By claiming that evolution does make God irrelevant, and that one should therefore oppose macroevolution, you are endorsing the modernistic error that God should be found within science, rather than recognizing that science should be found within God. The theory of biological evolution is an attempt to describe the pattern for making new kinds of organisms. God could use it or not use it however much He wants to. We can investigate the data to see how well it fits with evolutionary expectations for the origins of organisms. That process does not directly contain reference to God any more than does a recipe for a cake or directions to get to Pismo Beach. But a commitment to honesty and diligence, or an understanding of why we can understand aspects of the working of the universe, or why it’s worth doing, all involve theological questions.
The statement that science should be found within God should probably be clarified. God provides the context for understanding what science is and why it works. I do not mean that science is a “part” of God in a pantheistic sense. Rather, I mean that science is the way that a Christian ought to approach learning about how the creation works, just as the true way to run a Christian business is not to make a big show of Christian symbols but to do a good job, be honest, treat the employees and customers and environment well, etc.
Reducible complexity followed by removal of unnecessary parts.
Not only that, but I have already shown you the evolutionary steps for the irreducibly complex mammalian middle ear.
That’s not how evolution was developed. Even Darwin stated that life could have had multiple origins:
More importantly, you are ignoring all of the observations and data that led Darwin to his conclusions. Those observations include the nested hierarchy, biogeography, and breeding programs humans used on domesticated species. Why don’t you read about it?
That is not a starting assumption of any formulation of evolution that I have ever encountered. For instance, if one reads On the Origin of Species, as I have done, it never invokes that as a starting point. If I remember correctly, any statement to the effect of universal common ancestry, if present at all, is at least 80% of the way through the book, in the chapter on conclusions and predictions of the theory.
Existence is not a theory, it is a starting assumption that all of science requires to function. However, it is a statement about reality, and as such cannot be proven true, unless it is defined to be true, and both proof of truthfulness and defining axioms are outside of science.
That seems to be a relat·ively common (or at least an @relates’ ; - ) misperception.
‘Competition’ relates (
) to specific locales, whether or not it is shared. If it’s shared, add competition within the species to the environment and survival of the fittest.1 Otherwise there is still survival of the fittest within the species, just not in direct competition with each other.
1 Although it might be survival of the friendliest or most cooperative… which would make them more fit to survive against the rest of the environment:
Survival of the friendliest
Survival of the Friendliest: Dogs and Humans
Sounds to me like they have failed to learn the most basic lesson on the value of cooperation. So I would compare it with two who climbed together and credit lack of cooperation as responsible for reducing the survival rate down to 50%. And for this reason, the natural enemies of those climbing alone were themselves for their own foolishness.
Methinks you overthink the analogy. It was just a simple illustration of terminology and the meanings of words. (They may have been climbing their respective mountains for completely different and unrelated reasons.)
Methinks your analogy failed. Not because of what it tries to show, but because it does not represent a complete understanding of Survival of the Fittest.
(Stick to science. I do not think philosophy is your bag)
Richard
Science is the expression of God’s creation. If you beleive in God then there can be no separation.
Is inserting God instead of random deviation. That is not the taught theory of evolution.
WIth that misconception the rest of your arguments fall like a pack of cards.
Richard
That is quite true. The problem with the taught theory of evolution is that it is mistaken. Evolution does not take place because of random deviation, but as a response to ecological change. Darwinian evolution is false in that it is not based on ecology, rather than random deviation of genes and the struggle for survival…
Climate change killed off the dinosaurs and opened the way for the mammals including humans. Randon deviation had nothing to do with it. Evolution takes place in response to ecological change. Random deviation is a part of the evolutionary process It not cause evolution.
The theory of evolution does not exclude the possibility of God guiding mutations. The theory is silent on what God may do or may not do. All the theory states is that there is no statistically significant correlation between the mutations an organism needs in a specific environment and the mutations it gets.
