That certainly was not clear. @RichardG also conflates science with philosophy/theology/metaphysics.
And you’re still calling it a B-grade scientific theory, so my response still applies:
Oh, no doubt about it … especially when one understands that “plausible explanations” in evolution science often means “far-fetched, untestable, pseudo-scientific stories”.
And I wonder which “known natural processes” can account for novel phyla suddenly appearing in the fossil record with no evidence of evolutionary predecessors. Maybe they’re the same “known natural processes” that produced the disparity followed by diversity evident in the Cambrian fossils - the opposite of what evolution predicts (diversity followed by disparity).
“The 1909 discovery of the Burgess Shale in the Canadian Rockies provided the best fossil record of the Cambrian explosion until the 1984 discovery of the slightly older Maotianshan Shales in Chengjiang, China. Because of their excellent preservation, the Chengjiang fauna (many of which were soft-bodied) document the Cambrian explosion in exquisite detail, and Jun-Yuan Chen was the world expert.
In his February lecture at the Burke Museum of the University of Washington, Chen described many of the Chengjiang fossils and argued that their abrupt appearance in the early Cambrian was a problem for Darwinian evolution.
Darwin’s theory predicts that minor taxonomic differences (such as species and genera) gradually evolve into larger differences (such as classes and phyla) [diversity followed by disparity], whereas the fossils show that the phyla and many classes appeared first and then diversified into a variety of genera and species. [disparity followed by diversity]. Chen called this “top-down” evolution, to contrast it with the “bottom-up” evolution
required by Darwin’s theory.
Afterwards, scientists in the audience asked him a lot of questions about specific fossils, but they completely avoided the topic of Darwinian evolution. When Chen later asked me why, I told him that perhaps they were just being polite, because most American scientists disapprove of criticizing Darwinism. At that he laughed, and said: “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”"
A theory that offers a plausible explanation for some things, but fails miserably at explaining some other things, qualifies as a B-grade theory, I should think.
Correction: "with God all things are possible” (Matt 19:26)
My apologies.
I not only believe it’s impossible to determine what process was responsible for the history of life on earth, I believe it’s impossible to even determine what that history is.
As for universal common descent, I believe it’s impossible to determine that it’s a fact.
But that what Darwinists excel at … dreaming up “plausible explanations”.
“It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test.”
Dr. Colin Patterson
If the Burgess Shale had never been discovered, or the particular geological events never came together to form that to begin with, for 75 years there would have been no Cambrian explosion - genera, phyla, you name it. It is fortuitous that we have these rare sites at all. It could have been otherwise, and we would have been none the wiser.
So why is there some entitlement that even older formations reveal themselves, preserving likely even smaller and softer organisms; that must have escaped the Earth’s resurfacing to conveniently fill in the gaps, as if on demand?
If God of the gaps is your apologetic, then as you wish. But the fossil record becomes clearer and more continuous as we trace, not backwards, but forward from the Cambrian. For hominid evolution, the fossil record and genetic evidence leads to an inescapable conclusion of common ancestry. And that is where the real consternation resides, does it not? Gaps in the record of archaic evolution do not cast aspersion on our understanding of terrestrial life.
2 Likes
Sigh,
All or nothng? All science is the same? Why does God’s influence in evolution matter?
Science is, according to Theism, God’s working and methodology, so we are not dientifying God as such but describing the fforces and structures He has made… So assuming you beleive in God you will see nature and science as the hand of God and revealing Himself to us. Fine, so why does Evolution stand out as different?
Of all science there is only one theory that has upset the chhurch, right from the word go. Why? Because it contradicts Genesis 1. So what? So does the mineral dating of geology (old earth) and the round earth, and the vast cosmos that we are not the centre of. RIght?
Except they only contradict the explanations, they do not contrdict the spirit of Genesis 1. God put the stars and planets into orbit. Just because they go the dynamics wrong does not change the fact that there is order in the cosmos. Planets and stars obey certain rules and there are measurable forces and phenomina. that can be seen as being formed by God, and so on
But evolution is trying to claim that nature was not formed by God but by itself. Akk the changes,all the developments, all the nuances are caused by forceof nature trather than the direect influence of God. If god is anywhere in TOE it is at the conception You will have seen me use the phrase."
light the blue touchpaper and retire immediately."
ie set it in motion and let it go. Just the same as the weather, or the Cosmos?
Excpeth
Genessis dsays that God created specifics. He made individual animals and creatures to specifications of His design rather than just cosmic flukes. HUmanninty was created according to the image that God wanted. Evolution says it was just by accident. The mechanisms are not specific. The outcome was always a mystery.
So, some peope here say, who cares? as long as God made the basics what difference does it make if the rest of the creation was not directly under His control? He does not control us now, so why must He have been controlling to start with?
And the usual place for God in TOE is at the deviations. People here claim that God controlled the deviation so in fact controls TOE. But
The mechanisms in TOE: Natural Selection, Survival, and so on are not Godly, they are self-determined. If God controlled the deviations He would know they would work, There is no need for competition or survival, they have all been taken care of (Provided!) IOW TOE does not work with God at the Helm. The mechanisms are superfluous and false.
TOE would not “care” what shape or construction occurs, only whether it works. Humaninty could be a Reptile, or an amphibian or even a super-developed squid. As long as it is possible TOE could have made it. Dragons, Unicorns? Griffins? Serpents? Loch Ness Monster? All possible, even probable because they are all very powerful (except perhaps Unicorns) TOE says the changes are “random” and uncontrolled. It wants the developments to be accidental and the continuance to be purely because it works rather than under any sort of guidance.
