This can and should be a completely different thread. The best arguments against Darwinism are:
Of course, theses are just topic headings. Both are supported by volumes of empirical data. In the meantime, darwinism is supported mainly by the imaginations of those who desire it to be true.
Agreed, but you need to square your belief with scripture. I hope that my scriptural references allow you to do that. Also, I caution against resting your faith on this evidence. If/when secular explanations arise to account for them, then your faith may be shaken. Bias is the signature of free will.
Oh yes, the theory has indeed been tested and examined. And it has been found wanting. Even as this thread is growing, many scientists are jumping off the bandwagon for one reason or another.
If you examine what I said in its larger context (reproduced below), there is a strong metaphysical element to the embrace of the TOE. Many who are bailing today remain invested in a purely naturalistic narrative of life, yet they are bailing nonetheless, specifically because they are realizing just how weakly supported the theory is.
But letās turn to the evidence, Christy. Earlier in this thread, Chris made mention of the ongoing work of Richard Lenski. Lenski is credited with the longest running evolution research program. In 2014, his bacteria eclipsed the 50,000 generation mark. They are well beyond that milestone today. His research constitutes data. Hard, empirical data. And the data emerging from his studies are
consistent with the data from every other laboratory experiment concerning the power of the mutation/ selection mechanism; i.e. that mechanism is severely limited. I offered Chris a prediction concerning Lenskiās experiment: no matter how long the experiment continues - whether his bacteria reach 100,000 generations or a million or more generations - they will always remain bacteria. Care to bet against me?
In the meantime, it is of course true that if I am wrong, all you need do is prove it. Given how rediculous my statement is, it should be an easy thing for you to do.
p.s. this is what I said in complete context:
Thankfully, scientific consensus and truth are not synonyms. Scientific knowledge is a very fluid thing. There exists in the scientific literature absolutely no empirical evidence for the TOE. We further our knowledge by questioning, testing, and examining scientific claims, not by accepting them. If reality does not square with the claims, the claims need to be discarded or amended. The TOE is rooted in metaphysical baggage more than in empirical reality, and it is the metaphysics of atheism. If we were talking about something that was not so intimately tied to worldviews - a geodesic dome on Mars for instance - there would be no question that we are looking at a clear signature of intelligent agency when we observe the information and molecular machinery of life.
Perhaps I am guilty of making an unwarranted assumption. I am speaking of the grand claims of the TOE throughout this thread. There is no empirical evidence that the grand claims of the TOE are true. According to the grand claims of the theory, every novel feature of every living creature (wings, for example) has ultimately emerged from a living organism that did not possess that feature through a quantifiable, functional adaptive continuum. There exist in the living world endless examples of such features. If you can provide one single empirical example of a novel feature emerging in this exact manner, I will retract my claim. On the other hand, if you cannot, perhaps you should consider that the claim might be true.
I have authored about 100 posts to this thread. In so doing, I have laid out a cohesive, comprehensive case, extensively defending the following propositions:
Now I could say here Dennis, that anyone who would reach a conclusion about a volume of work by lifting one single sentence from that volume would be guilty of quote mining, and therefore a conversation with such a person would not be fruitful. However, I am one who would prefer to explore a conversation nonetheless. So I am interested, in spite of your disdain for my claim, what you might think of my larger case?
In the meantime, I will take ownership of the one claim you have called attention to. I further concede that there is evidence for evolution. However, throughout this thread, it should be pretty clear that I am addressing the grand claims of the TOE specically; not evolution in any general sense. I therefore stand by the claim and offer you the same challenge I have just posted to George:
Perhaps I am guilty of making an unwarranted assumption. I am speaking of the grand claims of the TOE throughout this thread. There is no empirical evidence that the grand claims of the TOE are true. According to the grand claims of the theory, every novel feature of every living creature (wings, for example) has ultimately emerged from a living organism that did not possess that feature through a quantifiable, functional adaptive continuum. There exist in the living world endless examples of such features. If you can provide one single empirical example of a novel feature emerging in this exact manner, I will retract my claim. On the other hand, if you cannot, perhaps you should consider that the claim might be true.
