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.
I was going to finish writing and posting my definitions now that MK has posted his, and where his and mine are in agreement, different, and so on. But I just had dinner and feel like someone has pulled my power plug, as it were. I'll do so tomorrow. Just letting you know that even though the next post won't be coming as rapid fire as the others, it will be forthcoming.
Ta ta.
Metherion
I appreciate your optimism, I have to remain a little skeptical. It looks like an attack on the credibility of Scripture to me, implying that the virgin birth is contrived from pagan sources. This is a very common criticism of the Old Testament and only occasionally are such criticisms attempted for the New Testament.
Grace and peace,
Mark
It is an attack. But it is a stupid one and only transfers the question. Why would any human being (pagan or not) want to make up this kind of story? Why is a virgin birth any better than a normal birth? What is the purpose for the virgin birth?
See, these questions have the best answers ONLY from the Bible.
I disagree with this because finding ways to directly observe or demonstrate something (such as research into string theory) as well as the process of observing or demonstrating or analyzing in an attempt to reduce things to cause and effect are also considered science.A directly observed or demonstrated truth reduced to cause and effect relationships.
A scientific law is not a step above a scientific theory in any sort of logical progression. A law is a statement based on repeated experimentation that describes some particular single aspect of the world, which expresses a definite cause and effect relationship, and which always applies under the given conditions (and is almost always in the form of an equation). A theory is an well-substantiated explanation for a large set of available facts that provides a framework which ties them all together, that posit a mechanism and/or explanation for phenomena that have been confirmed by experimentation and observation. Theories do not become laws, laws do not become theories.This approach to knowledge demands a unified theory accounting for the data set in a logical profession from facts, hypothesis, testing, theory and finally a law.
Sometimes the phenomena need to be understood and explained before practical applications can proceed. Therefore, I either a) disagree with this definition or b) add ‘including understanding of a phenomena so that applications may then be found’.The objective being a practical application of the theory
Well, as I explained earlier, a rejection of God’s ability to create by divine fiat is not necessary to accept either you definition nor my definition of evolution.The subject of the thread is not me, the subject is whether or not you can believe in evolution and still go to heaven. The question is not as cut and dried as it might seem. My initial reaction is of course you can, but only if you do not reject God's ability to act by divine fiat.
Not really. One of the consequences of defining evolution as ‘the change in alleles in populations over time’ is the ramifications of those changes going BACK in time. The evidence contradicts both a young earth and separate creation of kinds, both on the timescale over which they happened and the existence of intermediate ancestors between kinds.The scientific definition of evolution is perfectly consistent with young earth creationism.
So, since you define ‘darwinian’ to be pretty much ‘metaphysically naturalistic’, I’m going to swap to the term, as I’m pretty sure YOUR definition of ‘Darwinian’ is just about identical to ‘metaphysically naturalistic’. Of course, I would agree with this. I would ALSO add that no actual science is Darwinian, as science uses METHODOLOGICAL naturalism, not metaphysical. If an outright miracle were to occur, what would be seen in science is not some glossing over with fake natural terms, but a bunch of ‘Well, I have no clue how that happened naturally’ headscratches. Furthermore, acts of divine fiat would lead to a lack of certain things, such as a lack of intermediates, a lack of anything back beyond a certain point, and a whole lot of fossils of all these ‘kind’ ancestors that perished in the Great Flood BEFORE all the ones that survived on the Ark speciated.The problem is with Darwinian evolution that assumes exclusively naturalistic causes throughout natural history to the exclusion of an 'miraculous interpolation' or God acting by divine fiat:
The book was intended to be Darwin’s personal observations, thoughts, and accumulated evidence of natural selection as a means of evolution, as opposed to, say, Lamarckian evolution (in which the traits passed down are physical ones, such as giraffes gaining long necks because their ancestors stretched their necks quite far to reach leaves).The book has been described as one long argument against creation which is clearly what the book was written to be.
