This is a line pushed by palaeontologist Simon Conway-Morris a lot these days, too. Check out his book, Crucible of Creation.
Don't know what to think about his views, but there it is.
Upvote
0
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.
This is a line pushed by palaeontologist Simon Conway-Morris a lot these days, too. Check out his book, Crucible of Creation.Kenneth Miller says something along these lines in Finding Darwin's God--where he disputes Gould's image of a re-running of the tape of evolutionary history never giving us the same history twice. He points out that we do get converging ecologies, and it may be very probable that a human-type species would evolve in any phylogenetic scenario.
If one is going to use that analogy, one should really think of a complex system of tracks with many switches that can be altered to turn a lineage in different directions.
Do you mean altered by intervention?
History has shown scientists have been known to make fools of themselves quite readily also....Christians have traditionally been very good at making fools of themselves by insisting that some phenomenon couldn't have occurred without some miraculous act of God, only to have science later show that the phenomenon has an entirely natural explanation.
Which magic wand is that? Oh you mean the one He used to raise Christ form the dead. Well I believe He has used it, does use it, and will use it again in the future.This doesn't mean that God wasn't involved, only that He didn't have to wave His magic wand. So I prefer to keep my options open.
Why? You do realize this is a prophecy about Christ right?Interesting the images different people apply to the same idea. When I think of God using natural process to bring about something as amazing as life the phrase that occurs to me is "a smoking wick he will not quench" (Isaiah 42:3).
You are confusing the general, claims of design, with the specifics of claimed evidence.I think the reaction isn't so much to the word itself as the way in which ID proponents use it. These days, when people like Dembski or Behe talk about design, they're using a very narrow definition that limits the meaning to, say, irreducible complexity. I think it's an unnecessary -- even irresponsible -- tact.
Sure, and He may have used miraculous intervention.I would not say that God could not have created life supernaturally. I would just say He need not have.
You have yet to demonstrate with any reasoning or evidence that this claim is true. Clearly when Cambridge awarded Stephen C Meyer a PhD in the Philosophy of Science they thought he understood what it was. I would rather trust the department heads at Cambridge.And I defend abiogenetic experiments not necessarily because I believe they fully explain the origin of life, but because IDers' rejection of those experiments often have more to do with faulty philosophy of science than any problem with the design of the experiments themselves.
Isn't this the same as Deism? Do you believe in the death and bodily resurrection of Christ? Just curious.Whether or not he intended for humans to exist precisely in the form that we do, or whether inteligent life of any kind was a desired property, I don't know. Also rather goes to the question of whether or not humans are the only advanced inteligent species in the cosmos, but I digress.
You can perhaps make an analogy to a marble track to describe my POV... God starts the ball rolling at the top, along a track he designed and built, knowing more or less the course the marble will take as it travels, but after starting the marble rolling, and creating the context for it to roll in, he is far more an observer than a direct intervener.
This is not very believable given that a "human type species" only arose once even though there have been many "chances". Converging ecologies says nothing about the details of needing a species with a theory of mind to fill any of the niches.... Kenneth Miller says something along these lines in Finding Darwin's God--where he disputes Gould's image of a re-running of the tape of evolutionary history never giving us the same history twice. He points out that we do get converging ecologies, and it may be very probable that a human-type species would evolve in any phylogenetic scenario.
This is not very believable given that a "human type species" only arose once even though there have been many "chances".
Converging ecologies says nothing about the details of needing a species with a theory of mind to fill any of the niches.
Why?
You do realize this is a prophecy about Christ right?
Counting all the hominids as distinct hardly satisfies "any phylogenetic scenario".
The point is that given materialistic natural selection Gould is 100% right. Rerunning could easily, and most likely would, have filled the niche our hominid ancestors filled very easily without a theory of mind.Says nothing about the details of preventing a species with a theory of mind emerging to fill the niches either.
What's your point?
I did not read the last paragraph. I see you comment there. Though, I still don't see how a verse intended to describe the meekness of Christ ties into your analogy. Yes, I do see the word wick is used in both. But no big deal. It is just not the verse that comes to my mind when I think of creation.Did you read the rest of post 5? I think I explained why there. If not, come back with a more specific question.
Yes.Of course. And you do realize that Christ is the creative Word, right?
John 1:2-3 [The Word] was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him and without him not one thing came into being
So if you can see life as being intended without being designed, do you think life was intelligently directed? With abiogenesis (and maybe evolution to a lesser extent also), when I rule out design and direction, I get a picture of God making a few fundamental laws, then throwing a bunch of chemicals and conditions together just to see what happens, like a lazy artist throwing paint at a canvas just to see how it comes out.
I don't think any TE believes that God just kicked things off and waited to see what would happen. God had a purpose and a plan, and the fact the tool He used has a natural explanation doesn't change that.
You say plan, I say design. Tomáto, tomàto? Or is "plan" general, and "design" more specific?
No, you are avoiding a clear distinction.I have no problem with the term "design", but its current implication seems to remove the possibility of natural implementation.
Honestly, all TE's are creationists and believers in intelligent design in their purest sense. Sadly, our mode of thought excludes us from the popular definitions of those terms.
No, you are avoiding a clear distinction.
Do you believe in miraculous intervention by God?
We agree.I believe that God intervenes in a supernatural fashion. I also believe that, when a natural explanation exists and is well-supported, then it indicates that God used a natural method there. I do not believe that God necessarily intervened in areas where we do not have a natural explanation - either God did so supernaturally, or we just have not discovered the natural explanation yet.
But, you can not ignore the fact that God intervenes in a way that defies any explanation of science. You can decide to call every thing a miracle, but that does not change this fact.And, personally, I believe the natural is every bit as miraculous as the supernatural. Being able to discern all the steps that a baby goes through from conception to birth does not decrease my awe at the one who made it all happen.
We agree.
If the evidence does point to the miraculous then to still doubt is fooling your self.
There is just no utility, IMO, in assuming the supernatural. Nearly all creationists accept some level of evolution at this point; that was not always the case. Had not "evolutionists" continued study of natural phenomena associated with evolution, it is likely that microevolution would still be considered a fanciful notion. For decades creationists have opposed the idea of whale evolution, but evidence has become appealing enough that some creationists are starting to work it into their models.But, you can not ignore the fact that God intervenes in a way that defies any explanation of science. You can decide to call every thing a miracle, but that does not change this fact.
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?