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.
So you were angling for a definition which includes common descent. What are you going to do with it? I don't know about the rest of our colleagues, but if I had known what you wanted I would have stipulated it just to see where you were going.That's exactly what I've said throughout the thread and since I've posted here, it's not one thing but two things. I must have quoted half a dozen sources showing exactly that but invariably the Creationist must be characterized as fundamentally ignorant and/or dishonest.
Well, that's possibly part of the problem. You are a bit wordy too; if you use simpler words and are as concise as possible, it makes for fewer opportunities to be misunderstood. Emphasis on fewer.That's exactly what I've said throughout the thread and since I've posted here, it's not one thing but two things. I must have quoted half a dozen sources showing exactly that but invariably the Creationist must be characterized as fundamentally ignorant and/or dishonest.
My impression was that Mark wanted a definition of evolution which included an assertion of universal common ancestry as the basis of some argument he wants to bring off. Let's agree that it does and see what he makes of it.I'm still confused as what the argument is over. So the term "evolution" is used to refer to common ancestry of organisms and also to the process by which that occurs.
What's the issue again?
Well, that's possibly part of the problem. You are a bit wordy too; if you use simpler words and are as concise as possible, it makes for fewer opportunities to be misunderstood. Emphasis on fewer.
I think the issue is that people, as a result of using the term for both things, don't recognize the distinction that the observation is "species change over time across populations and generations", and that the theory of evolution is the explanation of how that happens. It's like if a person named both their kids Bobby. "Who cleaned the dishes? Bobby. Who mopped the floor? Bobby." Did the same kid do both things, or...? That's the issue as I see it, in a nutshell.I'm still confused as what the argument is over. So the term "evolution" is used to refer to common ancestry of organisms and also to the process by which that occurs.
What's the issue again?
No I base it on the definition of Darwin who attributed it to Lamarck:And nowhere in there do I see any mention of the phrase "exclusively naturalistic means" except in your own phrase.
All this leads to me believe that the only reason you are bringing this up is because you find that science clashes with your religious beliefs and you don't like that.
And you STILL haven't shown me where I insulted your religious beliefs, which leads me to conclude that I in fact did not insult your religious beliefs and you are lying about me. Real class act.
It sounds like you're creating an argument in your mind and then trying to win that argument.
Sure, although I'd argue that second part of that statement is worded a bit poorly. For one, "exclusively naturalistic means" is redundant given we're talking about science. Science by definition deals with exclusively naturalistic means.
Second, it's less of an assumption and more of a conclusion by this point. Just genetics alone is overwhelmingly pointed in the direction of all life on Earth sharing common ancestry. It's the only thing that makes any sense.
Finally, it's not really a philosophy beyond accepting the basic philosophy required to accept scientific findings as true (i.e. the universe is not deceiving us). Which is why I find people arguing that species were individually created so odd. Even if one accepts that view, it doesn't change how life on Earth looks. And life on Earth looks like it evolved and shares common ancestry.
Believing in special creation, particularly the YEC view of things, is basically accepting that the universe is inherently deceptive.
That's not an argument, that's a baseline. I insist on something I know to be an irrefutable fact, well sourced and completely comprehensive. From there I determine the integrity of the poster by a willingness or unwillingness to accept the obvious.Again, I think you're just trying to win an argument of your own making.
That's kind of the thing, I'm actually very interested in adaptive evolution. It really puzzles me to see creationists arguing against evolution when the real problem is Darwinism. No one sane would deny that things change over time, I've never seen a creationist who argues against Mendelian genetics. This comes down to a philosophy of natural history and there is one dramatic difference that separates the Creationist and Darwinian by an irreconcilable gulf, the time line.I think the issue is that people, as a result of using the term for both things, don't recognize the distinction that the observation is "species change over time across populations and generations", and that the theory of evolution is the explanation of how that happens. It's like if a person named both their kids Bobby. "Who cleaned the dishes? Bobby. Who mopped the floor? Bobby." Did the same kid do both things, or...? That's the issue as I see it, in a nutshell.
