Yes, I entirely agree that equating natural mechanisms occurring with their being the only thing that can occur is bad. We need to be careful of reversing this argument into “methodological naturalistic arguments are anti-God”. Methodological naturalistic arguments just say “here is what the evidence points towards” they don’t inherently say “this is the philosophical cause”, unlike some people seem to think.
As an example, from personal observation, I can assert that there is a transition from a variety of Yorktown Formation (dated through correlation with fossils from Florida that can be radiometrically dated as mid-Pliocene) species, such as Terebra indenta, Ilyanassa granifera, and Solariorbis yadkinensis; through Waccamaw Formation (dated by the same method as basal Pleistocene) ones, Terebra cf. dislocata, Ilyanassa irrorata and Solariorbis cf. yadkinensis; to recent ones, namely Terebra dislocata, Ilyanassa obsoleta, and Solariorbis blakei. For theological reasons, I believe that God guided this process to produce an amazing variety of species that people like me can now study to find out about earth’s past.
Agreed. But the basic problem with YEC is that their position simply isn’t Biblical, as shown in my article discussed elsewhere on this forum (see: recently published peer-reviewed article). When people hear YECists shouting about how their position is the “plain teaching of scripture” and then find that they are wrong, the next time someone says something is the “plain teaching of scripture”, like Biblical sexual ethics, they’ll wonder whether they are wrong too. YECists have created a precedent for discounting insistence that we believe what the Bible appears to plainly teach.
Since science can only provide a materialistic explanation why do you object? They are only providing the explanation that their method allows. And I will say that their method works very well. Why insist that biological data should be treated differently from other types of data? I could also object to meteorologists that don’t include God in their forecasts. After all we are told that God controls the weather.
Problem being evolution is based on a conceivable materialistic cause even if you don’t accept it. You just don’t like that conclusion.
I agree, but I think you misunderstood - I entirely agree with what you said here, insofar as he had indeed cited said lab work in an attempt to refute Meyer’s position, as you note, to support his own contention that “the jury is still out.” agreed thus far - but he did not claim that the jury was still out on the results, and significance, of those particular lab studies… that is the “case closed” I was referring to.
Rather, as he cited said lab work, I believe he grossly exaggerated the very meager and modest discoveries of said lab work by describing them as if categorical and monumental discoveries - examples that came across to me as “case closed” style: indisputable, unassailable, proof-positive, open-and-shut arguments against Meyer’s claim, and they were in fact nothing of the sort:
So, i was referring to the item wherein he affirmed “there is a way, a very feasible way that both building blocks could have been produced through natural processes,” and boldly pronounced that regarding this particular lab question, “the problem had been solved.”
all while it was anything but a demonstration that it could happen “by natural processes”. a carefully planned and constructed process requiring repeated and multiple interventions by the experimenter, both before and during the reaction, to caerfully isolate and purify the chemical processes, and carefully guide it toward a desired outcome, shows “very feasible” way it could be a result of “natural processes”?
Even worse, in my own humble opinion, is that I found him to have grossly overstated the significance of the second experiment he mentioned. specifically designed and genetically engineered RNA was developed that catalyzed a single, pre-staged bond which joined two pre-constructed RNA halves, and Dr. Falk described this as
a replication process carried out exclusively by evolved RNA molecules.
i say this humbly and with all respect, but when I read his bold description that “evolved RNA molecules” actually carried out “a replication process”, and then went and looked up a discovered what the experiment actually achieved… i can only speak for myself, but i personally found this downright dishonest, as if it were a deliberate misrepresentation and intentionally extreme over-exaggeration of what had happened to make it look like the experiment had actually proven far more than it did. Hence my illustration above. If I claimed my 2 year old had built a 1,000 piece lego spaceship, that would no doubt sound very impressive… if you discovered later that what had really happened is that my 2 year old snapped two entirely completed havles of said lego sets together - halves that I myself had actually built on my own simply having refrained from taking the final step…? Would you really conclude me to have been completely forthright or up front in my description of the achievement?
but the very problem is that, as i read the back and forth… had Dr. Falk simply and accurately communicated clearly what the actual experiment did, it would have been rather obvious to any reader that the actual experiment he cited didn’t come close proving his point raised against Dr. Meyer, (and would hardly have been described by any objective observer as either an “evolved RNA molecule” or a “replication process”. Only by describing the experiment in the most exaggerated terms does it give the (false) appearance of being counter-evidence to Dr. Meyer’s position.
