If evolution is not true, what was the process of creation?

[The Barbarian]

It would seem there are people who think one can believe in a God-guided evolution. Not sure at what stage those who do say it all started. Not sure when they call themselves theistic evolutionists whether they accept God and darwinianism, or what exactly?

The proper term for them is "Christian." There are some people who don't accept evolution, but otherwise are O.K. with God's creation. Fortunately for them, God doesn't base one's salvation on whether or not they approve of evolution.

 

[dms1972]

Christian doesn't refer only to beliefs about theistic evolution. Some are christians some are not ( I don't mean that in a way implying they are rejecting Christ,), but there is more to christian doctrine than the doctrine of creation.

Neo-darwinianism is a chance process (time + chance + the impersonal), some of its main proponents boast that a Personal God is not needed. For that reason while many don't study it in detail, if one does there is going to be a conflict in the mind of that person if they attempt to combine Faith and the theories of some neo-darwinists.

I think the version of evolution theory that is the closest fit for me would be Punctuated Equilibrium, not Darwinianism or Neo-Darwinianism. I still think at whatever stage creatures start their existence there is a telos (end), basically an idea of what each is going to be in the Mind of the Creator.

 

[The Barbarian]

I think the version of evolution theory that is the closest fit for me would be Punctuated Equilibrium, not Darwinianism or Neo-Darwinianism.

Since Stephen Gould, on of the co-authors of the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, referred to himself as an "orthodox Darwinian," you'd be one as well.

I still think at whatever stage creatures start their existence there is a telos (end), basically an idea of what each is going to be in the Mind of the Creator.

Which, as Darwin pointed out, would be consistent with his theory. Here's the reason:

I answer that, Divine providence imposes necessity upon some things; not upon all, as some formerly believed. For to providence it belongs to order things towards an end. Now after the divine goodness, which is an extrinsic end to all things, the principal good in things themselves is the perfection of the universe; which would not be, were not all grades of being found in things. Whence it pertains to divine providence to produce every grade of being. And thus it has prepared for some things necessary causes, so that they happen of necessity; for others contingent causes, that they may happen by contingency, according to the nature of their proximate causes.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

 

[Tayla]

If you believe evolution is false, what then do you think or believe was the process of creation? Fair enough if you disagree with darwinian evolution, but think some other sort of theistic evolution process was involved, but if you don't agree with any kind of evolutionary theory how then did birds, animals, fish, humans, come into existence. I am asking about how God created these? Can that be found out by science?

The Bible provides the answer. God miraculously created all the creatures. The reason science doesn't notice this is because they reject God's word with their materialistic science. The Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God.

 

[dms1972]

Since Stephen Gould, on of the co-authors of the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, referred to himself as an "orthodox Darwinian," you'd be one as well.



Which, as Darwin pointed out, would be consistent with his theory. Here's the reason:

I answer that, Divine providence imposes necessity upon some things; not upon all, as some formerly believed. For to providence it belongs to order things towards an end. Now after the divine goodness, which is an extrinsic end to all things, the principal good in things themselves is the perfection of the universe; which would not be, were not all grades of being found in things. Whence it pertains to divine providence to produce every grade of being. And thus it has prepared for some things necessary causes, so that they happen of necessity; for others contingent causes, that they may happen by contingency, according to the nature of their proximate causes.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Thanks.

There does seem to be a difference between more recent evolutionists (such as dawkins) and their explicit avowal of atheism, and the early Darwin, who at one stage still believed in the fixity of species, and seemed rather agnostic.

Darwin himself seemed ready to admit conditions, or observations under which his theory would break down (ie . irreducible complexity). If Neo-darwinists cannot provide a darwinian mechanism, by which the bacterial flagelium comes about in single steps (Michael Behe's challenge to them) then they would have to abandon the theory?

Behe seems far more in accord with the spirit of science than some of his opponents, he leaves the door open, invites his opponents to prove him wrong.

 

[dms1972]

The Bible provides the answer. God miraculously created all the creatures. The reason science doesn't notice this is because they reject God's word with their materialistic science. The Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God.

The scripture account is revelation. Science doesn't work that way, and so I am wondering if science must mention God? Currently its not deemed proper to mention God in science (except for Einstein who used an ironic tone.)

Contrast Johannes Kepler in the 17th Century who could say: "The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God."

The difference is in the philosophy behind science. In Kepler's time many scientists thought in terms of a 'unity of natural causes in a limited system, a system which could be reordered by God and man made in the Image of God') Today the universe is thought of as a machine of which man is a part of it (closed system).

