Gnosticism and the belief in Evolution

[mindlight]

Not Gnostics 'in the strictest sense', but by that logic not Christians either, because all the Christians of the first few centuries AD were creationists as well. What seems to have happened is that both Gnostic and Christian thinkers followed the same philosophical threads to shuttle God to a realm strictly outside of nature. Gnostics no longer required a Demiurge character, because nature itself became the demiurge of ignorance, acted out in a primitive world before gnosis occurred in the minds of men.

The central gnostic element is the view of humanity and world history as being within a state of a transformative "becoming"... a belief in the universe unfolding in a rational way, according to human reason. Humans are conceptualized as the substance of the universe becoming aware of itself. This is the core spiritual thrust of the humanistic modern period, 16th-19th centuries.

Modern science is based on this philosophical revolution in the minds of men. Modern science is not merely a method but a philosophical shift from the recognition of an order of being outside of or above nature, to a system of knowledge about the universe based only on how man could conceive of it in a rational way. Approaching reality in a strictly empirical and rational way means you are going to interpret the history of the universe as a dialectic materialistic process... or the continual "becoming" of a transforming nature.

This type of 'science' is the essence of gnosticism, and it's where we get our one-dimensional evolutionary interpretation of reality. A gnostic thinker views enlightenment as a progressive transformation from darkness and ignorance to a state of illuminated reason... he dispels the tricks and illusions of nature with the powers of reasoning in order to transcend the state of nature (stardust becomes aware of itself) ... and so this same idea of rational progress is projected onto the nature of reality itself, and the end result is the belief that everything must have evolved.

God is not supposed to be found interacting in the state of nature, (e.g. traveling around the middle-eastern wilderness in a pillar of cloud) because gnosticism identified the true god with his rational awakening to reality itself. The idea of scientific enlightenment is considered to be that rational awakening to the true reality behind our illusions about the earth being 'poofed into existence' by God.

So in the theistic evolutionist's worldview, world history is this same type of process of human development from primitive material roots up to the acquisition of scientific enlightenment, when humanity dispels ancient ignorance and acquires a divine gnosis into the true nature of reality.

This is also the basic philosophical Enlightenment narrative of "science" being a new system of actual knowledge that reveals special truth about reality that was previously hidden. "science" here is a code word for Gnosis. It is not simply a methodology, but a real belief that the fundamental nature of reality has been unveiled through the illumination of man.

But this belief is itself based on a kind of circular argument that the rational and naturalistic interpretation of the universe must be the most correct one. This is the assumption that is not to be questioned, and we are simply told that explanations which only include 'natural causes' are axiomatically the best ones. Modern science is based on a philosophical system that strips the idea of an immanent God out of reality and forbids the questioning of it.

That is why people believed in evolution long before there was any real scientific theories for evolution. The belief in evolution was a consequence of the humanistic gnostic philosophy of a progressive human nature, ascending towards enlightenment. The scientific theories that came along later were just attempts to figure out how everything evolved rationalistically, but these theories were all based on a mode of thinking that was incapable of questioning whether or not a rationalistic evolutionary process actually occurred.

Long before Darwinism, the conclusion of Evolution was already baked into the cake. And today everyone is very familiar with that feeling that one is not allowed to "question the science"... It's that essential forbidden-ness that usually accompanies a religion.

Simon Magus was recorded as the progenitor of the first Gnostic theories and this was the big one in the first centuries of faith.

However modern science was initially the invention of devout Christians so I want to take a slightly different slant on this. Clearly, there are things that we can learn about creation and about how it works and the benefits of that scientific endeavor are plain for all to see. The application of the empirical method has led to better medical practices, for example, stronger roads, bridges, and buildings and allows us to drive cars, fly through the air, and plunge into the depths of the ocean. The essential arrogance of Gnosticism bespoke of a special enlightened elite that alone had special knowledge and ability to probe the mysteries of creation. They unlocked these mysteries with secret teachings. These were the elite Christians who knew better than the common folk.

I see a tendency to that kind of thinking in many scientists at the top of their professions today and especially in areas like evolution and cosmology where their insights have little practical relevance to people's daily lives.

Theistic Evolution does not really reckon with the incarnation. Jesus was with us in the flesh and performed creation miracles. The devil may think he will evolve to be higher than God but that is just wishful thinking.