I definitely agree with this. The issue isnāt the science or the details of biology.
While a deeper discussion of the various evolutionary mechanisms would be interesting, Iām not sure thatās immediate to the goal of Biologos. In the US at least, large numbers of people canāt wrap their minds around an old Earth, let alone common descent. There is also an industry of homeschooling textbook publishers that promote really bad science in the service of YEC views. There are perhaps smaller percentage of people in other countries who share those views.
I find your conculsions and arguments less than compelling to say the least. There is so much wrong it is hard to know where to start.
With your first statement, it is true only if you adhere to the Hammian interpretation of Genesis, placing your faith on the balance of that one narrow view.
Your second statement is obviously wrong in the first part, as ample evidence support evolution, and the second part not a function of science, though may be true.
Your third statement is true if you accept your first statement as true, so yes, that interpretation turns people from Christ.
The depth of understanding regarding the Sciences varies in all countries, and I suspect this is the case for USA as well. My experience includes people with little formal education of science, and also those with a great deal of education in science and humanities. My impression from this is that any difficulty mostly stems from the outlook regarding God as creator. The Orthodox tradition has placed a great deal of emphasis on this within the Gospel message, and even those with a simple understanding of science, may admit this, but are well versed on theological matters, mainly because they hear the Gospel read at the Church service.
This does not mean that some do not experience conflict and doubt, but this tends to be linked to personal experiences and not a singular focus on evolution.
I have gained the impression that matters are more strident in the USA, and although the labels are YEC, OEC, TE, liberal, conservative, and so on, I get the impression of a long history of disagreement that stems from those who want to make evolution sound theological, to those who want to make it atheistic, and those who resist both of these. The liberal theological ācowboysā who seem to feel free to spout a great deal of nonsense, I suspect, add fuel to this conflict.
Well, in the US, the sheer proportion of the population that do not think evolution happened or that the Earth is billions of years old seems much greater than most other western nations. I donāt know what the numbers are if you adjust for religiosity or conservative religious belief. Clearly there are such groups in Europe and Australia but they donāt seem to get into confrontations with school boards or politics.
Ted Davis and Ronald Numbers have written a number of good articles about how the various splits occurred in the US. At some point in the not too distant past, there definitely was a movement (reactionary response?) toward a fundamentalism that made belief in things like a literal six days of creation a critical component of their theology. The Southern Baptist organization also hardened against general acceptance of evolution during the conservative take over of the group in the late 1970s and early 1980s with adoption in 1982 of a resolution in favor of ācreation sciencesā.
Orthodox, Catholic, Presbyterian, Episcopal and others, perhaps being somewhat older and more established traditions seem less affected by such controversies.
First of all you are talking about a die question, not a dice question, which is an artificial way to produce randomness.
Second the probability test applies to all random claims. Probability also is the reason why language cannot be produced randomly, because language is based on nonrandom patterns. Monkeys typing do not produce language.
Third, randomness in nature is lawful.
Fourth it is thought which does not follow then laws of physics, if that is what you mean by laws of physics and chemistry.
Fifth, I have reject Western dualism, which divided Reality between the natural and the divine. Reality is composed of the physical, rational, and the spiritual.
If no one else has challenged it, I will. I see nothing in the machinery of life that constitutes solid evidence for a Creator. Over the years, Iāve seen many assertions that it does, but Iāve never seen a solid argument.
You are kidding, aināt cha?
If I said, āDinner-prepared-by-Chefā ā¦ would you ask me what I meant by that too?
God-guided evolution is evolution where the mutations and changes in the gene pool are orchestrated by God ā¦ by any combination of lawful or miraculous activities you or your denomination prefers.