 

[Tayla]

Currently its not deemed proper to mention God in science

And therefore, science will never learn of the truth, which can only be known from God and which must include God.

 

[The Barbarian]

Thanks.
There does seem to be a difference between more recent evolutionists (such as dawkins) and their explicit avowal of atheism, and the early Darwin, who at one stage still believed in the fixity of species, and seemed rather agnostic.

Early on, Darwin favored fixity of species, but as he studied the issue, he realized that this could not be. Even many creationists now accept the evolution of new species. They don't usually tell this to the believers, however. On the other hand, Darwin attributed the origin of life to God when he published his book.

Darwin himself seemed ready to admit conditions, or observations under which his theory would break down (ie . irreducible complexity).

No. Irreducible complexity was raised as an objection over a hundred years after Darwin. And it fell rather quickly when examples of evolved irreducible complexity were found. He did list some things that would falsify his theory, but those have never been found.

If Neo-darwinists cannot provide a darwinian mechanism, by which the bacterial flagelium comes about in single steps (Michael Behe's challenge to them) then they would have to abandon the theory?

What is unknown is never an objection to a theory. And not surprisingly, the supposedly irreducibly-complex bacterial flagellum turns out to be not irreducibly complex. Indeed a simpler version of the flagellum exists, and one very simple version exists with an entirely different function. Would you like to learn about that?

Behe seems far more in accord with the spirit of science than some of his opponents

Most creationists don't cite Behe any more; he's admitted that his work depends on the fact of evolution, and he's also admitted that it is possible for irreducible complexity to happen in nature.

Professor Behe admitted in “Reply to My Critics” that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity because, while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection, it does not actually address “the task facing natural selection.” (P-718 at 695). Professor Behe specifically explained that “[t]he current definition puts the focus on removing a part from an already functioning system,” but “[t]he difficult task facing Darwinian evolution, however, would not be to remove parts from sophisticated pre-existing systems; it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place.” Id. In that article, Professor Behe wrote that he hoped to “repair this defect in future work;” however, he has failed to do so even four years after elucidating his defect. [transcript reference].


In addition to Professor Behe’s admitted failure to properly address the very phenomenon that irreducible complexity purports to place at issue, natural selection, Drs. Miller and Padian [plaintiffs’ experts] testified that Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor “missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,” what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system. [transcript reference].
Kitzmiller v. Dover: Michael Behe’s Testimony

In the same testimony, Behe made the remarkable admission that intelligent design is science in the same sense that astrology is science:

Transcript from Kitzmiller vs. Dover

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?


A Yes.


Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?


A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.


Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?


A That is correct.


Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct.

 

[Resha Caner]

If you believe evolution is false, what then do you think or believe was the process of creation? Fair enough if you disagree with darwinian evolution, but think some other sort of theistic evolution process was involved, but if you don't agree with any kind of evolutionary theory how then did birds, animals, fish, humans, come into existence. I am asking about how God created these? Can that be found out by science?

A few things: I don't see modern evolution as a single theory, but as a field of study containing many theories. So, for me it's not all or nothing. Some parts are very well supported, some seem very dubious. In that regard, biology isn't different from any science - it just gets picked on more.

Can we prove how God created? I doubt it. We could maybe do better than current theory, but there's no motivation to try. Most biologists are happy with the way things are (and I understand that when viewing it from an instrumentalist perspective). Were someone to find a deterministic alternative to evolution, unbelievers would still have a reason to think God is irrelevant. Were someone to find a probabilistic alternative to evolution (akin to QM in physics), unbelievers would answer as they do for QM - with a shrug and "I don't know."

With all that said, I did work up a hypothesis as an alternative to certain aspects of evolution. I even took it to several scientific journals and universities to discuss it. I got comments that it was an interesting idea ... one guy actually helped me improve my formulation a bit, and for a time I worked on a proposal with one university to do some of the work as an undergraduate senior project ... but nothing ever came of it. What I said above played a role, plus (many people don't realize this) many R1/R2 universities have a written policy that they won't consider alternatives to evolutionary theory, and finally money became a factor. I don't have the resources to pay for something like that out of my own pocket, and the universities weren't interested in diverting money from other research.

 

[The Barbarian]

What I said above played a role, plus (many people don't realize this) many R1/R2 universities have a written policy that they won't consider alternatives to evolutionary theory.

How did sociobiology, neutral evolution, punctuated equilibrium, genetics, etc. get into the universities, then?
All of these challenged evolutionary theory, and yet no one in any public university declared them off-limits. For that matter, how did people like Behe and Dempski get and keep tenure?