The big transition came with the tendency to move beyond applied methods that yield meaningful results to grand models that explain things over billion-year time spans and embrace all life as we know it. That movement from particular insight to grand metanarrative is the big shift. You might be right that the Marxist teaching of dialectical materialism combined with macroevolutionary neo-Darwinism is at the heart of a new neo-paganism that excludes all reference to the One true God.

 

[The Barbarian]

However modern science was initially the invention of devout Christians

It was a long time evolving. What we call science today was first begun by the Ionian Greeks before Christi. It was continued in the Roman Empire, and then by the Arabs and Byzantines during the Middle Ages. And then it was passed on to Renaissance Europe, mostly by Islamic scientists.

And there it developed into what we have today. It was a long process, with many different peoples and cultures adding to it.

The big transition came with the tendency to move beyond applied methods that yield meaningful results to grand models that explain things over billion-year time spans and embrace all life as we know it.

It came down to evidence. That was the major contribution of European scientists. First geologists, and then astronomers came to realize that the universe was much, much larger and older than previously imagined. As more and more evidence accumulated, it because impossible to deny what it said.

The essential arrogance of Gnosticism bespoke of a special enlightened elite that alone had special knowledge and ability to probe the mysteries of creation.

Answers in Genesis, for example.

I see a tendency to that kind of thinking in many scientists at the top of their professions today and especially in areas like evolution and cosmology where their insights have little practical relevance to people's daily lives.

It doesn't affect my life much that scientists have found that birds are truly dinosaurs. However, it does matter a lot that (as penicillin discoverer Alexander Flemming predicted, based on evolutionary theory) bacteria can evolve resistance to antibiotics. It also matters that evolutionary theory shows how to administer antibiotics to minimize the likelihood of resistance evolving.

You might be right that the Marxist teaching of dialectical materialism combined with macroevolutionary neo-Darwinism is at the heart of a new neo-paganism that excludes all reference to the One true God.

That's hilariously wrong. Darwin was banned in the Soviet Union for his discovery of natural selection as a major agency of evolution. Russian biology is still catching up from that disaster which led to numerous crop failures, as Soviet scientists tried to come up with an alternative explanation.

Maybe if you learned a bit about these things, you could better discuss them. Worth a try?

 

[mindlight]

It was a long time evolving. What we call science today was first begun by the Ionian Greeks before Christi. It was continued in the Roman Empire, and then by the Arabs and Byzantines during the Middle Ages. And then it was passed on to Renaissance Europe, mostly by Islamic scientists.

The Jews beat the Greeks to it and people like Solomon were known for their observations of the natural world. The greeks, and especially Aristotle, were a major barrier to modern science and it took the black death and recovery of the doctrine of creation in the reformation to shake the faith in Galen, Hippocrates, etc sufficiently to get science moving again.

And there it developed into what we have today. It was a long process, with many different peoples and cultures adding to it.

It came down to evidence. That was the major contribution of European scientists. First geologists, and then astronomers came to realize that the universe was much, much larger and older than previously imagined. As more and more evidence accumulated, it because impossible to deny what it said.

As I have said elsewhere breakthroughs in medicine and the practical sciences, using the stars for navigation and building machines were what revolutionized Europe. People had always done cosmology dressed as astrology and others worked out that the earth was round mathematically long before Copernicus and Gallileo. Putting it all together in practical systems that could be used for navigation without the fear of falling over the edge of the earth was the real breakthrough there. Evolutionary theory added nothing to the practical lives of Europe's citizenry, the only meaningful fruit is the erosion of respect for the doctrine of creation.

It doesn't affect my life much that scientists have found that birds are truly dinosaurs. However, it does matter a lot that (as penicillin discoverer Alexander Flemming predicted, based on evolutionary theory) bacteria can evolve resistance to antibiotics. It also matters that evolutionary theory shows how to administer antibiotics to minimize the likelihood of resistance evolving.

That's hilariously wrong. Darwin was banned in the Soviet Union for his discovery of natural selection as a major agency of evolution. Russian biology is still catching up from that disaster which led to numerous crop failures, as Soviet scientists tried to come up with an alternative explanation.

Maybe if you learned a bit about these things, you could better discuss them. Worth a try?

I did not mention the USSR or their Lamarckian cul de sac. I was talking about the marriage of dialectical materialism and evolutionary theory in modern science and its roots in Darwin and Marx. The Flemming prediction was based on the fact that bacteria adapt, so what, that is just common sense. Your need to integrate it into an unprovable grand model of everything is unnecessary.

