Actually, aviation throws up some interesting comparisons. In the 1970s there were 2 almost identical planes, Concorde was one, the other a Russian. Only one of them proved viable, probably due to the internal workings. (and theoretical solutions that proved false). And the two are obviously not nested hierachily at all despite any commonality in design or appearance. Perfect parallel evolution?
Richard
It clearly does.
Plus in theology consensus is almost always about a range of options not the one and only correct answer. There might be lots of discussion about which idea is best, but there is also clarity about which ideas are fringe and arenât up to the standards that church has set for what gets considered fair game for consideration. There are rules you are expected to play by in both science and theology and itâs a group effort. Individuals donât get to claim whatever they want and insist either it must be seen as equally valid or the system is rigged.
Yup, the historical practice of creeds, confessions, and catechisms are one way that traditions/theological streams have sought to articulate what that common consensus looks like for that group at a specific historical moment.
And whilst in the case of a confessions, space is given for conscientious objection, broadly speaking they act to set out the field of play for the community. That is a common agreement on core beliefs that mark out what it means to be Christian among that group of people. Many see this as restrictive or controlling. My experience is that there is much room for debate, discussion, disagreement and personal conscience even when holding to a historic confession or creed. For example, the oldest extra-biblical articulation of Christianity is probably the Nicene Creed⌠which leaves a lot up for grabs.
Edit: Additionally, there is a lot to be said about humbling oneself under the (loving and godly) oversight of others.
It seems to me that Weinberg was speaking to how philosophy interacts with his work as a physicist.
Then the theory of evolution is verified when the predictions made by the theory are observed in nature. How is that any different?
Why arenât they conclusive?
Thatâs not an ideology. That is a scientific theory, and it is based on verified predictions.
What principles within the theory of evolution do you think can not be compared or demonstrated in other fields or situations?
Analogies are only useful of illustrating a point, not evidencing a point.
Because you are extrapolating. You claim that because it works here, that it must work there, even if there has a different set of characteristics or parameters.
Because they are incomplete
One personâs ideology is anotherâs theory. This is just semantics. Your predictions are still based on a very limited viewpoint and data. (In terms of the complete history)
It is not me claiming this. Every time I attempt one it is shouted down. Who is doing the denying?
And there we have to disagree. Especially as most, if not all, analogies are claimed as inaccurate or irrelevant by the scientific world. I use analogies to point out flaws or problems but scientists just claim that the analogy does not apply. Simple, effective, and immutable.
From what I have seen Evolutionists do not even attempt to see or find the abstractions that form analogies, so they will never accept them as valid.
Richard
Itâs because MI5 sabotaged the TU144 by doctoring the Concorde plans that they knew the Russians would steal.
Thatâs the same for all of the scientific theories you already accept.
All of the scientific theories you already accept are incomplete.
All predictions in all theories are based on limited data, and yet you still accept thousands of scientific theories. Why is evolution any different?
I am not denying. I am asking.
Argument from analogy is a logical fallacy. Itâs rather easy to see why. For example, a duck can only be a duck. A duck canât be a duck or a dog. Therefore, when quantum physicists claim that light can be a wave or a particle they are wrong because a duck canât be a duck or a dog.
Does this work? NO!! We know from experiments that light can be either a wave or a particle. It doesnât matter what our analogies say, reality is the ultimate arbiter of what is true. Arguments from analogies are rejected by scientists because they are logical fallacies.
Itâs unclear if you mean consensus in Christendom at large, or just in the forum community here. In either case, though, the answer is probably ânoâ, since there wouldnât we have trouble having consensus on much anything, much less hot-button topics like that. âUniversalismâ seems to be a red-flag word for a fairly vocal (majority?) of Christians today.
It fascinates me that the Catholic church of earlier centuries managed to house within their large tent a fairly diverse set of orders with widely varying approaches to questions like this. While they still had little patience for anything ultimately labeled âheresyâ, they nonetheless managed to host a widely ranging pluralism within their Catholic tent, perhaps in ways unmatched by what weâve more recently become as we later retreated deeply and defensively into our narrow and shrill Protestant sects. Much of our dogma today seems to be of a more brittle sort that, instead of being able to bend, like a living branch, in response to the wind of the Spirit, will instead shatter like dead wood, being incapable of living with even the slightest variance of understanding.
