Hi there,
So indeed, there is a question here of whether Evoutionists are identifying anything new, now that they have a semblance of a theory - that is supposed to identify relevant change (wrong?)? In principle, any theory at all, benefits from responding to what are called "false positives" - if they are to be engaged for any significant length of time. The idea is that every so often you throw something into the mix which is positively not identified by the theory, to see if those using the said theory are ready: to tell the difference between the real, and the disingenuine. If you are aware that somethings are disingenuine, you do not attempt to respond to them as if they are real!
Ok so what we have with Evolution, is that it isn't very good at identifying what it doesn't do, because it is presumed to be responsible for everything. Other theories distinguish themselves from false positives, by limiting their sphere of influence (like "oh, that's biology, that's different from chemistry") or staying close to the known (like archeology searches around where existing sites have been found). Other theories like Creation, assume there is a scapegoat, which accounts for all the false positives put together - the aim is to think as little of the scapegoat as you can, thus encouraging you to put false positives associated with the scapegoat behind you. Then again there is religious use of the false positive "the Zen koan" which is a kind of false positive for the mind. The point is that when these things are put in practice, you actively need to remain on guard, but Evolution doesn't do this.
What we come up against, is the idea that Evolution can identify that false positives make it stronger, but still not know how to identify one in Evolution's context. That is the challenge I am putting to you: how would you respond (not just identify) to a false positive, in Evolution's context. If you evolved a false positive, what would happen? Can you understand that readiness to respond to a false positive, puts you outside the working sphere of Evolution, as it stands? I want you to be able to respond to a false positive, but to do that you have to offer a foundation, for that response. This is the difficulty that Jesus faced when preaching to people who had no desire for the love of God - for Him, believers in themselves were a false positive, which only warranted a limited response.
The question is, realistically, whether it is a false positive believer or false positive scapegoat, how much stronger can readiness for false positives make a theory like Evolution? I mean it is not something you can just give up, until a perfect response is achieved, that takes too long - even by Evolution's standards. How much stronger? In the Christian faith, the Bible talks about identifying your readiness to respond to false positives, the way a soldier would, wearing armour and speaking under command. Jesus said "watch out for wolves in sheep's clothing" (gospels, from memory), in other words "watch out for false positives, that look like a contribution to the theory you believe (but are not)". How much stronger do you want Evolution to be? Can you see that being ready for false positives would help that?
I'm not trying to change the theory, I'm trying to expand it. Once you have a foundation, then you can start to identify agency and the ways it works in the confines of the theory. I already have thanks from God, trying to help you expand your theory, I don't need to be thanked. What I am asking for is a conversation that capitalizes on the wealth of meaning that can be found in the words of the Son of God, especially when the outcome is unknown, especially.
Peace in Jesus.
So indeed, there is a question here of whether Evoutionists are identifying anything new, now that they have a semblance of a theory - that is supposed to identify relevant change (wrong?)? In principle, any theory at all, benefits from responding to what are called "false positives" - if they are to be engaged for any significant length of time. The idea is that every so often you throw something into the mix which is positively not identified by the theory, to see if those using the said theory are ready: to tell the difference between the real, and the disingenuine. If you are aware that somethings are disingenuine, you do not attempt to respond to them as if they are real!
Ok so what we have with Evolution, is that it isn't very good at identifying what it doesn't do, because it is presumed to be responsible for everything. Other theories distinguish themselves from false positives, by limiting their sphere of influence (like "oh, that's biology, that's different from chemistry") or staying close to the known (like archeology searches around where existing sites have been found). Other theories like Creation, assume there is a scapegoat, which accounts for all the false positives put together - the aim is to think as little of the scapegoat as you can, thus encouraging you to put false positives associated with the scapegoat behind you. Then again there is religious use of the false positive "the Zen koan" which is a kind of false positive for the mind. The point is that when these things are put in practice, you actively need to remain on guard, but Evolution doesn't do this.
What we come up against, is the idea that Evolution can identify that false positives make it stronger, but still not know how to identify one in Evolution's context. That is the challenge I am putting to you: how would you respond (not just identify) to a false positive, in Evolution's context. If you evolved a false positive, what would happen? Can you understand that readiness to respond to a false positive, puts you outside the working sphere of Evolution, as it stands? I want you to be able to respond to a false positive, but to do that you have to offer a foundation, for that response. This is the difficulty that Jesus faced when preaching to people who had no desire for the love of God - for Him, believers in themselves were a false positive, which only warranted a limited response.
The question is, realistically, whether it is a false positive believer or false positive scapegoat, how much stronger can readiness for false positives make a theory like Evolution? I mean it is not something you can just give up, until a perfect response is achieved, that takes too long - even by Evolution's standards. How much stronger? In the Christian faith, the Bible talks about identifying your readiness to respond to false positives, the way a soldier would, wearing armour and speaking under command. Jesus said "watch out for wolves in sheep's clothing" (gospels, from memory), in other words "watch out for false positives, that look like a contribution to the theory you believe (but are not)". How much stronger do you want Evolution to be? Can you see that being ready for false positives would help that?
I'm not trying to change the theory, I'm trying to expand it. Once you have a foundation, then you can start to identify agency and the ways it works in the confines of the theory. I already have thanks from God, trying to help you expand your theory, I don't need to be thanked. What I am asking for is a conversation that capitalizes on the wealth of meaning that can be found in the words of the Son of God, especially when the outcome is unknown, especially.
Peace in Jesus.
