The Two Views (and a mix)

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@RichardG

Those pictures could be anything. They could hav been miles apart or even years apart. You join the dots as you see fit, just as you see connections in DNA

Two houses made of the same type of brick must be built by the same builder?
One is in London the other in Edinburgh. Still the same builder? Are the bricks from the same quarry? They are identical to all intents and purposes. By your logic they have the same heredity.

Hey, Tim @Paraleptopecten – They were your photos: you deal with him (he graciously requests ; - ) .

[Paraleptopecten (Timothy Campbell)]

@RichardG

Those pictures could be anything. They could hav been miles apart or even years apart.

They are specimens of Pelycidion matthewsi, Pelycidion cf. matthewsi, Pelycidion cf. megalomastoma and Pelycidion megalomastoma. The first set are from south Florida, but they are also found from (at least) there north to Virginia. The second two sets are from between Wilmington and Myrtle beach, and are found from at least south Florida to southern North Carolina. The final set is from the Caribbean coast of Panama, and they range north to off of South Carolina.

@RichardG

You join the dots as you see fit

There are no other species in the family known from the northwestern Atlantic, ignoring the two weird undescribed fossil ones that are much less similar to either of those. In the first picture, note the somewhat detached aperture, and lack of any sculpture other than growth lines; in the second set, note the more weakly detached aperture; in the third, the still more weakly detached aperture and the very faint subsutural groove; in the final set, the prominent but not detached aperture and the subsutural groove.

@Dale

It’s analogous to watching the hour hand on a clock, Richard, or the precession of the earth’s axis (or any number of other astronomical observations) – it is difficult or impossible to observe in real time.

If I had any data for points in between, I could provide them, however, these shells are tiny (thus rarely documented), and most of the deposits from intermediate ages are eroded away in the Carolinas.

@RichardG

You join the dots as you see fit

What is simpler here? Shifting form over 3.5 million years or separate creations that just so happen to line up with the gaps between all the surviving deposits? Also, if I photographed additional specimens, I could demonstrate a complete blur in form with overlaps between the Pinecrest/Duplin/Yorktown P. matthewsi and the lower Waccamaw specimens; the lower Waccamaw and the upper Waccamaw specimens; and between the upper Waccamaw specimens and the recent shells.

@RichardG

Two houses made of the same type of brick must be built by the same builder?
One is in London the other in Edinburgh. Still the same builder? Are the bricks from the same quarry? They are identical to all intents and purposes. By your logic they have the same heredity.

In this case, it is more like “We have four sets of houses. The oldest set was built with circular windows and a large front porch, the next was built using exactly the same types of building materials and blueprints, except for having the front porch average a bit smaller, the next were identical except for a yet smaller front porch and had windows ranging from oblong to square, and the fourth had no front porch or a very small one and consistently square windows, but were otherwise identical to all the previous sets.”

In that case, I think it logical to at least conclude that there was examination of the previous sets of blueprints and instructions, if not the same builders.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

I knew it would take a trained eye and studied expertise to explain that they weren’t just similar “bricks” as a layperson might suggest. Thanks for the detail!

[cewoldt (Craig Ewoldt)]

@rsewell

So the more illogical, the more sanctified?

Of course, that is silly. But that is not what is being said. Those with a carnal mind cannot understand the message of the cross–to them it is foolish.

“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Yes, that’s the only legitimate reason for the faith to be mocked – the offense of the cross, not silly science, speaking of silly.

Augustine, one more time:

In regards to things about the earth, the sky, other elements of this world, the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, the definite eclipses of the sun and moon, the passage of years and seasons, the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, it should not be surprising that such things can be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian.

Therefore, it is an utterly disgraceful and ruinous thing – and something that should be greatly avoided – if [a non-Christian] hears a Christian speaking like an idiot on these matters and trying to make them accord with Christian writings. When that happens, [the non-Christian] will say that he can’t keep from laughing when he sees how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some singular meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

@RichardG

…there are some here who seem to, or at least give it the qualities of God.: immutable and all-knowing.,

What leads you to that conclusion? It certainly appears false on the surface, as rather than immutable, science is always changing when new data comes about, and one of the big drivers in research is to discover what we think we know that is wrong. It was said by a professor in medical school (and I have heard it in other settings as well) that “ half of what we are teaching you is wrong, we just don’t know which half.” Hardly the attitude of immutability or of being all knowing. Quite the opposite in fact.

[cewoldt (Craig Ewoldt)]

@St.Roymond

The view from below cannot include God because human senses and instruments and reasoning cannot find God.

The Bible disagrees.

Here is what scripture says:

“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

“The heavens declare the glory of God.”

So if the Bible is true–and it is–not only can we know there is a God from his creation; we can also understand His eternal power and divine nature and His glory.

It seems that many ignore the fact that most of the founders of the modern scientific disciplines were Bible believing Christians who believed that the very nature of God informed their science. Kepler said, “Science is the process of thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” And many since then have echoed that.

Modern science is built on a foundation that because a rational God is the Creator, nature can be known through reason. There is law in nature because there is a Lawgiver.

Where in the Bible do you find the concept of “view from above and the view from below”–or non-overlapping magisteria? If this is the way that we must do our theology, surely there should be some scriptural guidance to that effect.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@St.Roymond

When scientists, and people who understand science, speak about science, if they throw in talk about God then they’re not doing science any more – it doesn’t matter if they’re Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, or whatever.

I think you missed that he was talking about science, distinguishing between the methodological and the philosophical/theological. As he says later, science does not have a divine-o-meter. Can the scientists on the watch detect the Watchmaker, so to speak? (Disclaimer: that is not an argument for ID being scientific nor for deism. ; - )

[St.Roymond]

@jpm

“ half of what we are teaching you is wrong, we just don’t know which half.”

For one of my advanced physics classes we used a textbook written by the instructor himself, and he made a similar comment about his own textbook.

[St.Roymond]

@cewoldt

“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

That doesn’t say they could find God.

@cewoldt

“The heavens declare the glory of God.”

Was said by a believer. To the unbeliever, it’s just stars.

[St.Roymond]

@Dale

I think you missed that he was talking about science, distinguishing between the methodological and the philosophical/theological.

He was saying that Christians shouldn’t talk about science.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@St.Roymond

When scientists, and people who understand science, speak about science, if they throw in talk about God then they’re not doing science any more – it doesn’t matter if they’re Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, or whatever. This is inherent to everything that falls into the category of the view from below: it involves what humans as we are can discover with our reason and senses. The view from below cannot include God because human senses and instruments and reasoning cannot find God.

When theologians start with the scriptures and summarize and expound on what is there, that is the view from above: it begins with the axiom that God is real and the scriptures are in one sense or another communication from and/or about Him.

The problem comes when someone tries to do “theology from below”. By its very nature, being a mix of the view from below and theology, it tends to go astray quite easily; also by its nature it leads to disagreements that cannot be resolved because they rest on different worldview – that, too, is the nature of the view from below; it rests entirely on human worldview(s)

Give me the references used to make these declarations (and those that follow) as fact

IOW show me that you must be right and therefore can demand that your view is accepted.

Richard