Actually, since you defined creation as God making things out of nothing by divine fiat, unless you are saying that every single mutation and sexual combination are supernatural miracles, it is contrary to creation. The change in alleles in a population requires existing alleles and an existing population, both of which contradict your definition of creation. THAT IS, unless I’m misunderstanding and you mean ‘creation’ as only being at that first instant in time when the universe was made. Furthermore, mutations, sexual recombination of genes, expression of alleles, and so on are all part of biology, which does work according to natural law.Evolution is not contrary to creation and certainly not assigning causes to natural law that are rightly attributed to God.
However, you realize that by being neutral, science and scientists cannot say ‘Well, all investigation into phenomena X, Y, and Z must be suspended because P, Q, and R religions have holy books which talk about them, let’s go find some other mysteries of the universe to delve into.’, do you not? As science is limited to natural phenomena, it must investigate things AS natural phenomena, as opposed to refraining from all investigation. One may certainly believe something happened a different way, miraculously, but then one would also have to believe all physical evidence that exists around the scientific, natural investigation of said phenomena is false, which raises its own theological problems. All creation certainly can’t testify to the glory of God if parts of it are required to be ignored to give God glory.The fact is that a scientific investigation is limited to phenomenon that can be directly observed and demonstrated.
Science does not make inferences into the totality of life emerging from natural law without miraculous interpolation. It is a discipline that is limited to natural phenomenon so when it comes to God acting in time and space by divine fiat science must remain silent or neutral.
Only for the metaphysical naturalists. As far as the folks on this board, TEs or Evolutionary Creationists, or whatever name you wish to apply, the question is not ‘Can God do X, Y, or Z?’, the question is ‘DID God do X,Y, or Z, all of which He is perfectly capable of doing?’Clearly, in the endless debates surrounding the creation/evolution controversy God as a cause of anything is categorically rejected.
Actually, according to your definition AND mine, it is. Only natural events can fall under the ‘testing’ part of your definition here:The reason for this is not scientific, the reason is philosophical. Nowhere is science ever required to determine exclusively naturalistic causes, if a cause and effect relationship in a phenomenon cannot be determined it is regarded as an anomaly.
As supernatural events cannot be tested. An untestable event, such as a miracle cannot fit into that. Needless to say, science in practice is carried about according to methodological naturalism.This approach to knowledge demands a unified theory accounting for the data set in a logical profession from facts, hypothesis, testing, theory and finally a law.
Yes, but at that time, the studies of what would today become chemistry, biology, geology, et cetera, were known as ‘natural philosophy’ and its practitioners were know as ‘naturalists’. Definitions change over time.This has been the case since Science was redefined inductively during the Scientific Revolution. Before that Science was regarded as any body of work determining knowledge as a justified belief.
Which fits with your definition of science needing to include testing in its progression.Theology at this time was regarded as the 'Queen of the sciences' but with the advent of inductive scientific methodology Theology lost it's status as a science, principally because it is deduced from first principles that cannot be determined by naturalistic means.
Law of the excluded middle. It is certainly an acceptable explanation if one believes God would not make His divine fiats look exactly like actions of natural law extending back into the past, making them indistinguishable. It WOULD BE an acceptable explanation, if there were signs that it happened.That doesn't mean it isn't true or God acting in time and space to create by divine fiat is no long an acceptable explanation for life. That is, unless you make the a priori assumption that there is nothing beyond the material elemental phenomenon of the created universe.
Perhaps if you’re railing against atheists. None who post here are.That's what the whole controversy revolves around, whether or not God can be the cause of life, being created fully formed, by divine fiat.
And HERE is where this shoots you in the foot. Say you’re talking to an atheists. If established and known natural law are able to account for a phenomenon, according to rule 1, we are not to admit God as a cause. Period. End of story.Here is Newton's concept of investigating natural phenomenon.
Rule 1: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
Rule 2: Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.
Rule 3: The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.
Rule 4: In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.
TILL SUCH TIME AS OTHER PHENOMENA OCCUR. Believing something that can naturally happen happened as a miracle at some point in the past would violate rule #1. Since it was completely unobserved, it would also violate rule #4. A belief that it could not happen except by divine fiat and thus God is needed in rule #1 is God of the Gaps.Clearly a miracle would be an exception to something happening as the result of a phenomenon acting as the result of natural law as the cause. It is also clear that Newton is reducing this manner of investigation to cause and effect relationships.
