are encapsulated in my remark that perhaps the extended theory (or a version of new-Darwinian theory) is the current paradigm in biology, and as a practicing scientist, I have no trouble nor am I overly concerned with this. Each area of science has its current paradigm, and that is how science progresses.
On other matters, I would refer you to my lengthy response to gbrooks, as this is a summary of my outlook when I consider the harmony between faith and science.
As to a definition of evolution, I am using what I think is the current prevailing basis for the theory, as variation and natural selection. I understand various branches of the biological sciences use mathematical models, and this is for another discussion. If my understanding as variation and natural selection is not the basis for TOE, I would be very interested in your understanding of the fundamental basis.
I restate, my participation in interesting exchanges on this site is to examine and understand why TOE is considered so important that it leads some people to re-examine Christian doctrine, and for some, it causes so much conflict that some loose their faith.