IOW TOE is trying to exclude any influence of God from creation. Humanity is a cosmic fluke
If you are going to talk philosophy it is the difference between Humanity being the result of a million lotteries or the result of the design of God.
We can insert God into TOE and make it part of God’s working but the moment we do it changes TOE. TOE only works without God at all, which is why some people claim that it disproves God. If it can do what it claims, in the way that it claims, God completely disappears from creation. (Other than possibly shouting and causing a big Bang).
So yes Evolution is unique among science, because it denies God like no other theory.
And this is what the disagreement is between me & @Dale . He does not understand that the mechanisms of TOE would not function if God was involved.(especially if God is controlling the changes the way he thinks God does) IOW @Dale thinks Evolution is controlled by God but still argues the existence of the mechanisms that deny Him.
I hope this waffle makes sense. I have tried.
Richard
1 Like
Then, as @JerryN pointed out, you are using the term “the theory of evolution” to mean something different from everybody else. Universal common ancestry is just one aspect of the theory of evolution. It is not the theory in its entirety. And no, the theory of evolution is not distinct from the mechanisms of evolution. The mechanisms of evolution are just another aspect of the theory of evolution.
I’m sorry, but unless we can get on the same page about exactly what terminology we are using, we’re just going to end up shouting past each other, and further discussion is pointless.
I don’t know if universal common ancestry specifically has any real world practical applications, but I do know that other aspects of the theory of evolution do. And I do know who is qualified to tell me whether or not universal common ancestry has practical applications, and that is professional evolutionary biologists with advanced degrees in the subject. Perhaps @T_aquaticus or @glipsnort might be able to give some insight here.
Then with all due respect, you are not qualified to tell us what role evolution plays (or does not play) in oil exploration. When somebody who works for the oil industry tells me that searching for oil requires them to know what evolved from what, and somebody who does not work for the oil industry tells me that it does not, then it is the person who works for the oil industry that I will pay attention to. Not because they are an “evolutionist” or a “Darwinist,” but because they are the ones who can speak with authority about what they themselves do for a living.
And science doesn’t work according to “common sense,” it works by measuring things. Measurement often reveals things that are completely counterintuitive. Such as quantum mechanics and relativity for instance.
It would be good if we could get some feedback here from someone who does have experience in the oil industry.
Well yes, but for fossils to be found in predictable sequences, you need some way of predicting what the sequences are. And guess what one of the tools that scientists use to predict the sequences is? Evolution.
3 Likes
How long will it take the Lord to raise you from the dead in the resurrection? Will he have to start with a prokaryote and take millions of years to evolve you into a human being all over again, or can he resurrect you instantly from dust?
The method that God used to create the marvelous, enjoyable, interesting… (I could continue to add adjectives), that biological diversity that we enjoy should not be disparaged as ‘B-grade’ just because you don’t believe in it, dishonoring him before the world and making Christianity a laughingstock.
Believe what you will, Richard. It has little to do with reality.
You do not define reality.
Beliefs do not affect reality. What is real is real whether you believe it or not.
But your view dictates what reality must be. Which contradicts the above
So back at you.
RIchard
No, it is the one unforgivable sin
Richard
Multiple professional scientists as well as those trained in theology and philosophy have tried to get you to understand that there is no difference scientifically between evolution – biological change over time, and other sciences, e.g., cosmology – astronomical change over time, or meteorology – the study of changes in the weather over time, but you insist for some immutable idiosyncratic reason that God relates differently to genetics than he does to kinetics.
And what are you doing? Oh, dictating what reality must be.
Neither do you recognize irony, apparently.
1 Like
So, you’re saying God is dishonouring and making a laughing stock of himself by describing millions of years of Darwinian evolution as six days of creation, during which time he created man instantly from dust???
1 Like
Truth comes from reality, the realities found in the Bible and the realities found in God’s creation. If there appears to be a conflict, then your interpretation of one or the other or both is in error.
Shall I quote Augustine again? He nails it, how you make Christianity laughable.
1 Like
And you believed them?
Incidentally, how are those “trained in theology and philosophy” qualified to make the scientific judgements you allude to?
How are you qualified? And that was addressed to Richard.
I believe what is consistent with reality.
1 Like
His views as quoted are unscientific because they comment on things science cannot measure or even detect.
As stated here, for example–
The falling ball analogy is too over-simplified to be useful. That of a river flowing out of a mountain range onto a plain with a shallow slope on the other side of which is a sea is better: we can take snapshots of the channel(s) along the way, and even though we don’t have the images in between we can still be sure that the river is flowing to the sea. Or, to make it better conform to actual evolutionary studies, there exists a set of snapshots showing the entire course of the river, but we only have access to a small sample of those, and our samples are very irregularly distributed along the river’s course.
1 Like
Right,
7 day creation of a flat earth with a dome over it.
Making speckled sheep by drinking shaded water
Speaking serpents, trees with fantastic powers, a flaming sword floating back and forth
A talking donkey, a man in the belly of a fish for three days without getting digested (or suffocated)
should I go on?
Reality is. It is not subject to perception and certainly not subject to scripture
Richard
It was useful in getting you to come up with a better one. 
3 Likes