Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
My point is clear and I stated it in multiple ways multiple times. Some Christians are more willing to accept a faith based scientific explanation then they are willing to accept an explanation from God.
Well, if we're going to do good science, as you clearly advocate, then we can't accept appeals to magic or to the authority of some holy book. Science requires that any explanation for some phenomenon appeal to natural, repeatable observations. Theories concerning abiogenesis and the RNA world may not be right or even fully formed, but they are the best science we have available, and so we hold on to them (read Kuhn's work on the structure of scientific revolutions).
It doesn't make sense to advocate the continued practice of science while denigrating those who push the boundaries of the field for not yet having fully-formed models. This is how science works. It's an iterative process.
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
I.D. is the same type of reasoning that kept us in the dark ages for hundreds of years.
The dark ages was not really "dark" especially for science/tech. (children often see their parents/past generations as more stupid/in the dark.) That's just a title we give that time period. We could as easily call the 20th Century the dark ages with two Great Wars including inventing WMD like nukes.
__________________ Romans 1:16 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth:..."
Romans 3:3-4 "For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;"
It is not a faith based scientific explanation. ... Now, please explain to me what role faith has in the theory of evolution.
Are you intentionally cross talking? Are you intentionally misdirecting the conversation? We are not talking about evolution. We are talking about abiogenesis. You know this full well. It is obvious when I referred to a "faith based explanation" I was referring to the current collection of abiogenesis theories.
Are you intentionally cross talking? Are you intentionally misdirecting the conversation? We are not talking about evolution. We are talking about abiogenesis. You know this full well. It is obvious when I referred to a "faith based explanation" I was referring to the current collection of abiogenesis theories.
I missed the mark I guess but the point remains. We know that we evolved based on the facts. We know that the earth is older then the oldest fossils (obviously). Life must have begun and natural processes are the only possible scientific explanation. There have been many different proposed explanations for the origins of life, but all are geared towards abiogenesis.
In other words, the universe began, then formed into it's current state, then the earth formed, then life got here. Most of that story is based on factual evidence. The part where we've worked out the least details is abiogenesis. It doesn't take faith to know that it happened. That's only puzzle piece that science can accept to fit into that space.
__________________ For free printable drum lessons with audio check out my website. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Well, if we're going to do good science, as you clearly advocate, then we can't accept appeals to magic or to the authority of some holy book.
ID does not require an appeal to the Bible ( which I hardly consider "some holy book") or magic (which is not what miracles are - btw). You fabricate a false choice. You can do good science and pursue vigorously all lines of exploration, and still admit the study of the design inference as a valid form of scientific endeavor.
Science requires that any explanation for some phenomenon appeal to natural, repeatable observations. Theories concerning abiogenesis and the RNA world may not be right or even fully formed, but they are the best science we have available, and so we hold on to them (read Kuhn's work on the structure of scientific revolutions).
You misunderstand the formation of evidence in the case of historical rare events. See my comparison to the theories offered to understand the Cambrian Explosion (there are other examples). I don't think you understand what ID is to be honest. Can you describe it?
I fully understand the operations of the scientific method. I also understand that science regularly and routinely accepts a current best explanation even while searching for better ones. Again you offer a false choice. I'm not suggesting we dump them. I'm suggesting we be intellectually honest with ourselves and call them what they are. It is at least good to see you are not following the irrational line of many others by making absurdly bold claims for the current set of abiogenesis speculations. BTW - Not only are they empty speculations now, they are making virtually no progress in their understanding of how abiogenesis could have worked. In fact, the current revolution in cell molecular biology is highlighting how little we know ever more.
It doesn't make sense to advocate the continued practice of science while denigrating those who push the boundaries of the field for not yet having fully-formed models. This is how science works. It's an iterative process.
I don't denigrate anyone for pursuing or pushing the boundaries of science(this is clear from my posts). I highlight the rampant misinformation many perpetuate about ID, and I point out the incongruent positions they hold.