There you have it. Your immutable defence. I guess it is to do with how we each cognisize. The Scientific mind is just incapable of seeing anything but certain data, or analysing the data in certain ways.
When the Evolutionary process was first proposed it was simple and limited in its scope. A mutation or deviation. But people like me used comparisons to prove that a simple change could not achieve certain changes. So, the details of the change became so blurred that it was impossible to pin it down, so an analogy became almost impossible. The change happened you do not have to define how, or even when. The proof is in the result. And the link is proved by perceived similarities and the specific interpretation that these similarities must be hereditary.
So we change tack. Instead of claiming the specific method of change is inadequate, we claim that the scope of change cannot be achieved by any process. The response is to claim that these enormous changes do not exist. You do not have to go over the Atlantic. Water is not a problem. You can just drive along the ocean floor! Of course that doesnât work with outer space but that gap is probably unrealistic for analogies in Evolutionary change.( But if that gap existed it would be impossible to cross)
,
Now, I realise that to a greater or lesser extent I am still using analogies but, hopefully, you can follow the logic behind them. The net result is that you feel your position is untouchable unless the criticism is purely scientific. Not only scientific but a radical and new alternative proven by scientific method and following scientific rules of conduct.
How am I doing now?
Richard
The scientific mind rejects illogical arguments. Why shouldnât it?
What are those comparisons? How did you prove your claim?
False, as already discussed in the other threads. We are not citing simple similarities as evidence for heredity. It is the PATTERN of similarities that evidences evolution.
And what is your evidence for these claims?
What we are saying is that scientific theories are not overturned by illogical arguments and opinions.
Iâm not thinking so much about science and theology as about somewhat more postmodern subjects â the ones targeted by Boghossian et al in the grievance studies affair for example. These are subjects that concern political âhot potatoesâ where there are relatively strong incentives to favour findings that are politically expedient, and relatively little incentive to favour findings that are factually accurate.
By contrast, in the sciences, we usually have far more than just consensus of experts â we also have practical applications and even foundational science (basically, theories that have other theories that depend on them). Itâs far, far harder to credibly challenge geological techniques that are used to find oil than, say, cosmic inflation.
Theology generally sits somewhere in between. To give one example, for much of the 20th century Julius Wellhausenâs Documentary Hypothesis on the origin of the Pentateuch (JEDP) was taught pretty much as fact, but in the past forty years or so it has been called into question by a number of theologians. (Fun fact: one of the early critics of the Documentary Hypothesis was R N Whybray, a former colleague of my father.)
Along a similar vein ⌠those who enjoy the âtechnobabbleâ that writers come up with for Star Trek engineers (and people who invent, develop, and build new things in mere minutes while their ship is about to blow up) - here is a short clip that should educate everyone about Turbo Encabulators. Enjoy.
On a serious note ⌠People typically appeal to revolutionary âmomentsâ in science (always only retroactively recognized as such), in order to make appeals for more open-mindedness toward fringe proposals. Yes - major streams of consensus thought (even scientifically backed consensus thought) can rarely get a major overhaul - such as in the more toward Heliocentrism. And yes - all the other thousands of fringe ideas that donât ever see light of day in any long-term sense, and for very good reasons - all that is handily overlooked and forgotten by conspiracy enthusiasts.
Nonetheless, I wonder if theology can point to things like the Reformation, and maybe some of the greater councils in history as equivalent theological revolutionary moments. Whether for the better or not could always be disputed according to ones membership in Catholicism or Protestantism. But even many Catholics I listen to these days will pay the reformation credit due for much needed reformation. The world of theology does have lots of checks/balances and review that happens.
Sorry, this argument is over. And it is an argument. Discussion involves the notion that you might change your view or have respect for the other person. Neither is true here.
You have not ever answered. And answering your questions will get the same respones.You will not accept them.