God-Guided-Evolution is a VERY BIG TENT!
There are no rules in life that everything has to be proved before one believes something. How many elevators have you entered, in an an otherwise empty building - - and you BELIEVED the elevator would not plunge you to your death?
A man develops an intuition about life that trumps all other thingsā¦
Steve, you do not have that intuition. And that is fine for you.
I myself cannot imagine the universe WITHOUT a Cosmic Consciousness ā¦ somewhere in all those branes, strings and/or dimensionsā¦
[Had to fix a typo!.. The last sentence originally didnāt have without in it.]
thatās fair. The closer I grow to Him and in Him, the more I realize that my own āinterpretationsā as well as those I have received from others, amount to nothing more than the traditions of men. Therefore, if EC influences how one interprets the Bible, I think a healthy dose of humble caution is advised. Most of the contributions here to this point have come from a position of extreme confidence.
Thatās great Bill! Would you please elaborate on this evidence for God through the TOE?
Thanks.
Maybe you can be the one to help me with my comprehension problem, George.
I understand that many who have contributed here believe that God is involved. You alone have stated this many times. I donāt doubt that you believe this. But I need to know more. Why do you believe this? If you believe this because there is empirical evidence that you can point to for Godās active role in the Creation of life, thatās great! Please share and proclaim that evidence. But if your belief is exclusively a faith issue, then you need to consider that you are talking about two independent things when you talk about the purely natural process of evolution on the one hand, and belief in God on the other hand.
You see George, this is the whole point of my OP. Maybe you donāt need any evidence to believe in God. Thatās great. My wife never needed evidence. Neither, apparently, did Christy. But there are many young people - particularly those interested in science and details such as evidence - who do. I was one. And when my Christian science teachers and biology professors taught me that the origin and evolution of life are the result of purely natural processes, they effectively taught me that the evidence from life is in direct contradiction to the claims throughout the Bible.
Maybe I do have a comprehension problem, George. But though you would love to cast what I am saying as the dismissive sweeping generalizations of a neophyte, I am here to plead with Christian brothers and sisters to recognize that with the exception of a very small minority of people, both believers and non believers understand perfectly well that the TOE and the Bible make claims that are mutually exclusive of one another. This logical dichotomy comes at the expense of souls.
Are you capable of comprehending this?
Nick: You, me and anyone who happens to be following this thread understands what you have intended to convey here. But what you have intended to say in your opening paragraph is different from what you have confessed in that paragraph. Let me break it down for you:
Perhaps you will be good enough to point out my intellectual dishonesty.
In the meantime, allow me to accuse you of the same. I am not here to tear down EC. I have come to point out that there are problems with EC, to include problems of logic, problems of Scripture, and problems of evidence. For all I know, God did āuseā evolution in His Creation of life. But purely natural processes are woefully inadequate as a causal explanation for the origin and evolution of life. Yet this is explicitly what the TOE teaches. If I am here to tear down anything, it is the TOE, not EC.
In the meantime, my testimony is empirical proof that the danger is not simply an āimaginedā one. My testimony is by no means unique. No one uses EC as an excuse to become an atheist, nor have I ever said any such thing. What I have said is that the TOE turns believers into atheists, as testified by many. Surely you are not ignorant of the abundance of such testimonies?
When you say āevidence,ā are you restricting that to āempirical evidenceā?
I see evidence for God in all of nature. Rain, the stars at night, the diversity of life, and the wonder of a new born baby. Add to that Scripture says God created and substaines all of these. As I have said before if God says in his Word that he controls all the natural processes that were know at the time it was written, why would you assume He is not in control of a natural process that was discovered after the Word was written? I have never been able to figure out why the followers of ID donāt realize that the way design got into life was from the Maker who directed creation/evolution.
And please donāt bring up what an atheist believes about the TOE. I am not an atheist. To me evolution is the same type of God Directed Natural Process as rain or casting lots.
āLet your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.ā -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.