Since "evolution" is often used as a short hand for both things, it results in a lot of debate issues. For example, if a creationist says "evolution doesn't happen", are they saying that species don't change over time, or that the explanation of how they change over time is wrong? This can become especially problematic for people that agree that species do change over time, but disagree with the how.
Science makes no such presupposition. It appears that you have confused the methodological naturalism of science with the metaphysical naturalism of atheism.Which would presuppose there is no such thing as miraculous events like creation.
Lamarck might have inspired Darwin to be interested in the idea of species changing over time, I wouldn't know. However, Lamarck's proposed mechanism of how species change over time is not incorporated into the modern understanding of how species change over time at all. In fact, Lamarck's ideas were disproven ages ago, and are now considered somewhat of a joke. "The neck of the giraffe became taller because the preceding generation stretched its neck, and this got passed down so little by little, with each generation having a slightly longer neck than the one that preceded it, the giraffe neck as we see it today came to be." Hahaha, no. It doesn't matter how much you personally work out and build muscle, that won't mean your kids will be better at building muscle than you were. Lamarck's ideas were literally presented as a humorous reference to what preceded Darwin's theory of evolution in my high school biology textbook, and they don't even get a mention in my college one.No I base it on the definition of Darwin who attributed it to Lamarck:
Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)This was blended during the development of Mendelian Genetics during the 30s and the 40s in a unified theory known as the Modern Synthesis, aka Neo-Darwinism:
Note the lack of Lamarck here. Additionally, the theory of evolution has been improved much since then, just the more basic ideas were developed by this point. Further detail has been added by a great extent. I will also mention that the field of genetics has far expanded from its Mendelian roots.The Modern Synthesis describes the fusion (merger) of Mendelian genetics with Darwinian evolution that resulted in a unified theory of evolution. It is sometimes referred to as the Neo-Darwinian theory. The Modern Synthesis was developed by a number of now-legendary evolutionary biologists in the 1930s and 1940s.l (Modern Synthesis)
I've mentioned that evolution is the unifying theory of biology before, but I will admit that I hadn't considered that such a unifying theory was uncommon. Don't get me wrong, I was certainly aware of it, but I hadn't put much thought into how significant that really was.Since then evolution has been understood in terms of the genetic changes in populations over time, because the best way to track evolution statistically is population genetics. I don't know if you think that's some kind of a rebuke, or mischaracterization but it's not a difficult point to understand or defend. Instead of learning more about Darwinism and the unified theory so many brilliant scientists worked on you would rather just contradict me. If anything I would think evolutionists would be bragging about it, do you have any idea how difficult it is to get a unified theory in science?
No I'm aware that natural science is focused on natural phenomenon and I'm perfectly fine with that. That marks the limits of that discipline and as long as it stays in it's lane it does wonderful things. Again, Darwinism is one thing and evolution is another, I can be skeptical of the natural history philosophy without it effecting my understanding of adaptive evolution.Science makes no such presupposition. It appears that you have confused the methodological naturalism of science with the metaphysical naturalism of atheism.
Since you are aware of the distinction and apparently satisfied with adaptive evolution as a process of variation and selection, you must see what you call "Darwinism" as making some additional claims that you identify with metaphysical materialism. Is that right? What are they?No I'm aware that natural science is focused on natural phenomenon and I'm perfectly fine with that. That marks the limits of that discipline and as long as it stays in it's lane it does wonderful things. Again, Darwinism is one thing and evolution is another, I can be skeptical of the natural history philosophy without it effecting my understanding of adaptive evolution.
Lamarck might have inspired Darwin to be interested in the idea of species changing over time, I wouldn't know. However, Lamarck's proposed mechanism of how species change over time is not incorporated into the modern understanding of how species change over time at all. In fact, Lamarck's ideas were disproven ages ago, and are now considered somewhat of a joke. "The neck of the giraffe became taller because the preceding generation stretched its neck, and this got passed down so little by little, with each generation having a slightly longer neck than the one that preceded it, the giraffe neck as we see it today came to be." Hahaha, no. It doesn't matter how much you personally work out and build muscle, that won't mean your kids will be better at building muscle than you were. Lamarck's ideas were literally presented as a humorous reference to what preceded Darwin's theory of evolution in my high school biology textbook, and they don't even get a mention in my college one.
