Guy Threepwood
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2019
- 1,143
- 73
- 52
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Except that the pattern we see in living things and their ancestors derives from multiple independent lines of evidence all supporting evolution by natural selection from a common ancestor.
]Well when I argue that the fossil record does not favor Darwinism- I hear 'it doesn't matter because we have other things like DNA' if I argue DNA does not favor it, I hear 'it doesn't matter- because the fossil record..'
I agree though, often people's arguments are misconstrued as being intended 'slam dunks' for their position- I don't believe there is such a thing, we need to weigh the preponderance of evidence from all lines to get the least improbable explanation.
The sole reason that evolution by natural selection was suggested is that it fits all the evidence (often with algorithmic precision), and is the best available explanation by rational abductive criteria.
I'd say Darwinian evolution was an extremely logical, elegant, persuasive theory- just like Newtonian physics which is the model of reality it was a natural extension of. A handful of simple 'immutable laws' + lots of time and space to randomly bump around in, was all that was required to produce the wonders of the physical world.
Before quantum/subatomic physics- notions of 'mysterious underlying guiding forces' being necessary, was still considered 'religious pseudoscience'
many things predicted, tested, and verifiedOf course, you can invoke a powerful creative entity as an alternative, but that alternative has no explanatory power (i.e. gives no insight into the observed phenomena), makes no testable predictions,
like the Big Bang, quantum mechanics... nothing to be afraid ofraises more questions than it answers
an inexplicable that can 'explain' anything at all - is no explanation at all; it's just a label covering a lack of explanation.
The multiverse?
Upvote
0