Thanks Bill, all a little high level for my mind. However, my impression, as is the process of hypothesis, is that evolution is the only ‘plausible’ explanation from the outset. I.e. Blindness is beneficial as it reduces energy use.
It remains a mystery (to me at least) how:
species manage to transition sooo slowly. It is sooo slow, it cannot be replicated. Therefore, it is taken in ‘faith’. It is a naturally occurring magic.
It just seems unreasonable that, all things in the surrounding environment and ecology remain static long enough to enable a simple transition to occur.
I am not committed to misrepresenting Darwin’s view of Natural Selection. Darwin is very clear He believes that life is a “Struggle for Existence.” Ecologists like Lynne Margulis disagreed and so do I.
In the quote from the4 Species used above, Darwin used the concept of symbiosis and ecology when talking about a parasitic, symbiotic plant being “dependent” on host plants, he was right they do not struggle against each other. But the usual relationship between symbionts is not dependence, but interdependence.
Darwin from this example is clear that Natural Selection is based on the Struggle for Existence and not on the interaction between species and their environment, or ecology. If you disagree please cite one example.
It appears that I over reached my claim when I spoke of armed conflict, but the point I wanted to make was that the Struggle for Existence as Darwin saw it was not a friendly competition, but a desperate life and death struggle. So you disagree?
Even though Darwin used the term, "struggle " seems a bit inappropriate as it implies a conscious will and desire on the part of an individual. It is used figuratively rather than literally. An individual in a population may lead a long comfortable life as the species goes extinct, and a thriving population of mice may have individuals that meet gruesome ends with the local kitty.
Using it figuratively is fine so long as you know that is the context, but unfortunately some are led to believe both the struggle and evolution applies to individuals rather than the population.
Yep. It’s his concluding sentence (my emphasis): “We believe that such compromise in the Church with millions of years and Darwinian evolution has greatly contributed to the loss of the Christian foundation in the culture.”
Evolution and the age of the earth are a Culture War issue, according to AiG. Turn science versus the Bible into another Left vs. Right issue, and the reaction is automatic – the Left/evolution/millions of years must be opposed! It’s guilt by association, no matter how many backflips Ken Ham must perform to connect a “loss of Christian foundation in the culture” to a belief in “millions of years.”
That’s really my point, Dale. Is the polarization a strategic move that is designed to take the focus off of the evidence and place it instead upon being disgusted at the rest of us?
That makes sense to me. When I was in my teens, AIG’s mailings would often include reports from Ken Ham about some of the mean things “secularists” were saying about him/them, which is something I can’t really picture CEOs of other organizations doing on a regular basis. But now I realize how effective that can be at cultivating that sense of polarization, and reminding us that we were on the “correct” side of the culture wars.
I tend to think of it as tending toward the well-thought-out end of the spectrum vs. a knee-jerk reaction, personally.
EDIT: Here’s what an online dictionary says regarding strategic: relating to the identification of long-term or overall aims and interests and the means of achieving them.
Out comes the middle school English teacher within me. Ethos, Logos, Pathos.
Ethos: Establish authority.
Logos: Logical argument.
Pathos: Emotional appeal.
Ken Ham cannot win the debate on the age of the earth by scientific authority or logical argument, so he resorts to emotional appeal – our culture and the authority of God’s word are under attack! All hands on deck!
@TedDavis had some thoughts along these lines. The spyglass up there would find it for me, but maybe he has some “thoughts for today” to share.
I have read Darwin, so of course I disagree with your mischaracterizations of what he said and what he meant. The question was never about a “friendly competition” versus “a desperate life and death struggle.” Both of those things happen, and neither is a broad characterization of Darwin’s words, much less a fair characterization of natural selection. You could discover this by reading him, as can everyone else in the world.
There just isn’t much value in the ways you characterize Darwinian ideas, selection, extinction, ecology, or evolution in general. It seems to me that you are committed to a narrative involving symbiosis and ecological change, to the exclusion of known mechanisms and historical events. And it seems to me that you are committed to using Darwin (and Dawkins and others) as foils in your advancement of your thesis. You are clear in advancing this narrative in service of theological commitments, and I do appreciate your openness about that. But little of what you write about evolution is true. Very sadly, this turns your comments into inaccurate musings, which give the appearance of an intent to mislead upon repetition over the years.
I think they’re just committing the slippery slope fallacy. I’ve seen it in some writings from members of my church. The kind that call us “compromisers” and say that belief in an old earth will lead to denying a bunch of different things, right down to the resurrection. It’s the same thing AiG warns about.
Okay, I understand Ham’s cultural war strategy - ‘defensive against’ - with secularization being the threat and danger.
James Davidson Hunter argues in ‘To change the world’ - Christians and churches seeking to win back culture (and regain place of privilege) used and failed with two strategies 1. Evangelize unbelievers 2. Frontal attack against secular worldview - temperance, creation & evolution, Bible reading in public schools , porn, abortion, feminism family, gay rights, other progressive issues etc.
Hunter states this is a failed model as the media not the Church is at the center of culture.
Therefore, I don’t see God being re-enshrined in the social order to restore culture. I assume Ham’s paradigm is to regain standing in society by and large and he would see the main problem in the world is secularization.
Isn’t EC trying to do the same thing?
Ham’s ‘literal’ interpretation to scripture could be just as worrying as EC’s ‘eisegesis’ approach where some evolutionists might say God is not needed.
To be fair to Ham and EC - are not both trying to be faithful in the world?
No, not at all. EC is trying to fight the conflict narrative that says you have to choose between God and science. If you want to be an atheist and say God is not needed for evolution, fine. If you want to be a YEC and say God created the earth 6,000 years ago, fine. If you want to believe scientists and believe the Bible, we can help with that.
I do believe Ham is trying to be faithful to his version of honoring God and God’s word. I think it is a misguided and potentially harmful view, but yes, I think he probably is doing what he sincerely believes God requires of him.
