My understanding is that ToE is the paradigm of biology and has zero relevance to theories of chemical reactions or the physics dealing with gravity. Christians have worked on such areas of science for centuries without any problems, egocentricity notwithstanding (what a gift to some, what, the bible taught the sun revolved …just a play on words folks 
…???)
Tell me you’re kidding…
Nope. Not kidding.Also related to prayer healing and the divine theory of why one gets sick.
1 Like
Wowzer! So kind of like Mary Baker Eddy and the Christian Science crock?
The reference to Mary Baker Eddy made me think of Tom Leher’s introduction to his song about nuclear proliferation. As still another country got the bomb, “and the world is beginning to feel like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis.” Amazing how little has changed since 1965.
1 Like
The same scientific method used to do scientific research on chemical reactions and gravity is the same scientific method used to study how life has changed over time. That is what I was getting at.
1 Like
I think you will find differences in the amount of speculation, assumptions and untestable notions put forward for evolutionary biology, compared to chemistry and physics. The difference becomes acute when we then consider some claims made for evolution - you suggestion of “sameness” is greatly qualified.
Examples?
I can point to cutting edge ideas in theoretical physics that are quite speculative.
1 Like
I think this is well understood - I can compare my creation of a chemical kinetics simulation scheme of considerable complexity, and the type of assumptions used and testing we took, with some examples of simulations in biological evolution.
The implied hostility from some in this area suffers from another assumption, that if we make these comments, we are questioning the expertise or capabilities of the people involved. This is very, very wrong. Excellent simulations can be created, but these may really on many assumptions, and if testing is limited, this is also a legitimate point.
We have living populations that have been studied in real time. For example, there are lab strains of mice whose breeding has been tightly controlled for 50 years now. When we compare their genomes we find that they produce the expected phylogenies that evolution should produce.
When we compare the genomes of different species we observe this same pattern. We see the expected patterns of divergence and phylogenetic signals. We see the divergence of introns and exons as we would expect. We see the divergence of LTRs in endogenous retroviruses like we would expect to see if evolution is true. All of this is very robust science, on par with any chemistry or physics experiment, at least in my opinion.
Of course, there is this old saw:
1 Like
I like your response 
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.