This thread has been quite a confirmation of my suspicions. A big reason why so many people cannot believe in the findings of science is because it will not submit to the insertion of the word “God” in every other sentence. It is all about power and domination. So many of the religious just want to use their religion for the domination and control over people and the world, and they see science as getting in their way. They have to be the sole explanation for everything and be the final authority about the nature of reality and human beings, precisely because it will not stand up to the evidence and the free exchange of ideas.
I have said evolution is the only reason I can believe in Christianity. The above only underlines this, because I would be an atheist before I would accept this sort of Christianity remade into a tool of power. I can only believe in the God of Christianity when He is about love rather than power and control. I see this most clearly in the idea God discarded power and knowledge to become a helpless human infant for the sake of love. With evolution we see this from the very beginning because for creation, it puts God in the Biblical role of shepherd to teach and guide rather than the role of designer watchmaker, which is frankly more of a Deist conception. I would choose to be part of the opposition if Christianity were all about authoritarian dictation and control. But with evolution in the Christian picture, we have a God who avoids being the controller and dictator, rejoicing instead in the ability of His creations to make their own choices.
I do not think that this is the case any more than pure chance. It is more likely to be parts of a bigger picture that we do not have all the components of.
There is clearly some randomness in evolution so that God is not pulling every string. it is more likely that He set parameters within which Evolution is given freedom.
However, within Biblical theology is the conviction that humanity is not the result of chance but a specific creation of God. Random evolution may produce humanity but there is no certainty. I suppose we could just relinquish the pride of being the “Image of God” or at least having “dominion over nature”, but that means rejecting a major part of Scripture.
The upshot of this is a theistic approach which does not have all the answers. Evolution is there, but so are elements that are, as yet (and maybe never) identified.
My conversations over the plausibility of Evolution are based on the fact that there are elements missing that scientists refuse to consider, but instead try and force the current mechanisms to fulfill without understanding the mechanics that make them fail. But, they cannot see any failure, or appreciate any limitations within current evolutionary theory, and object to my suggestion that there are some.
Richard
The big assumption here is that God interacting with nature would be distinguishable from random chance. Science doesn’t make any ontological arguments about randomness. All science can say is that a process is indistinguishable from our models of what randomness would look like. Science makes no claim about what God’s actions would look like, or what role God has in nature. Science only goes as far as the empirical evidence will let it.
Or those elements have been considered and biologists have found your reasoning to be lacking.
Or those objections have been glossed over or fobbed off. Which is basically what you do.
Richard
Quite the reverse. God’s hand would not be visible. If it were, so would God Himself.
Richard
I’ve directly addressed them. I have even shown you the step by step evolution of the irreducibly complex mammalian middle ear.
Then why do you say this?
“There is clearly some randomness in evolution so that God is not pulling every string.”
If the influence is parameters, how could you or I know how they were set?
I have never tried to convert you to Christianity or even a belief in God. I do not expect you to see the hand of God anywhere so why would I expect you to see it in evolution?
God is a God of faith. That precludes the criteria you use to see Him. Faith also allows for the choice not to believe. I grant you that choice without any baggage of hell and damnation either. I do not expect you to see God in evolution. My arguments are simply to show that Evolutionary theory is not as concrete or complete as it is taught and you seem to proclaim.
The “gaps” may be filled by future science, or possibly God, but for now it would be nice for you to acknowledge their possibility at least. (The word gap is not good, but it will suffice)
Richard
You tell me. You are the one claiming to know when something is random and when something is God pulling the strings. It sure reads like anything science considers to be random is devoid of God’s actions. If this isn’t the case, then your objection to the BioLogos position seems to fall flat.
So nature acts in certain ways, and God is just in there somewhere?
I would suggest that you start learning about evolution before you proclaim how complete it is. It seems you are not very familiar with the whole field of genetics, as a starter.
I fully acknowledge that there are gaps in our knowledge. That is true FOR EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIFIC THEORY. That’s why scientists still do research. What we object to is the claim that what we don’t know could not have been produced by the natural processes we see around us because . . . well . . . RichardG says so.