Whale Evolution: Theory, Prediction and Converging Lines of Evidence


(George Brooks) #61

@Ashwin_s

And so, in regards to Evolutionary science, professionals have taken the burden off your back and have done so.

The question remains… and you cannot simply walk away from it…

Do you allow for 2 methods for God to engage the universe? Or do you insist on lumpting everything together into a single incoherent category?

You cannot prevail with a one-category argument - - EXCEPT if you say everything God does is done via natural laws. Not a lot of people agree to this position… but it is the only one available to you, based on what you’ve been saying up to now.


(Ashwin S) #62

You are assuming God functions in a particular way. I am not making assumptions.
I stick to the Bible on this.God engages the world through his logos (i.e God the Son). Human categorisations need not hold.


(George Brooks) #63

@Ashwin_s

Yes… that’s all well and good… if you were a hermit living in a desert by yourself.

But if you engage with fellow English-speakers in a world full of people… you need to be able to categorize some of your ideas. And your refusal to differentiate between events that follow natural law (which we know exists as a category of knowledge) and any other kind of event (ones which the Bible suggests are events that suspend natural law, or are above natural law) … then you cannot engage intelligently about natural phenomenon (like the creation of life forms on Earth) with other people - - whether they are Christians or not.

And that’s exactly what your limitation has been on this list … nobody can discuss the difference between miraculous events and natural events, because you REJECT any attempt to divide the events into 2 categories…

In fact, you even reject the idea that we can have ONE category… because you refuse to accept that you have the qualifications to do so.

So, on the strength of our own confessions, I recommend to the moderators, (the 2 most familiar with your discussions might be @pevaquark and @jpm ), that you can be allowed to go on your way.

It’s going to be dicedly difficult to discuss the difference between science and the miraculous when you reject even the attempt to distinguish the two!

I’m satisified, @Ashwin_s. You win. Nobody can conquer your mind. And I don’t want to even try.
Best of luck!


(Ashwin S) #64

Hi Brooks,
I don’t know what’s so difficult about this.
If someone claims to talk science, I am not going to look for explanations involving miracles.

I don’t categorise my views as science. My view is creationist. Meaning, I believe God created all things. I am not sure about how he did it.
I am skeptical about evolution (as discribed by scientists)
And I don’t see why you want to call your views evolution… But I guess that’s just semantics.
If it makes you feel good, you are welcome to label yourself whatever way you want.

God bless.


(George Brooks) #65

No, I am not free to do this. As part of my label, I believe that God uses natural law in the category of Evolution to make humans the way he wanted them to be: and with the intention of making my views clear, I use a fairly distinctive label: God-Guided-Evolution.

Just so you know - - lots of YECs are a little stunned when they see the label, but they at least know how to discuss it. They don’t start insisting that the word Evolution must refer to Godless evolution … and that even if I specifically add the term “God” to it… it is a concept you can’t imagine. You reject the label, and give me one which is well known to apply to those who reject speciation, common descent, and natural selection.

But people with more flexible mind sets than your own, are able to imagine God using natural laws to make rain storms (perhaps most of the time), but as distinct from doing something with a “poof” of his word and sovereignty. You are the very first to disqualify the entire exercise by saying there is no difference between miracle and natural law, such that God cannot have used Evolution. Why? I have no idea. And you refuse to even attempt to sort it out - - because you think it is impossible to sort it out at all. You, my good friend, would have driven Newton absolutely bonkers.

In short, I cannot be “free” to label myself in connection to God-based Evolution, if you won’t even discuss the point with me because it violates your sense of propriety for how the word Evolution must be used?

You reject the idea of God & Evolution working together as though I was describing a circle with square corners… and you refuse to offer something that actually approximates my position.

I can’t imagine two more opposite correspondents, more gravely locked in languages that cannot communicate anything to each other: you and I.


#66

@Ashwin_s If I might interject here. We don’t call our views evolution, we call them Evolutionary Creation. It is not just semantics it means the two are fundamentally different. The small e evolution does mean without God. EC means evolution with God. Science shows us evolution. The Bible shows us EC.


(Ashwin S) #67

I suggest you read the works I pointed to. Esp, Micheal Behe’s book before making that claim. He uses a frame work of speciation, common descent and natural selection.Though he is of the opinion that mutation and natural selection by itself cannot lead to novelty beyond certain limits.
Wikipedia also seems to think that theistic evolution is a branch of old earth creationism . So there are people who view this the way I do.


(Ashwin S) #68

Thanks for the clarification Bill. To me evolutionary creationism seems like an oxy moron (but that’s my opinion. I could be wrong). And it leads to confusion. Like this extended discussion I am having with brooks. I don’t know why I can’t get it across that evolution does not include miracles among its methods… and so, I would expect explanations of evolution by scientists to not need miracles to make sense.
This has nothing to do with my theological views on whether God does miracles or not.


#69

First, don’t believe everything you read on Wikipedia :grinning:

About the only thing those ism’s have in common is the age of the earth. After that they depart from one another rather widely.

The confusion comes when YEC folks keep painting the EC position with the atheistic evolution brush. This is the result of trying to bash all things that include the word evolution. You seem to have picked up a touch of this yourself if I read your position correctly.

You are correct to not expect miracles. Science doesn’t need miracles to explain common descent. The evidence shows common descent is real. But that doesn’t mean God is not involved in the process.

Let me go back to an earlier example, throwing dice. The outcome of throwing dice is a so called “random number” but the reality is if all of the initial conditions are known to a sufficient degree of accuracy it is possible to calculate the outcome. It isn’t really random it is the result of unknown causes. Now square this with what the Bible says in Proverbs 16:33 “The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the LORD.” Exactly how God does this we don’t know. You could say it is because He set up the natural laws to produce the outcome. It could be the result of quantum mechanics. You could even say it is a miracle. The truth is we are not told HOW God does this, just that He does. The same argument applies to rain and it applies to evolution.


(Ashwin S) #70

Hi Bill,

I get what you are saying. I don’t have any problem with the above view point as long as it’s not identified as evolution. It’s the creationism part of our understanding. As long as you don’t use it explain how the mechanisms involved in evolution such as mutation and natural selection work, I have no problem. I have said this many times.