Science is a toolbox, not a worldview. It is useful when it works and can be ignored when it is irrelevant.

 

[The Barbarian]

The Jews beat the Greeks to it and people like Solomon were known for their observations of the natural world.

Name one major contribution of Jewish science before the Ionian Greeks. Be specific.

The greeks, and especially Aristotle, were a major barrier to modern science

Aristotle was a significant observer, and a talented scientist, but he had little to do with the Ionian scientists, who established the scientific method.

As I have said elsewhere breakthroughs in medicine and the practical sciences, using the stars for navigation and building machines were what revolutionized Europe.

Show us a major European scientific or mathematical advance before the Renaissance. There are a few, but not very many.

People had always done cosmology dressed as astrology and others worked out that the earth was round mathematically long before Copernicus and Gallileo.

You have that right. By maybe 400 BC, all educated people in the Hellenistic world knew that the Earth was round. By that time, Eratosthenes actually made a very accurate calculation of its circumference.

Putting it all together in practical systems that could be used for navigation without the fear of falling over the edge of the earth was the real breakthrough there.

No. It's a common misconception that people criticized Columbus because they thought the Earth was flat. Every educated person knew the Earth was round. They criticized him because he grossly underestimated the circumference of the Earth. That's why, when he arrived in the West Indies, he though he was in India.

The Flemming prediction was based on the fact that bacteria adapt, so what, that is just common sense.

Evolve. Flemming cited evolutonary theory and predicted they would evolve resistance. And yes, evolution is common sense. When Huxley read Darwin's paper, his response was "How stupid of me not to have realized this myself." (paraphrase)

Your need to integrate it into an unprovable grand model of everything is unnecessary.

It's a blatant misrepresentation of what I've told you. For example, I pointed out that the creationist concept of evolution as being about the origin of life, the Big Bang, and who knows what else, is wrong. You're criticizing your own imaginary ideas.

Science is a toolbox, not a worldview.

It is a method. And it's limited to the physical universe. Creationism is a worldview. Evolution is an observed phenomenon with a theory that explains it.

I did not mention the USSR or their Lamarckian cul de sac.

Just pointing out that Marxism is incompatible with evolutionary theory. And it's not hard to see why. It is the equivalent to free market theory in economics. Which is why Stalin banned Darwin's theory.

 

[mindlight]

Name one major contribution of Jewish science before the Ionian Greeks. Be specific.

Ionian Greek science remained philosophical and was not observational science. By contrast, Solomon lived 300 years before Thales. Most of Thales' theories were very weird - see the below examples.

1 Kings 4:29-34
29 Now God gave Solomon wisdom and very great discernment and breadth of mind, like the sand that is on the seashore. 30 Solomon’s wisdom surpassed the wisdom of all the people of the east and all the wisdom of Egypt. 31 For he was wiser than all other people, more than Ethan the Ezrahite, Heman, Calcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol; and his fame was known in all the surrounding nations. 32 He also told three thousand proverbs, and his songs numbered 1,005. 33 He told of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon even to the hyssop that grows on the wall; he told also of animals, birds, crawling things, and fish. 34 People came from all the nations to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all the kings of the earth who had heard of his wisdom.

Aristotle was a significant observer, and a talented scientist, but he had little to do with the Ionian scientists, who established the scientific method.

Aristotle was more influential in Europe through Galen in medicine for example and because of his theological impact on the catholic Aquinas and before that the Byzantines. His categories and philosophical way of looking at reality were a blinding factor to observational science for centuries, most radically exposed by the failure of Western medical science to deal with the Bubonic plague.

Thales started the guessing game that is naturalism with such theories as the below but unlike Solomon, this was not based on any actual observations or real evidence:

Thales attempted to find naturalistic explanations of the world, without reference to the supernatural. He explained earthquakes by imagining that the Earth floats on water and that earthquakes occur when the Earth is rocked by waves. Thales' most famous belief was his cosmological doctrine, which held that the world originated from water.

Ionian School (philosophy) - Wikipedia

Show us a major European scientific or mathematical advance before the Renaissance. There are a few, but not very many.

Byzantine use of Greek Fire, Eratosthenes determined the circumference of the earth, Pythagoras theorem a2 = b2 + c2, Archimedes principle

No. It's a common misconception that people criticized Columbus because they thought the Earth was flat. Every educated person knew the Earth was round. They criticized him because he grossly underestimated the circumference of the Earth. That's why, when he arrived in the West Indies, he though he was in India.