Not true. What we are seeing is a diminishment of gaps to shove God and miracles into, and an acknowledgement that only natural phenomena may be tested.What we are seeing in these debates is an abandonment of the very principles Newton articulated to a rejection of anything supernatural.
Then a definition for creationist is needed. There are T.E.s, aka Evolutionary Creationists, Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists, Day-Age Creationists, Gap Theorists, and so on.You would expect this from an atheistic materialist but a Christian is by definition a Creationist.
This is correct, but someone being saved while still on earth is not testable, nor is the afterlife itself, nor is actually being born again, because they are not natural phenomena. They fail BOTH of our definitions of science. Being ‘saved’ is not a scientific event.That means simply that in order to be 'saved' a miracle is required, in fact a series of miracles throughout redemptive history culminating in hearing the Gospel, receiving the Holy Spirit of promise and being created a new creature in Christ.
Just checking, but you do mean ‘regardless of whether one believes that creation was 6000 years ago or closer to 16 billion years ago’, correct?In answer to the question of the OP. Yes of course you can believe in evolution and still go to heaven. That is providing the same miracle that happened at creation happens to you as a result of believing the Gospel.
The thing is, the way you have defined Darwinism is pretty much the exact same definition as ‘metaphysical naturalism’, so of COURSE it would be, that’s what happens when two terms share a definition.I have gone on record as saying the Darwinism is metaphysics. That leads me to another definition that is essential to understanding the difference between Darwinian evolution and the scientific definition from the genuine article of science
Provided that those biosystems are made up of imperfect replicators, you forgot that part. See, the space on a surface of a planet is not infinite, so resources cannot be infinite. Darwin-type natural selection applies where there are both imperfect replicators and finite resources, and can be done in computer programming easily. Saying that evolution would happened in another biosphere provided it has finite resources and imperfect replicators is no more transcendent than saying the planets on which other biospheres would arise have gravity due to having mass! A biosphere made up of PERFECT replicators would NOT undergo natural selection.It’s clear, for example, that to the extent that Darwinian Evolution governs the development of life forms on this planet that is not an artifact of the Earth. Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered.
No, it is NOT a metaphysical definition. Evolution as science uses METHODOLOGICAL naturalism, not METAPHYSICAL, no matter the amount of assertions made. They are still incorrect assertions.Here is a prime example of what I'm talking about and one of the primary reasons Creationists cannot effectively argue their position. Creationists know what their position is but Darwinism has replaced 'God' with 'natural law', evolution as a scientific definition is blended with a metaphysical one and will never admit it. The devil does not offer you a bottle of poison, he poisons a steak and invites you to dinner:
Which is a WELL KNOWN quote mine, debunked by the man himself as an misunderstanding as well as only applying to natural selection, not evolution. The same man ALSO stated:Karl Popper famously regarded the theory of natural selection as a ‘metaphysical research program’
And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that. (Popper 1976, 171-172), Popper, Karl. 1976. Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography Glasgow: Fontana/Collins.
Actually, it’s terrible at metaphysics because it never claims to explore them.Science is terrible at metaphysics because science as it has come to be defined is inductive. Inductive reasoning takes a small subset of a group and uses it to make inferences of the whole set.
Actually, the difference is not between classical physics and LARGE things like cosmology, but between classical physics and SMALL things like quantum mechanics. It’s not because of inductive reasoning and metaphysics, it’s because classical rules break down on the quantum scale, and vice versa. It is neither here nor there regarding metaphysics.This causes major problems when you go from very small things in Physics to very large things in Cosmology. The result is something like String Theory that attempt to resolve the seeming contradictions, in an attempt at a unified theory. Einstein was working on a unified theory of physics on his death bed and the Stephen Hawking, the Lucasian professor of mathematics in the University of Cambridge attempted a unified theory of physics, both failed.
Actually, according to both definitions of science, it is the only acceptable thing, as well as by Newton’s rule number 1. Natural law is sufficient to explain it and true (as it has been observed occurring naturally), therefore we are to admit that cause and no others. Supernatural causes cannot be tested, so your definition of science throws it out, and supernatural causes are not methodological naturalism, so my definition of science throws it out. None of those make it metaphysics.Change, actually a synonym for evolution, being the result of natural law and not miraculous interposition. The scientific (inductive) definition of evolution is the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. Darwin and Darwinism adds the cause as natural law as opposed to miraculous interposition.
