I am no expect but I am pretty sure that is not the basis for the theory of evolution. Your background in genetics should show you common descent is true.
1 Like
The neutral theory of evolution and that neutral drift can produce complexity probably had not made it into textbooks or the regular classroom when he was in school. (It hadn’t when I was, and our ages may be comparable. 
)
As Alfred Russell Lord Wallace said to Darwin, so called organs of perfection are about lack of imagination.
Molecular genetics and common descent is another topic. But even there, you have to explain the molecular mechanisms (and their origin) for making a real 3 dimensional functioning structure like the superior oblique muscle of the human eye in the embryo.
This is part of what I mean by “magical thinking”. Just because an evolutionist can “imagine” a series of transitional processes to create a functioning organ like the kidney, doesn’t necessarily mean that is what happened in reality. It may or may not be in fact true.
Dale
We will have to agree to disagree here.
I personally don’t know of any strictly random naturalistic process (certainly not the neutral theory of evolution) that could produce the complexity, and functionality, we see in living organisms.
But this is just my opinion that I have formed for myself from my own study. Like the Bible says “let every man be fully convinced in his own mind…”
Stop me if I’m mischacterizing your position.
But it seems to me you think the word “solely” up there is an essential aspect of the theory of evolution. Doesn’t that confuse methodical naturalism with philosophical naturalism? Doesn’t it do what I was complaining about in this thread:
Scientific theories don’t say anything about agency. They try to make sense of the order of the world by noticing predictable patterns in it. For the purposes of that, there is no need to invoke or to exclude the existence of God.
As a new believer with a background in science, apparently unlike others, I found no problem marrying naturalism with theism. I see God’s hand in everything. Just because I can answer a lot of “how” and “why” questions by reference to patterns science has uncovered, does not exclude the hand of God in those things. (Gary Fugle talks about this “dual causation” a lot in Laying Down Arms to Heal the Creation-Evolution Divide, very worthwhile if you’ve not already read it.) He doesn’t only live in the gaps.
Does it somehow insult God’s majesty to recognise that so much of his work conforms to patterns we can understand? I don’t think so. In fact I think it makes his Creation even more amazing.
What would it be like to live in a Universe where there was no predictability or order and everything was a random and unpredictable whim of God? It would be a very difficult place for humans to exercise free will, when actions don’t have predictable consequences.
In fact, much of Genesis 1 seems to be about God’s ordering of the Universe, not the creation of materials themselves.
The fact that He does this ordering, which is essential for humans to exercise free will, also fits well with the Christian idea that humans with mind and agency were integral to God’s plan (another key point of Genesis).
I do think there are things that it seems unlikely could be adequately understood by methodical naturalism. I trust the expertise and intentions of biologists who tell us the descent of species is not one of them.
But the existence of mind and agency, I think, has to be one of these. And the causation of the Big Bang. And the reason for the “laws of nature” and “constants of nature” being as they are. And, perhaps, abiogenesis.
3 Likes
I think I see what you mean.
Methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism seem the same to me. But I could be wrong.
It seems like both automatically eliminate the existence of God or a supernatural intelligence.
Bottom line for me is that I don’t believe that life could have come from a radom naturalistic (no God) process. Human anatomy and physiology (and embryology) is too complex and functionally purposeful, in my opinion.
Methodological naturalism just tries to find out how things work and how, within the laws of nature, they got that way. It does not preclude providential intervention, but neither can it prove it.
That is way different for the Christian than philosophical naturalism. Big bang cosmology has been the avenue by which of numbers of scientists have been pointed to the Creator and become Christians (more physicists than biologists, I am given to understand).
2 Likes
Yeah it’s fine for everyone to
Have an opinion. [content removed] Not all opinions are equal.
You can make claims but don’t confuse them for wisdom or science.
-
I believe all life comes from life because I came from my parents. - Sure. But that’s not what abiogenesis is. That’s what reproduction is. You’re confusing reproduction for abiogenesis. That’s just as different as confusing birth for mitosis in our species.
-
Look through a book on anatomy and physiology and it proves intelligent design. - that’s just not true. That’s a opinion about the preconceived interpretation. It’s not a scientific explanation or a historical one. Which organ is inexplainable by natural processes?
3 Likes
Any “magic” you think that is involved with organ evolution is far less crazy than the magic needed for supernaturally developed organs. Such as the eye. The eye is not that complex. Teeth is more complicated. Convergent evolution for eyes has occurred many times.
Yes sir.
I “get it”.
You have left me speechless. [content removed]
As nothing in nature requires a non-natural explanation by definition, it cannot be bettered. Looking at an eye muscle and every other wonder, each in statistical isolation and ignoring billions of years of natural selection of mutation certainly isn’t better.
My only request and final comment to you: please give any extra pearls that you have to the poor who may need food, clothing, housing, or medical care.
All I’m saying is that often you see these arguments being used of “‘well let’s agree to disagree” or “ we all have different opinions” which is fine. But the problem is when someone uses that as a shield to subconsciously give themselves permission to not follow their reasoning all the way through.
When it comes to ID and other forms of YEC/OEC one thing they constantly do is ignore all the holes and giant gaps in their argument and then point out the few in the theory of evolution over some specific things like a eye and that’s all they focus on.
The eyeball is one that is touted the most because someone who wrote some book brought it up and it’s just recycled a lot. Within ID it’s very common for people to not read counter arguments from scientists addressing there claims by theologians.
When we look at the world now we see tons of different types of eyeballs. Some even more complex than ours. Many less complex.
https://www.nature.com/articles/eye2017226
We can see how single celled organisms can use vision.
Because eyes have evolved multiple times isolated from one s other. By that I mean the eye as independently evolved in many lineages, and for a fact as caves have shown us some
Species have even evolved their eyes away. But it leaves us with a lot of data that we can trace. We don’t have to have our whole eyes to see. We can lose parts of our eyes and still see. We can lose parts all the way to the point to where we can just detect enough light to determine if a showdown is moving across us. Some animals have eyes that can only detect that.
1 Like
You mean you expected me to say the same thing back at you that you were intending for me……so if I reuse the same thing and that’s what you expected someone like me to say does that mean you and I are alike…… did you also expect yourself
To say the same thing…
See my point about following through with your own logic instead of stopping it part ways and using it as this scapegoat to avoid countering something….
1 Like
Then we shouldn’t pretend that things like the heart work better than they do.
I don’t have the slightest idea where you are coming from.
I’m not pretending about anything. I am a physician and see hearts that work fine and those that don’t work so well.
You were talking about “blood pumping heart muscles that never miss a beat (at least not for too long), one way heart valves, etc. etc.” and then I pointed out that they don’t work as flawlessly as you imply.
So what would you say is the probability that a random genetic process could create new bones, complete with muscle attachments and joints?
1 Like
I am talking about abiogenesis, thru time, to the present day.
I would say probabilty of zero.
When I look at MRI scans every day, I see knee joints, hip joints, shoulder joints etc.
I see complex structures with specific functions.
Personally, and I am speaking for myself only, I don’t believe this all could have been the result of purely random naturalistic materialistic evolution. This is one of the reasons that I believe in God.