While science iterates over solutions it also accepts the current best explanation. There is no reason whatsoever a design argument can not be held until a better one is constructed and evidence is built for it.
While science iterates over solutions it also accepts the current best explanation. There is no reason whatsoever a design argument can not be held until a better one is constructed and evidence is built for it.
What explanation does ID offer? How did the intelligent designer make the flagellum? Maybe I'm ignorant of the inner workings of ID, but it seems to me that it can be summed up as "Things are complicated, the chances of some things happening is small, there is information in life, therefore it was designed. The designer made these things by....well, a miracle? I dunno, there isn't really a theory here."
__________________ For free printable drum lessons with audio check out my website. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Life must have begun and natural processes are the only possible scientific explanation.
...
The part where we've worked out the least details is abiogenesis. It doesn't take faith to know that it happened.
It does take faith. Science only works on evidence. You can not borrow evidence from evolution or cosmology to assume that all the gaps will be filled. That is by definition unscientific.
Do you believe in physical miracles? Do you believe that Christ was physically raised from the dead?
That's only puzzle piece that science can accept to fit into that space.
What evidence do you have that science can provide a causal explanation for all events of the universe? You have none. You believe this based on faith in past science success, but there is no scientific reason whatsoever to assume that science can provide all casual answers.
It does take faith. Science only works on evidence. You can not borrow evidence from evolution or cosmology to assume that all the gaps will be filled. That is by definition unscientific.
God made every other area of science into a system that works via natural causes. Why do you think He's so incompetant that He can't do the same with abiogenesis? Evidence tells me that God made a universe that can carry out His will via natural processes. There is no reason to think that abiogenesis should be any different.
Originally Posted by OrdinaryClay
Do you believe in physical miracles? Do you believe that Christ was physically raised from the dead?
Yes
Originally Posted by OrdinaryClay
What evidence do you have that science can provide a causal explanation for all events of the universe? You have none. You believe this based on faith in past science success, but there is no scientific reason whatsoever to assume that science can provide all casual answers.
I don't believe that everything has a cause, therefore science can't provide a causal explanation for everything.
__________________ For free printable drum lessons with audio check out my website. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
What explanation does ID offer? How did the intelligent designer make the flagellum? Maybe I'm ignorant of the inner workings of ID, but it seems to me that it can be summed up as "Things are complicated, the chances of some things happening is small, there is information in life, therefore it was designed. The designer made these things by....well, a miracle? I dunno, there isn't really a theory here."
You're kidding me right?? All this criticism you have levied against Meyer and ID and you don't understand what it is. That is very unscientific behavior. What would you say to a YEC if they told you they never took the time to understand what common descent was. Please take the time to read and understand what it is. I will then be glad to debate, discuss and answer questions, but any responses run the risk of more cross talk. You still may not agree but at least you can genuinely discuss the pros and cons.
God made every other area of science into a system that works via natural causes. Why do you think He's so incompetant that He can't do the same with abiogenesis? Evidence tells me that God made a universe that can carry out His will via natural processes. There is no reason to think that abiogenesis should be any different.
Oh, please. God is not incompetent. I said multiple times that I follow the evidence. If the evidence says God used providence I accept providence via natural laws. If the evidence says miracles I accept miracles. I don't a priori reject miracles.
There is no evidence that abiogenesis occurred via natural processes not on earth or in space. The evidence is building that we are, in fact, plain and simply a one shot deal in the universe.
Yes
Good. God Bless!!
I assume you also accept that He performed many miracles in His ministries. I also assume you accept miracles as possible today.
Why is it so difficult to believe in the possibility that the creation of the first living organisms on this lonely planet was in fact a miracle? We have building evidence that abiogenesis is not a product of necessity or chance.
I don't believe that everything has a cause, therefore science can't provide a causal explanation for everything.
Linear Mode