That is your dogma. it had nothing to do with what I had written
I am not even convinced you understand what I have written
Richard
Tell me the difference.
But I donât know what I am talking about!
Richard
Funny that the words âSunday Schoolâ or âBible Collegeâ or âSeminaryâ or âTrinityâ donât appear in the Bible. Or âYoung Earth Creationism.â Matthew, I am YEC also, but please be thoughtful in your arguments.
Also, you are not likely to change anyoneâs mind on this forum. Itâs like me going to the soccer field and challenging the professional team that is working out to a game on their home field. I donât know anything about soccer, am not an athlete, donât know the rules of their game, and there is only one (me) against them. Iâm not going to come out on top. Donât take that analogy further than that. I donât mean that I donât understand the issues or evidence, but this forum is their home field. YEC holds the Bible as the ultimate authority in faith and life, and many EC in this forum do as well. But we not only view the evidence differently, but often what counts as knowledge.
So why am I here, since the BioLogos people are unlikely to change my mind either? A good part of it is so that I, as an apologist, can understand their arguments so that I can understand their position and not misrepresent it. The back and forth sharpens me. And I also think that in some small way, I have made some friends on line, and maybe also challenged them to also think more clearly even in our disagreements.
So remember, Daniel was thrown into the lionsâ den; you jumped into it. That is a big difference. And donât take this analogy farther than that. The believers in this forum are our brothers and sisters in Christ. So let us all speak with grace.
I donât think any of the major YEC organizations teach that YEC is essential for salvation, nor is that what the YEC folks I know believe. âBelieve on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be savedâ is the gospelâSalvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. But we also understand that Genesis from chapter one is foundational for many if not all of the major Christian doctrines. But what a person believes about who Adam was and the origin of sin and the nature of humans can impact the gospel.
Someone somewhere may substitute belief in a young earth for trust in Jesus, but in my interactions with YEC, that doesnât come close to any claim I have ever heard.
Evolution as a barrier to faith? Yes. I think even EC would agree that many non-theistic evolutionists teach that evolution has effectively put God out of business.
Here is what one evolutionist says: âChristianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesusâ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.â
G. Richard Bozarth, âThe Meaning of Evolutionâ, American Atheist , p. 30, February 1978.
I acknowledge that EC has, to their satisfaction, responded to that claim.
Obviously, the discussions of origins can and have been divisive and combative, regardless of the position. And between believers, that should not be.
I agree, and that is advice for everyone regardless of their view of origins.
When analogies are used properly, they can be a powerful teaching tool. We always must start with what we know, and not from what we donât know. And analogy is often used in teaching children, to help them move from what they already know to new ideas and concepts we are teaching.
Of course, we need to be careful in the use of analogies. Used improperly, they can be fallacious.
âthe doctrine of creation is essential to evangelismâ is a quote from multiple ICR publications. Ham is currently claiming that the age of the earth is a salvation issue [more precisely, admitting that it isnât but then claiming that it is], and has also claimed that evolution is the enemy, ignoring the world, the flesh, and the devil. Jonathan Wells likewise has claimed that Christianity is about opposing evolution, not about whether Jesus is the Christ. Many atheists and many YEC and ID advocates teach that evolution puts God out of business. That is a denial of Godâs working through ânaturalâ events, and that is bad theology - the god of the gaps error.
It is true that the major YEC organizations, when pressed, admit that the age of the earth is not a salvation issue. But their claims routinely represent it as an essential part of Christianity. This is probably theological carelessness, but such carelessness matches poorly with their being hailed as defenders of the true faith.
I appreciate your thoughtful and measured input, Craig. We have to be careful or we are all at risk staying in our echo chambers.
I think that the problem I have with YEC, is not with the majority of the people in the pews, but with the organizations which tend to see Christ through the lens of their doctrine of Genesis, rather than seeing Genesis and scripture through the lens of Christ. It really gets complicated with the overlying issues and protectiveness of organizations, as has been seen with the various church and ministry scandals where the needs of the organization are placed above ethical behavior.
I fear even now I paint with overly broad strokes, so apologize for that.
âLet your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.â -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.