ERVs: Supposed 'Proof' of Common Descent Bites the Dust

sfs said:

In principle? Sure. Developmental programs can change triggers. I don't know whether such a change is possible in practice in frogs.

Click to expand...

It was just an example that came quickly to mind. I assumed it had already been studied - at least in part - and your answer indicates it has - except maybe for the last part. So is there no interest (funding) in determining whether tadpoles might reach maturity and reproduce? I would have several other questions that stem from there, but that would be a starting point.

mark kennedy said:

This is about how we know, that we know, what we know. I've seen nothing in science to discourage a literal understanding of the historical narratives of Scripture. What I have seen science do is produce a natural history that has all the marks of epic imaginative fancy.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if this is a yes or a no, but it does seem to indicate you think current science and Christianity are compatible. I think they can be, but my philosophy views science as a much more fluid, assumption prone entity than most would agree with. It's just that currently there are conflicts between my theology and recognized theory.

Resha Caner said:

I'm not sure if this is a yes or a no, but it does seem to indicate you think current science and Christianity are compatible. I think they can be, but my philosophy views science as a much more fluid, assumption prone entity than most would agree with. It's just that currently there are conflicts between my theology and recognized theory.

Click to expand...

I think they are compatible when they are taken in context, I've never seen science as anything other then tools, mental and physical. A couple of years ago I found a paper where carbon 14 was used to determine the age of Ai, near Jericho. They were dating ash because it had been destroyed by fire and the date coincides, somewhat, with the invasion in the time of Joshua. Most of the dating techniques are going to get you an old earth which is no problem for me, just taking into consideration Adam had no ancestors and life was created 6000 years ago.

I've never seen a theory that seriously undermines my confidence in Scripture and genomics has confirmed that the differences between men and chimpanzees is to great to be explained by natural selection. You have to take science for the particulars it delivers and know when and how it informs us, at least indirectly, to historical aspects of Scripture.

Of course they are compatible, Darwinian evolution and Creationism have been banging heads for so long the controversy seems entrenched. It's not, if you can use a little discernment appreciating the import of science comes as a blessing rather then a challenge. If the sciences have taught us anything it's how much we don't know about nature, what does that say about the limits to our understanding of spiritual things. Ultimately the best we can do is to know God in a personal way and let nature inform our understanding of God's handiwork that comes to us as divine providence. Some things are demonstrated to be acting independent of God's intervention, that doesn't mean miracles inform our understanding any less.

Grace and peace,
Mark