Again, only speaking for myself, but i recall reading Dr. Falk’s article with great interest, as i wanted to fact-check Dr. Meyer’s book. and i recall reading what sounded like clear-cut, grand, stark, and obvious experiments that would clearly refute Dr. Meyer’s conclusions… only to read the details of the experiment elsewhere and discover… again, i’m only speaking for my own experience, i’m not trying to impute motive… but i quite genuinely felt that i had been lied to.
a carefully crafted and intelligently engineered RNA strand is described as “evolved”, and this engineered molecule catalyzed a single chemical bond combining two pre-constructed RNA halves is described as a “replication process”?
If Dr. Falk had desired to communicate that he believed Dr. Meyer’s position to be premature, then i would have been all ears, if he had simply been more modest in his examples… but his willingness to take these extremely modest experiments and exaggerate their import beyond any reasonable use of language i personally found appalling, i’m afraid. to me it undermined his entire argument… if someone finds the need to so significantly over exaggerate the evidence in support of their claim, it makes me suspect that their overall position may well not be as strong as they seem to want to portray.
If a scientist therefore insists on a materialistic explanation for the resurrection, and defends that conclusion on the basis that “this is the explanation that my method allows…”
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
118
Your scepticism of the refutation of ID is not warranted, it’s a scepticism too far. Like scepticism of atheism in general. Scepticism just needs to stop at theism and all it’s third rate corollaries like ID and all other apologetics follow. You never need to go down any of those yeah-but rabbit holes.
A scientist might offer a materialistic explanation (and many do) and I am completely free to ignore any such explanation. Just as you can for evolution, but seem to be unable to do so.
I am unwilling, not unable. Let’s be a bit charitable, shall we?
Respectfully, this kind of ad hominem seems completely unhelpful, odd, and pointless. I suppose I could post something that said:
“You are free to ignore internet posts of evolution skeptics… but seem unable to do so…”
But I think that would be silly, inaccurate, unhelpful, and rather pointless. In basic charity, I assume that you post the responses that you do because you want or choose or desire to respond, not because you are “unable” to ignore them?
I really enjoy Rich Mullins’ song, “We Are Not as Strong As We Think We Are,” and believe this may be relevant to the OP. Even though the topic evokes strong emotions, I don’t think there’s a nefarious spiritual source causing our disagreement, or the smoke. It’s simply that we are trying to make sense where things seem cloudy, and emotions get in the way.
We are frail, we are fearfully and wonderfully made,
Forged in the fires of human passion, choking on the fumes of selfish rage,
But with these our hells and our heavens, so few inches apart,
We must be awfully small, and not as strong as we think we are.
It’s Christ’s forgiveness and patience that helps us see through the muck and fog, to love past our fears and confusion–something demonstrated by many on this forum.
[quote=“Klax, post:72, topic:47428”]
I find the OP strange. There’s nothing spiritual about YEC. Even the lying.[/quote]
Just noticed this. I wasn’t in a good space when I posted this. “Strange” jibe deserved. But, would you like to articulate your metaphysics? Insisting on counter-evidientiary physical theories on the basis of spiritually-oriented beliefs - is that not what YEC is? Yes, in my OP I was thinking further, to attribute hostile spiritual agency to YEC. Again I am interested to know why you rule that out while apparently endorsing the existence of spiritual agency.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
127
#Me too brother!