I have forgotten what you were objecting to but this sounds reasonable amongst educated church people and Jeffrey Russell makes a strong argument for this. Whether common sailors, soldiers, and even some kings understood that is another matter.

Evolve. Flemming cited evolutonary theory and predicted they would evolve resistance. And yes, evolution is common sense. When Huxley read Darwin's paper, his response was "How stupid of me not to have realized this myself." (paraphrase)

Whatever bandwagon he jumped on and whatever he calls it, it is just adaption and he could say little more than that from the evidence he had as can people today.

Creationism is a worldview. Evolution is an observed phenomenon with a theory that explains it.

Nope, you have never seen macroevolution occur and are just speculating. You have never observed biological life emerge from chemistry and physics and are just speculating. Big Bang is also a nice theory and a strong one but just a theory.

 

[The Barbarian]

Ionian Greek science remained philosophical and was not observational science.

No, that's wrong. For example, Democritus used the example of a klepshydra to infer the existence of atoms. He experimented by noting when one put one's finger over the tube of the tool, water inside it would not run out the bottom where there were holes to sprinkle it out. Taking his finger off, the air came in and released the water. His inference was that air must be composed of tiny indivisible particles.

In terms of the birth of science, however, Ionia was the place to be. The emergence of Ionian philosophy has been called the Ionian Enlightenment, or the Ionian Awakening
Ancient Ionia and the origins of scientific thinking

Show us a major European scientific or mathematical advance before the Renaissance. There are a few, but not very many.

Byzantine use of Greek Fire,

The Byzantine Empire was largely Asian.

Eratosthenes determined the circumference of the earth

Eratosthenes was a Hellenistic Egyptian.

Pythagoras theorem a2 = b2 + c2, Archimedes principle

Ancient Greek scientists. The exceptions were, as I showed you, the ancient Greeks. That knowledge was largely lost to the west during the Medieval period.

I have forgotten what you were objecting to but this sounds reasonable amongst educated church people and Jeffrey Russell makes a strong argument for this. Whether common sailors, soldiers, and even some kings understood that is another matter.

Since statues of Atlas show him holding a spherical Earth, it would be remarkable if anyone of any educational level didn't know the fact. And "common sailors" first figured it out. Would you like to learn how? You could probably figure out how, if you thought about it.

Evolve. Flemming cited evolutonary theory and predicted they would evolve resistance. And yes, evolution is common sense. When Huxley read Darwin's paper, his response was "How stupid of me not to have realized this myself." (paraphrase)

Whatever bandwagon he jumped on and whatever he calls it, it is just adaption and he could say little more than that from the evidence he had as can people today.

No, even many creationist organizations admit the fact of speciation. Not all adaptation is evolution, and not all evolution is adaptation. You've confused the two. Remember this:

• If you spend time in the sun and get a tan, that is adaptation, but not evolution.
• If a neutral mutation, neither harmful nor useful, appears in a population, that is evolution, but not adaptation.
• If a useful mutation, such as the Milano mutation appears and spreads in a human population, that is adaptation and evolution.

Perhaps you don't know what "evolution" means in biology. What do you think it means?

Flemming merely applied Darwin's theory and correctly inferred that any mutation that made penicillin less effective would quickly spread among bacteria if the drug was overused.

Creationism is a worldview. Evolution is an observed phenomenon with a theory that explains it.

Nope, you have never seen macroevolution occur and are just speculating.

No, that's wrong. As I said, even many creationist organizations now admit the fact of speciation. Microevolution is evolution within a species. Macroevolution is speciation. Creationists merely redefine "macroevolution" to be "any evolution that takes longer than a human could live to observe it."

Macroevolution


Definition
noun, plural: macroevolutions
Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a species, over geologic time resulting in the divergence of taxonomic groups.
Supplement
Macroevolution involves variation of allele frequencies at or above the level of a species, where an allele is a specific iteration of a given gene. It is an area of study concerned with variation in frequencies of alleles that are shared between species and with speciation events, and also includes extinction. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population.
Macroevolution

You have never observed biological life emerge from chemistry and physics and are just speculating.

Here, you have confused abiogenesis with evolution. Evolution is not about the way life began. If God just magically poofed life into existence, evolution would work just the way it does. Darwin even supposed that God just created the first living things. But God says that the earth brought forth life as He intended. Not that it matters to evolutionary theory, of course.