I don't know of any universities that declare any challenge to any theory off limits. Can you show us some examples?

 

[The Barbarian]

dms1972 said: ↑
Currently its not deemed proper to mention God in science

Pretty much like it's not proper to mention God in a plumbing contract.

And therefore, science will never learn of the truth, which can only be known from God and which must include God.

And therefore plumbing will never learn of the truth which can only be known from God and which must include God. Plumbing can't do that. Fortunately, plumbers can. That's how it is with science and scientists.

You're expecting way too much from science, which is necessarily limited to the physical universe. These methods are too weak to address the supernatural. If faith and scripture won't support you, nothing else will help.

 

[Tayla]

You're expecting way too much from science, which is necessarily limited to the physical universe. These methods are too weak to address the supernatural.

Yes, I agree. The spiritual realm is beyond the scope of science.

 

[Resha Caner]

How did sociobiology, neutral evolution, punctuated equilibrium, genetics, etc. get into the universities, then?
All of these challenged evolutionary theory, and yet no one in any public university declared them off-limits. For that matter, how did people like Behe and Dempski get and keep tenure?

I don't know of any universities that declare any challenge to any theory off limits. Can you show us some examples?

It was not my intent to prove modern academia is closed-minded. I was trying to explain why, despite my reservations about ToE, I don't think it's worth pursuing. If you look at my post in full, you'll see I make mention of some editors/reviewers at journals who were very helpful, and I found some professors at teaching universities who were interested. We just couldn't make the money work.

What happened was that when I picked R1 & R2 universities that were near me and asked them their process for research proposals, they pointed me to statements saying they would not consider proposals seeking alternatives to evolution. My experience was anecdotal. You would have to replicate my efforts to understand what I mean. If you find someone who is interested - awesome - let me know and I'll talk to them.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
How did sociobiology, neutral evolution, punctuated equilibrium, genetics, etc. get into the universities, then?
All of these challenged evolutionary theory, and yet no one in any public university declared them off-limits. For that matter, how did people like Behe and Dempski get and keep tenure?

I don't know of any universities that declare any challenge to any theory off limits. Can you show us some examples?

It was not my intent to prove modern academia is closed-minded.

I'd still like to see you provide some evidence for your claim. If you misspoke, that's O.K. But the claim is still on the table. Do you want to take it off?

What happened was that when I picked R1 & R2 universities that were near me and asked them their process for research proposals, they pointed me to statements saying they would not consider proposals seeking alternatives to evolution.

Show us those. That would seem completely at odds with the notion of academic freedom which is almost always in the founding documents of real universities. But let's take a look at what you have.

 

[Resha Caner]

That would seem completely at odds with the notion of academic freedom which is almost always in the founding documents of real universities. But let's take a look at what you have.

Umm. Have you ever done research at a university?

I didn't keep a record of the discussions, so I would have to go back and replicate the journey - not something I'm inclined to do. So you think I'm lying and universities - unlike any other human institution in the world - actually live up to their ideals. Very interesting.

I'm pretty sure the guidelines shown to me were put in place to deflect ID, not as part of some radical conspiracy by liberals to close the doors. So, it may be they didn't see the guidelines as a conflict with the ideals you espouse. The problem is, they were being used to say no to me. The R1/R2s didn't say no to me because of money (I would understand if they had) or because they found my proposal to be invalid (also something I would understand). It was more like getting a form letter with no explanation specific to my case. (edit) After rejection, I did try a few sheepish comments noting I wasn't promoting ID, but it felt like those comments were just ignored.

But, once again, I'm not at all interested in this conversation. It wasn't the point of my post. So if you want to walk away calling me a liar with no evidence - feel free. Per my challenge, though, I would actually much prefer you prove me wrong by finding me an R1/R2 that will listen. If you do that, I'll gladly concede I was wrong.

 

[Gottservant]

The beginning was as is described in Ezekiel, in the valley of the dry bones.

God sent His messenger, and the messenger said what he was told (to those who were waiting).

Over time, understanding the message was too mysterious, not to have drawn those hearing to life - as it spoke to them, that they had been.

The hearing of the message would not have lasted, if they didn't struggle with it and the meaning would not have taken root, if their bodies did not conform to their intentions (in God) - but the image of the valley of dry bones, is basically,, what it was.

 

[The Barbarian]

Umm. Have you ever done research at a university?