We’re walking naked together Russell. As a fiercely rationalist faith seeker in Christ, and word fascist, I see that you repeat your usage. YEC beliefs are no more spiritually oriented than mine that it won’t rain today. Unless spiritual is a synonym for mystical, numinous, Jungian - superstitious, irrational. As in all these arguments; against atheism, for theism, against dysteleology, for ID: don’t go there. Don’t go down the non-existent, unreal rabbit hole. Don’t make a bad situation even worse by adding demons to the unsolvable equation.
If there is a spiritual agency, it is Love. Nothing less. If a spiritual agency grounds infinite and eternal natural and supernatural being, as evidenced in Christ on our mediocre, infinitesimal world, it does not ground an insane, adversarial, bitter, twisted, infinite, eternal demiurge fallen from eternity as the Son is Begotten and his Terran chapter.
@DarrelFalk Dr Falk, there’s a very honorable man, Mr Fisher, who has some questions for your analysis. Would you consider commenting? I appreciate your work. Thanks. Randy
Again, to wrap up my thoughts for you, if/as interesting… What you wrote above I couldn’t agree with more.
For me at least, the core question I have is as to whether the creation of life is in the same category you mentioned as the resurrection is the creation of life “a pattern breaking event that is therefore outside the scope of science.”
For me, this is an entirely legitimate question to ask, for theological as well as scientific reasons. There are certainly some suggestions in the Bible that God had something to do with the beginning of lifek, and did so in a more “direct” way that seemed to have broken the pattern? At least enough for us to raise the question legitimately. And secondly, with any such pattern-breaking event like a miraculous resurrection, it isn’t that science can’t explore what data is available (in theory, a MD could have examined Lazarus corps at day 3 after death, examined him again two days after his resurrection, taken blood, tissue samples, etc., etc.)… but if science does examine what it can about an event which at core is a pattern-breaking miracle, we should expect that science would fail to find any sufficient materialistic explanation.
Thus when it comes to the first life, both factors seems to me to converge - there are theological reasons to suspect that such an extra-ordinary event may well have been in the category of direct divine intervention, and as would be suspected in such rare and limited cases, our best science can find nothing even approaching a sufficient materialistic hypothesis.
Moreover, to the point of your question about YEC… My own experience has been such that most claims about the power of natural selection and mutation to achieve such great feats, or of blind accidental chemistry to creating a functioning, self-replicating cellular or even pre-cellular life… the claims about such feats come across to me as wild speculation, gross exaggeration, wishful thinking, question begging, and unwarranted assumptions… Claiming without basis “God did it” is problematic indeed… but how often have I read a scientific article or journal and I laugh to myself as their argument is, essentially, no more than, “evolution did it.” And I find it pervasive.
Now, this is where I get “judgmental”, but I cannot help but recognize the obvious fact that all biologists who are not believers are inherently biased, and have a need to believe in a world where the exquisite design of life can come about by blind materialistic forces. And when I see argumentation or evidence that starts to appear as practically desperate grasping at straws, it affirms my skepticism that this is an objective scientific endeavor, but rather a deeply tainted approach doomed to reach a pre-determined conclusion.
And so I look at YECs, and I while I don’t agree with many of the conclusions or methods (they also strike me, near identically - thought on the other side - as having this incorrigible habit of examining evidence specifically in order to reach a predetermined conclusion… but I at least have sympathy with their skepticism of the “science” in general for the reaons I mentioned above, and I appreciate their willingness to inform their scientific pursuit with theological truth.
Granted, I personally don’t see the question of distance between galaxies and consequence to age of the universe as being so tainted with moral issues as I do the biological, but I can understand their underlying mindset.
(Now, everything I said above, this is my attempt to be as generous as I can to the YECs… just to push back a bit on the initial post… I could document my other major, major problems with their methods, theology, biblical understanding, and the like, but I’d save that for another post…)