No, it isn’t. It is a demand brought on by testing that explicitly does not make metaphysical claims, as that is methodological naturalism.That is transcendence in no uncertain terms,
That is a bold claim. Provide evidence that the only reason he ‘recanted’ was because he was ‘beat down’.Popper was right but he was beat down so bad by the predominantly atheistic and agnostic world that he had to recant.
Which comes from this page:I still believe that natural selection works this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.
Are you really bringing in the ‘nothing in the past can be tested’ argument? That leads nowhere but Omphalos.It reminds me of Galileo having to recant after the inquisition except Galileo's position can be confirmed through a telescope. There is no telescope that can look into history.
And who is he, and why should I care?Danial Dennet calls Darwinism 'universal acid' that eats through everything.
And? Argumentum ad populum doesn’t prove anything true.That is a apt description for a transcendent principle that is contrary to common understanding. Most people infer some kind of a Creator or Designer for the universe in general and life in particular, that is always been understood in Western thought to be God.
No, it doesn’t. You even quoted yourself how it was a conclusion of Lamarck based on known natural laws of that time, and your Newtonian concept list itself shoots you in the foot at point #1.The Darwinian replaces that inference with 'natural law' as an a priori (without prior) natural assumption.
No, actually, that’s a combination of evidence and methodological (not metaphysical) naturalism.That is why all the evidence points to evolution, the transcendence of the a priori assumption comes before the empirical evidence so when the evidence is examined it's all organized around their naturalistic assumptions, aka natural selection. God as cause of anything, going all the way back to the Big Bang is categorically rejected.
Again, we need a legitimate definition of Creationist here, to differentiate TE from YEC from OEC from Day-Age from Gap Theorist from...There is a reason evolutionists are so hostile to Creationism, it's the same reason that the Nicene Creed begins with a confession of Creation as a definition of Christian profession.
No, they’re not, especially because there is no metaphysical naturalism in science. It’s methodological. This is just another assertion.The concepts, naturalism and creationism, are transcendent, in that, they transcend all the substantive elements that follow
Because this is the ORIGINS theology sub-board, so the TEs here are more interested in other points, and atheistic evolutionists don’t believe in them in the first place? There are other theology sub-boards for most of those. Internal/external/bibliographic tests would most likely be in the Christian Scriptures board, while the Incarnation/Resurrection pair and Messianic prophecies would likely be in theSoteriology and Paterology, Christology & Pneumatology sub boards. If I were inclined to discuss those, I’d discuss them there. Saying nobody wants to talk about them here is like saying nobody wants to discuss paint-matching for your house at the contractor who is about to do your electric wiring.Why do you think evolutionists never want to discuss the incarnation, resurrection, messianic prophecy or the internal, external and bibliographical tests of the credibility of Scripture?
Uh huh. And so where have WE done so?They need not bother, by defining transcendence as naturalistic all reality is permeated with this one inference. In liberal theology they even change the meaning of the word God, to the 'god above god' (Paul Tillich), effectively putting their philosophy into theological terms rendering Christianity atheistic.
I said "Maybe there is another article in Vine's you are using" and you were. Your original reference wasn't very clear and obviously I made a mistake and found what I thought you were using as a reference. Sorry for the misunderstanding.Well my prediction that all that can be expected are ad hominem attacks was confirmed in this post by philadiddle but I'm rather surprised that it came in the form of a false accusation. I told him that the first sentence in the definition was my own attempt at a concise definition. The rest came from a lengthy treatment of the word 'bara' from Vine's Expository Dictionary. While the excerpt was painfully brief it was none the less a legitimate source.
Science:
A systematic enterprise that uses and organizes knowledge in the form of testable predictions and conclusions about the universe. This uses 3 main assumptions:
1) Realism,
2) There exist natural laws which govern said shared reality,
3) These natural laws may be discovered by systematic observation and experimentation.
Science uses methodological naturalism, and makes no reference to metaphysics in any way, shape, or form.