I didn't keep a record of the discussions, so I would have to go back and replicate the journey - not something I'm inclined to do. So you think I'm lying and universities - unlike any other human institution in the world - actually live up to their ideals. Very interesting.

I'm suggesting that if you make a claim, you should be able to support it:

What I said above played a role, plus (many people don't realize this) many R1/R2 universities have a written policy that they won't consider alternatives to evolutionary theory

Show us some of these "written policies."

But, once again, I'm not at all interested in this conversation. It wasn't the point of my post. So if you want to walk away calling me a liar with no evidence

Asking for evidence is not calling you a liar. You made a claim. I'm asking you for some evidence to support it.

Per my challenge, though, I would actually much prefer you prove me wrong by finding me an R1/R2 that will listen.

I'd prefer you support your claim. Your responsibility, not mine. If it's something you believe to be true, but you can't cite one actual instance, that's one thing. To claim it as a fact without any evidence, that's quite another.

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm suggesting that if you make a claim, you should be able to support it

You're applying formal language to an informal statement - turning a conversation into a debate. It's like someone making a statement that a car is going fast, and you walk up and insist they show you the reading off a radar gun to prove it.

I'd prefer you support your claim. Your responsibility, not mine. If it's something you believe to be true, but you can't cite one actual instance, that's one thing. To claim it as a fact without any evidence, that's quite another.

I already told you I didn't keep a record of the exchange. So you either believe me or you don't. It's as simple as that. I was relating my experience, not presenting evidence of the state of modern academia.

It saddens me that you've managed to derail a thread that asked an interesting question, so I'm going to make a suggestion to you. For the fast car example, rather than asking for a radar gun, most reasonable people would just make a comment commensurate with the importance:

Me: That Mustang is fast.
You: It doesn't look that fast to me.
Me: Oh, what do you consider to be a fast car?
You: A Bugatti.
Me: Yeah, Bugatti's are cool.

Short & sweet. Subject over. Move on.

So, for this conversation (which I consider to be on the same level as people casually discussing fast cars):
Me: In my experience, R1/R2 universities are not receptive to studying alternatives to evolution.
You: I can think of people who challenged it in the past. I think universities are open to the possibility.
Me: Oh, like which one? If you've successfully made some proposals in the past, I'd appreciate the help.
You: Sure. You could submit to State U.
Me: Yeah, State U is cool. Thanks.

 

[NobleMouse]

You're applying formal language to an informal statement - turning a conversation into a debate. It's like someone making a statement that a car is going fast, and you walk up and insist they show you the reading off a radar gun to prove it.



I already told you I didn't keep a record of the exchange. So you either believe me or you don't. It's as simple as that. I was relating my experience, not presenting evidence of the state of modern academia.

It saddens me that you've managed to derail a thread that asked an interesting question, so I'm going to make a suggestion to you. For the fast car example, rather than asking for a radar gun, most reasonable people would just make a comment commensurate with the importance:

Me: That Mustang is fast.
You: It doesn't look that fast to me.
Me: Oh, what do you consider to be a fast car?
You: A Bugatti.
Me: Yeah, Bugatti's are cool.

Short & sweet. Subject over. Move on.

So, for this conversation (which I consider to be on the same level as people casually discussing fast cars):
Me: In my experience, R1/R2 universities are not receptive to studying alternatives to evolution.
You: I can think of people who challenged it in the past. I think universities are open to the possibility.
Me: Oh, like which one? If you've successfully made some proposals in the past, I'd appreciate the help.
You: Sure. You could submit to State U.
Me: Yeah, State U is cool. Thanks.

If I could have liked, agreed, and marked funny all at the same time I would have. Thank you for your input on this thread brother!

 

[The Barbarian]

You're applying formal language to an informal statement - turning a conversation into a debate.

So when you said:

What I said above played a role, plus (many people don't realize this) many R1/R2 universities have a written policy that they won't consider alternatives to evolutionary theory

You didn't mean it was actually true?

It's like someone making a statement that a car is going fast, and you walk up and insist they show you the reading off a radar gun to prove it.

Actually, it's more like you saying many universities have written policies against considering alternatives to evolutionary theory, and Barbarian asking you to show us some of them.

I already told you I didn't keep a record of the exchange.

Don't care about the exchange. I'd like to see the "written policies."

So you either believe me or you don't.

In the absence of any evidence... we'll have to conclude the claim is false, and move on.

If you'd like to show us a viable alternative to evolutionary theory, that's good. As you have seen, there have been repeated alternatives proposed over the years, and some of them were succsessful and incorporated into new and more accurate theories.

What do you have?