Especially with respect to science. It is not unlike what YECs do.
How many more times! God is absent because God is irrelevant to Science.
Evolution is not actively opposing God.
There is no intent.(there is no acknowledgment or interest in God)
It is death by being ignored. Walking by on the other side.
Creationists oppose evolution, not because it denies God but because it denies Genesis
The point is the ramifications of the evolutionary theory. The principles that it is establishing.
.Evolution claims that nature did it all with random deviation and DNA juggling. There is no plan. Mankind is just a fluke of Nature. That principle is a complete antithesis of any belief in God. If God is the creator then it is not by fluke or random deviation. Humanity is supposed to be the pinnacle of Godās creation, not a by-product of an apeās development.
It is not about specific developments and whether they could or could not occur (incredulity) it is about them not occurring that way at all because God is controlling it. You cannot shoehorn Godās providence into the Evolutionary theory as it stands. There is no room for it. You cannot impose God onto science and expect it to just say āOKā.
It is one thing to accept that Evolution exists and that there is room for it in Godās creation. it is another to accept the whole Evolutionary story which excludes God completely.
I argue details because that is the only platform I have. The only way to āDefeatā macro Evolution is to prove that scientifically it cannot actually happen. Evolution develops and adapts. It does not create. Creation involves a destination. Building involves a destination. If you tried to build a house without plans and designs (Even if they are not actually printed they still exist) it would almost certainly not be the perfection of the Human physiology.
Richard
More evidence that you are very mistaken and do not know what words mean. I am a creationist. BioLogos endorses EC.
1 Like
Itās the watchmaker god of Deism versus the shepherd God of the Bible. The watchmaker god designs machines because their god wants tools to use and control. The shepherd God raises children because He seeks relationships with those who have a life and choices of their own. Thus the watchmaker god is far more useful to those seeking to use religion as a tool of power ā it tells its followers they were made for a purpose and your religion is going to tell you what that purpose is and thus how to live your life as a good tin Xtian soldier. The shepherd God is instead about offering advice and help for us getting more out of life ā not nearly as useful for manipulating and controlling people.
That depends ā how many more times are you going to make the same mistaken statement? Itās up to you.
I.e. just like auto mechanics. Right.
Evolutionās principles are the same as those of auto mechanics and plumbing.
Correct. Note that ārandomā means (in this case) both ādescribable by a probability distributionā and ālacking a mechanism for a organism to choose beneficial mutationsā.
And thatās the part that isnāt in evolutionary biology. Science has no way of addressing the existence or nonexistence of plans that canāt be detected by science. It therefore has nothing to say about them. āThere is no planā says something about such a plan. Therefore it is not a statement or principle of the science of evolutionary biology.
Well, yeah. But itās still not part of evolutionary biology, no matter how many times you claim it is.
Possibly in some religions, but not in most Christian thought.
That you think those two are mutually exclusive options is the core of your problem here.
4 Likes
ID/creationists seem to disagree.
As an atheist, I will 100% agree that we canāt use science to disprove the existence of God. I will even fully agree that Godās existence canāt be disproven at the level of philosophy.
Why canāt evolution be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
2 Likes
Because you cannot go back and watch it happen. And there is not enough fossil or ancillary evidence. \notto mention whether you view of any evidence is the only possible one.
That is because you refuse to accept any evidence that is not scientific.
I can assure you that my faith has grounding and that I have a relationship with the God you cannot identify or believe exists.
I have seen your level of philosophy so that does not mean much.
I am neither.
Richard
There are plenty of people who are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on forensic evidence. No one is able to watch a murder happen again.
Why not?
Translated: I am not willing to accept your empty assertions as true.
2 Likes
The type of evidence you are claiming is not the same. Science has not even begun to decode DNA to the level that you are claiming
ridiculous question.
You do not even know (or care) what evidence I have. Like I said, I have my own proofs (reasons) for faith.
Richard
You said that we canāt prove something beyond a reasonable doubt because we canāt directly observe it. Thatās nonsense.
What level am I claiming, and why hasnāt science reached that level?
Ridiculous answer. We have mountains and mountains of both fossil and genetic data. It has been more than enough to convince the scientific community, so why not you?
You have already admitted that what you have isnāt evidence. All you have is empty assertions.
1 Like
We see the same mechanisms of evolution at work every day, especially in organisms that have short life cycles like bacteria. So, yes, we do see it happen. We do not fully understand everything about it, but it is there. And DNA sequencing has advanced to where it shows those patterns of evolution with greater clarity than the morphological similarities suggest. ERVs, shared sequences, broken genes, and so forth show how we are put together from the same Legos that once were used to make something different.
So why must it be evolution and not design?
Using the same building blocks does not guarantee heredity.
Richard
Now read it again
That is not an assertion. That is a fact.
Not all evidence is scientific or can be measured by science.
Richard
Designs evolve as well. And as stated before, all ECs believe a designer created, just that he did so through evolution.
1 Like
Yeah, but it is a bit wooly. The extent of Godās involvement is not really defined or even thought about. It is almost a statement of faith like āI believe in the Holy Spiritā as if that is enough. In the meantime Evolution is taught and assumed without interruption or the need for any oversight or influence by any sort of intelligence, divine or otherwise.
Evolution is basically only challenged by Biblical fanatics and/or YECs who will not even acknowledge basic Evolutionary change. Scientists claiming a Christian faith are content to leave it to Godās providence instead of actively challenging the more vague or unproven elements of Evolutionary theory.
I know why.
You only have to look at the way I am regarded on this matter.
Richard
Ok.
āThat is because you refuse to accept any evidence that is not scientific.ā
There it is again.
What you have is empty assertions. You claim that certain species canāt evolve because you say so. Thatās it.
1 Like
Without any detectable influence from God. For all we can know scientifically, God could control every event (in a highly self-consistent and usually difficult to detect way), or no event at all. Picking either option (or something in between) has left science behind.
How would it be possible to tell the difference, scientifically, between these? We can tell that itās close enough to random to be indistinguishable from random, just like casting lots, which is explicitly considered to be something that God influences in several passages I can think of offhand.
3 Likes
Because design does not explain the patterns we see while evolution does.
4 Likes
Ignoring the possibility of Godā¦
First you have to be able to prove, or at least give a decent progression from one type of creature to another bearing in mind the physiological differences and whether the transitions are actually viable.
You cannot deny the order and interdependency of Ecology. Does a random system allow for parallel development? That is two unrelated creatures developing so as to be able to live in not only harmony but interdependently (Symbiosis)? White Blood cells are actually totally independent of the hostās nervous (control) system. Is that even possible with the current Evolution model?
IOW can a so say random process end up with the order of Nature?
Evolutionists (without God) claim that the forces of nature are enough to refine and perfect systems due to competition and survival of the fittest, but, for some of the systems to develop there is not enough advantage in the early stages for them to persist unless they are automatically dominant genes. Furthermore, for developments to persist they need to be duplicated both from the first instance and in parallel otherwise there is none to mate (reproduce) with. So for a system to develop each deviation becomes less and less random the further it progresses. And the statistical odds become enormous
Unfortunately much of this is more philosophy than impiracle science.
In reality the differences between design and Evolution are not obvious at all and both developmental systems can be successfully argued. Of course science will automatically reject any outside intelligence (God) which leaves only one way: Evolution.
I cannot tell how your faith encompasses Evolution, or even whether you have got beyond the basic concept of āGod did itā.
Richard
Yes. A directed (in this case ādo something that worksā) random system can produce a lot of things, it would seem.
If they are very slight developments that pose no boundary to reproduction, then that doesnāt matter.
2 Likes