Natural phenomena are interobjective, while supernatural phenomena are not, therefore science can take no position on them.
I disagree with the following parts of Mark’s definition:
mark kennedy said:A directly observed or demonstrated truth reduced to cause and effect relationships.
I disagree with this because finding ways to directly observe or demonstrate something (such as research into string theory) as well as the process of observing or demonstrating or analyzing in an attempt to reduce things to cause and effect are also considered science.
A scientific law is not a step above a scientific theory in any sort of logical progression. A law is a statement based on repeated experimentation that describes some particular single aspect of the world, which expresses a definite cause and effect relationship, and which always applies under the given conditions (and is almost always in the form of an equation). A theory is an well-substantiated explanation for a large set of available facts that provides a framework which ties them all together, that posit a mechanism and/or explanation for phenomena that have been confirmed by experimentation and observation. Theories do not become laws, laws do not become theories.
Creation: The act of God making something. I dispute, in Mark’s definition, that the writer of Genesis is using scientifically precise language, and I also dispute that it must be from previously nonexistent material, i.e. nothing.
To Mark’s definition of knowledge I would add that in addition to the familiarity with facts, information, description, et cetera, the facts, information, descriptions etc. THEMSELVES also count as knowledge.
I agree entirely with Mark’s definition of Heaven and the Incarnation, and faith.
Evolution: The Neo-Darwinian modern synthesis in modern biology and all that it entails.
By the way, I’m a he, not a she.
Well, as I explained earlier, a rejection of God’s ability to create by divine fiat is not necessary to accept either you definition nor my definition of evolution.
Not really. One of the consequences of defining evolution as ‘the change in alleles in populations over time’ is the ramifications of those changes going BACK in time. The evidence contradicts both a young earth and separate creation of kinds, both on the timescale over which they happened and the existence of intermediate ancestors between kinds.
So, since you define ‘darwinian’ to be pretty much ‘metaphysically naturalistic’, I’m going to swap to the term, as I’m pretty sure YOUR definition of ‘Darwinian’ is just about identical to ‘metaphysically naturalistic’.
Of course, I would agree with this. I would ALSO add that no actual science is Darwinian, as science uses METHODOLOGICAL naturalism, not metaphysical.
Actually, since you defined creation as God making things out of nothing by divine fiat,
I said "Maybe there is another article in Vine's you are using" and you were. Your original reference wasn't very clear and obviously I made a mistake and found what I thought you were using as a reference. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I do disagree with the definition that Vine's gives, but I'm not at home and I don't have any of my sources handy here, so I'll have to come back to it. I just wanted to put this up to apologize.
I'll get some more info together to make a more thorough case and start a thread just on the word bara'.No apology was really necessary, it was an obvious misunderstanding. I just didn't like being accused of making it up before I had a chance to clarify is all. I should have cited the quote better but honestly didn't think it would be an issue and I was trying to get it all in one post.
Take your time getting back to me on this one, I suspect we are going to be here for a while.
Grace and peace,
Mark
TILL SUCH TIME AS OTHER PHENOMENA OCCUR. Believing something that can naturally happen happened as a miracle at some point in the past would violate rule #1. Since it was completely unobserved, it would also violate rule #4. A belief that it could not happen except by divine fiat and thus God is needed in rule #1 is God of the Gaps.
Not true. What we are seeing is a diminishment of gaps to shove God and miracles into, and an acknowledgement that only natural phenomena may be tested.
Then a definition for creationist is needed. There are T.E.s, aka Evolutionary Creationists, Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists, Day-Age Creationists, Gap Theorists, and so on.
This is correct, but someone being saved while still on earth is not testable, nor is the afterlife itself, nor is actually being born again, because they are not natural phenomena. They fail BOTH of our definitions of science. Being ‘saved’ is not a scientific event.
Just checking, but you do mean ‘regardless of whether one believes that creation was 6000 years ago or closer to 16 billion years ago’, correct?
The thing is, the way you have defined Darwinism is pretty much the exact same definition as ‘metaphysical naturalism’, so of COURSE it would be, that’s what happens when two terms share a definition.
Provided that those biosystems are made up of imperfect replicators, you forgot that part...