Note the lack of Lamarck here. Additionally, the theory of evolution has been improved much since then, just the more basic ideas were developed by this point. Further detail has been added by a great extent. I will also mention that the field of genetics has far expanded from its Mendelian roots.
I've mentioned that evolution is the unifying theory of biology before, but I will admit that I hadn't considered that such a unifying theory was uncommon. Don't get me wrong, I was certainly aware of it, but I hadn't put much thought into how significant that really was.
I would also absolutely agree that population genetics is the best way to track how a species changes over generations. It's a shame that, with the current human lifespan compared to reproduction rate, I don't get to enjoy observing the effects of genetic drift in my own species very much.
No I base it on the definition of Darwin who attributed it to Lamarck:
Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)This was blended during the development of Mendelian Genetics during the 30s and the 40s in a unified theory known as the Modern Synthesis, aka Neo-Darwinism:
The Modern Synthesis describes the fusion (merger) of Mendelian genetics with Darwinian evolution that resulted in a unified theory of evolution. It is sometimes referred to as the Neo-Darwinian theory. The Modern Synthesis was developed by a number of now-legendary evolutionary biologists in the 1930s and 1940s.l (Modern Synthesis)Since then evolution has been understood in terms of the genetic changes in populations over time, because the best way to track evolution statistically is population genetics. I don't know if you think that's some kind of a rebuke, or mischaracterization but it's not a difficult point to understand or defend. Instead of learning more about Darwinism and the unified theory so many brilliant scientists worked on you would rather just contradict me. If anything I would think evolutionists would be bragging about it, do you have any idea how difficult it is to get a unified theory in science?
Darwinism doesn't really make claims, it has a propositional logic. Rather then inferring, 'miraculous interposition', as Darwin put it, they uphold: 'the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species... all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law'. There is nothing dramatic going on here, this is normative Darwinian thinking. I would agree with virtually all of it with the exception of the point of origin, specifically the creation of life and the time line.Since you are aware of the distinction and apparently satisfied with adaptive evolution as a process of variation and selection, you must see what you call "Darwinism" as making some additional claims that you identify with metaphysical materialism. Is that right? What are they?
Darwinism doesn't really make claims, it has a propositional logic. Rather then inferring, 'miraculous interposition', as Darwin put it, they uphold: 'the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species... all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law'. There is nothing dramatic going on here, this is normative Darwinian thinking. I would agree with virtually all of it with the exception of the point of origin, specifically the creation of life and the time line.
Be careful that you do not fall into the grievous metaphysical error of assuming that if a natural causes is identified for any phenomenon (including the origin of life) divine causality is thereby denied.Darwinism doesn't really make claims, it has a propositional logic. Rather then inferring, 'miraculous interposition', as Darwin put it, they uphold: 'the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species... all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law'. There is nothing dramatic going on here, this is normative Darwinian thinking. I would agree with virtually all of it with the exception of the point of origin, specifically the creation of life and the time line.
I'm not doing this with you, I avoid religious discussions in these forums like the plague. This is a pretty typical slight of the historical aspects of Creationism:And yet what Darwin said is not the be-all and end-all of the theory. Plus, we have also come a long way since the 1930s and 1940s.
And YOU STILL HAVEN'T SAID WHERE I INSULTED YOUR RELIGION! Will you now admit that you lied about what I said?
No, you're wrong. It's you and only you who are trying to turn evolution in to a philosophy when the rest of us are talking about science.
Also, your definition of evolution is begging the question because of three simple words: "developed at creation". It is the use of those three words that shows that you are the one is not talking about evolution scientifically since you're the one who is bringing religion in to it.
Metaphysics comes down to transcendence and God's power to create life transcends all of Scripture and all of history. I see no trap, I'm not limited to exclusively naturalistic cause.Be careful that you do not fall into the grievous metaphysical error of assuming that if a natural causes is identified for any phenomenon (including the origin of life) divine causality is thereby denied.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?