Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sure. As we are in the Creation & Theistic Evolution forum, kindly start with providing a statement of your position as a Theistic Evolutionist that you will evidence at true.
As a Christian, I believe in God the creator, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. That is not a belief that I will provide evidence for.
We already know that God must be part of this on a purely metaphysical level since to go from nothing to something requires an infinite power. An infinite God could have willed creation in an infinite number of ways. He willed the most prefect way. Do you disagree with these statements?
Sure.
I'm not even sure what that means, how we could know the power required, or what units such a measurement would be made in.
Again, sure. Maybe he did -- all we know is this universe.
I don't consider myself in a position to tell God how he has to will things. Nor do I know what constitutes the most perfect way. One might as well argue that there's one perfect beetle, and that that's what God must have created -- so why are there hundreds of thousands of less than perfect beetles out there.
Why did you truncate my reply? You admit God the Creator ... on a purely metaphysical level.
... materialists cannot know because science cannot (will not) examine God the Creator. But a person of faith can. Is there evidence that a finite power has created ex nihilo? No.
? You've already admitted that you know that a Being exists outside the universe.
You already have.
God does not do imperfect.
Devolution.
? The topic of this thread is a philosophical claim and not vague at all.
Yes. What evidence can you present without violating first principles that the variety and diversity of life evolved from lower forms to higher?
I mean I don't know about any other created universes -- what they might be like.
A variety of first principles have been proposed in different threads. Please state a first principle that you think prevents evolution of higher forms of life (whatever exactly they might be).
? The most violated First Principle by evolutionist is the first one. See Post#4 below.
____________________________________________
The assumption that evolution is driven by random mutations has been challenged by recent research. Equally assumable is that mutations are directed. "Directed mutation" solves several problems with the neo-Darwinian theory.
Okay, let's start there. First issue: that doesn't appear to be a standard statement of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which basically says that everything has a cause. Second issue: even as normally stated, it's far from self-evident, as can be seen from the many arguments about it and the many version of it in philosophical circles.
I wrote "simply put". Normally stated, the definition is:
What specific arguments can you cite?
Not much work at all.
Apparently you do not yet grasp the principle. The cognitive order is the mirror image of the ontological order. That is, we come to know the nature, essence, substance (or "species", if you like) of a thing through its observable effects (accidents). Your examples above, unlike evolution theory, are the directly observable effects of acorns, water vapor, etc. which allow the intellect to abstract the effects to determine the essences.
Why leave the arena of living things and their diversity? Rather, let's stay focused.
A much better definition, and one that suggests no problem with evolution. Living things are imperfect replicators. Imperfect replicators change from generation to generation. Imperfect replicators that are subject to natural selection can become better at replicating. That's the essence of adaptive evolution. Those are sufficient reasons for evolution to occur, and we have an abundance of reasonable evidence that is has occurred.
Apparently you mistake your assumptions for universal truths.
That is one view of things, but hardly the only one.
Nonsense. We do not directly observe water vapor. Rather, we construct a model of water vapor, and of the molecules that compose it, and infer properties based on that model. We are better able to directly observe evolution occurring than water vapor. In any case, what does observability have to do with the principle in question or your argument, anyway? Does the principle only apply to things we can't directly observe?
Because I'm trying to understand your reasoning in a simpler arena -- as I stated. As you must be aware, the vast majority of philosophers, including philosophers of science, see no logical problem with evolution (including evolution of 'higher' forms of life) occurring. You do. That means you're not engaging in some standard philosophical argument -- it's an idiosyncratic one, and frankly one that makes not a lick of sense to me. Which means you have to explain your reasoning process. So I'll ask again: what reasoning process do you go through to determine whether photons can produce electrons?
Again, microevolution, or adaptive evolution, is not in dispute nor does it violate first principles.
Self--evident claims are not assumptions.
Which other epistemological views do you claim as superior?
Kindly remember how we framed this exchange:
Again, let's stay within the framework -- animal life and common ancestry.
Observability, or more generally sensibility, is the method we come to know about things.
No, however methods of indirect observation that require specialized equipment or specialized training to operate introduce the possibility of "machine noise" or operator-confirmation-bias. So we must be more careful in accepting the validity of such evidence.
No, I don't have a logical problem with evolution; only a problem with the modern or neo-Darwinian explanatory claims for macroevolution. And, as agreed, bounding the exchange to the evolution of all animal life as is not at all a difficult arena.
Yes, I am making a philosophical argument. If the argument does not make sense to you then perhaps it is not a problem with the argument.