No, it is NOT a metaphysical definition. Evolution as science uses METHODOLOGICAL naturalism, not METAPHYSICAL, no matter the amount of assertions made. They are still incorrect assertions.
Which is a WELL KNOWN quote mine, debunked by the man himself as an misunderstanding as well as only applying to natural selection, not evolution. The same man ALSO stated:
Actually, it’s terrible at metaphysics because it never claims to explore them.
Actually, the difference is not between classical physics and LARGE things like cosmology, but between classical physics and SMALL things like quantum mechanics. It’s not because of inductive reasoning and metaphysics, it’s because classical rules break down on the quantum scale, and vice versa. It is neither here nor there regarding metaphysics.
Actually, according to both definitions of science, it is the only acceptable thing, as well as by Newton’s rule number 1. Natural law is sufficient to explain it and true (as it has been observed occurring naturally), therefore we are to admit that cause and no others. Supernatural causes cannot be tested, so your definition of science throws it out, and supernatural causes are not methodological naturalism, so my definition of science throws it out. None of those make it metaphysics.
No, it isn’t. It is a demand brought on by testing that explicitly does not make metaphysical claims, as that is methodological naturalism.
That is a bold claim. Provide evidence that the only reason he ‘recanted’ was because he was ‘beat down’.
No, it doesn’t. You even quoted yourself how it was a conclusion of Lamarck based on known natural laws of that time, and your Newtonian concept list itself shoots you in the foot at point #1.
No, actually, that’s a combination of evidence and methodological (not metaphysical) naturalism.
Again, we need a legitimate definition of Creationist here, to differentiate TE from YEC from OEC from Day-Age from Gap Theorist from...
No, they’re not, especially because there is no metaphysical naturalism in science. It’s methodological. This is just another assertion.
I wholeheartedly agree!
I strongly disagree with that,
I'll get some more info together to make a more thorough case and start a thread just on the word bara'.
Before I address anything else, I would like clarification on one thing.
In post number 68, about 2/3rds of the way down the page, I say:
So, since you define ‘darwinian’ to be pretty much ‘metaphysically naturalistic’, I’m going to swap to the term, as I’m pretty sure YOUR definition of ‘Darwinian’ is just about identical to ‘metaphysically naturalistic’.
Then, in the post above, #71, you quote me as having said:
The thing is, the way you have defined Darwinism is pretty much the exact same definition as ‘metaphysical naturalism’, so of COURSE it would be, that’s what happens when two terms share a definition.
... So, which is it? In one place you wholeheartedly agree, in one place you strongly disagree. I'd like that settled before I respond to the rest, as such a seemingly obvious contradiction between posts could confuse things quite a lot.
Metherion
Edit: I also THOUGHT I had defined realism, I'm sorry. Realism would be the assumption that all observers share a common reality. Interobjective is when an event in objectively the same, no matter who is viewing it. It is objective between viewers. Interobjective.
So, basically, nothing exists outside of the natural that is capable of influencing any change in the organic or inorganic world. For the purposes of our discussion, they're pretty much the same. You agree that evolution as science is methodologically natural, but you think UCD and other things are 'darwinian', which you assert might as well be metaphysically naturalistic with the fields of reality they touch upon.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.
Well, as far as I understand the term, metaphysical naturalism states that physically and metaphysically, nothing exists except the natural. Your definition of 'Darwinian' states
So, basically, nothing exists outside of the natural that is capable of influencing any change in the organic or inorganic world. For the purposes of our discussion, they're pretty much the same. You agree that evolution as science is methodologically natural, but you think UCD and other things are 'darwinian', which you assert might as well be metaphysically naturalistic with the fields of reality they touch upon.
As for realism, it was capitalized because it was the first word after a semicolon, but I can understand the confusion. Personally, I'm torn a bit between scientific realism and intrumentalism. But that's neither here nor there.
Again, there are multiple posts to respond to, so replies will be similarly long, may similarly have to omit points, and will be long in coming as my professor will be coming back from Louisiana soon so I must get cracking on my thesis. Sadface. But, it's not like this discussion is going to vanish off the face of the internet.
Metherion
Can a person believe in evolution and still go to Heaven if they accept Jesus as their savior?
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?