Big Bang is also a nice theory and a strong one but just a theory.

It has been repeatedly verified by confirmed predictions. But of course, it has nothing to do with evolutionary theory.

 

[mindlight]

No, that's wrong. For example, Democritus used the example of a klepshydra to infer the existence of atoms. He experimented by noting when one put one's finger over the tube of the tool, water inside it would not run out the bottom where there were holes to sprinkle it out. Taking his finger off, the air came in and released the water. His inference was that air must be composed of tiny indivisible particles.

So we bypass the fact that Solomon predated the Ionians and that knowledge of his insights was distributed across the Greek world before Thales came up with his delusional theories three centuries later.

Democritus had a theory of the world being reducible to little dots but his experiment did not prove that. Air and water might simply be formed in waves. In this case, removing one's finger allows waves of air into the chamber through the tiny holes while gravity drains the water away

In terms of the birth of science, however, Ionia was the place to be. The emergence of Ionian philosophy has been called the Ionian Enlightenment, or the Ionian Awakening
Ancient Ionia and the origins of scientific thinking

You can trace the emergence of naturalism as a method and way of looking at reality to the Greeks. As our broader discussions might indicate that materialistic reductionism is considered a problem by Creationists and also most of what the Greeks did was not science in the strictest sense.

The Byzantine Empire was largely Asian.

It was mainly Greek and as such despite the influence of Greeks in Asia and Africa due to Alexander, it was originally European. More accurately the Meditteranean was the key factor here. Greek civilization interacted with Solomon through the Phoenicians and became wiser than it was before going on to dominate and by conquest absorb the lessons of the Persian empire.

Since statues of Atlas show him holding a spherical Earth, it would be remarkable if anyone of any educational level didn't know the fact. And "common sailors" first figured it out. Would you like to learn how? You could probably figure out how, if you thought about it.

Atlas is a very good example of how common folk could have understood this. I am going to concede this point, so thank you for making it. I checked to see if church art reflected this insight. That would tell me if this was privileged knowledge or being shared with the masses. There are very old examples of this knowledge being shared in pictures in places of worship.

My Albion: The round medieval earth - evidence from Sanderum Church

Evolve. Flemming cited evolutonary theory and predicted they would evolve resistance. And yes, evolution is common sense. When Huxley read Darwin's paper, his response was "How stupid of me not to have realized this myself." (paraphrase)

Bacterias are not life.

No, even many creationist organizations admit the fact of speciation. Not all adaptation is evolution, and not all evolution is adaptation. You've confused the two. Remember this:

• If you spend time in the sun and get a tan, that is adaptation, but not evolution.
• If a neutral mutation, neither harmful nor useful, appears in a population, that is evolution, but not adaptation.
• If a useful mutation, such as the Milano mutation appears and spreads in a human population, that is adaptation and evolution.

Perhaps you don't know what "evolution" means in biology. What do you think it means?

Flemming merely applied Darwin's theory and correctly inferred that any mutation that made penicillin less effective would quickly spread among bacteria if the drug was overused.

Bacteria is not life, the definition of species is crucial. There were not 23 species of sparrows on the Ark.

Creationism is a worldview. Evolution is an observed phenomenon with a theory that explains it.

Christianity is a worldview of which the doctrine of creation is an important part. Adaptation is a feature of life in a broken world and most occasional mutations are regressive and harmful. Macro-evolution (type to type evolution) is unprovable.

Here, you have confused abiogenesis with evolution.

Nope, just listed it with a dismissal of macroevolution and some skepticism about the Big Bang also. These are the big three myths you hold to.

It has been repeatedly verified by confirmed predictions. But of course, it has nothing to do with evolutionary theory.

Abiogenesis is completely unproven.

 

[The Barbarian]

So we bypass the fact that Solomon predated the Ionians

And apparently never made any scientific discoveries. Can you name even one?

Democritus had a theory of the world being reducible to little dots but his experiment did not prove that.

He correctly inferred from the behavior of matter that it was made of atoms. Turns out, he was right. Air, contrary to the thinking of the time, is material and made of atoms as he concluded from his experiments.

You can trace the emergence of naturalism as a method and way of looking at reality to the Greeks.

Methodological naturalism is the hallmark of modern science. Nothing else humans can do works better for understanding the natural universe. It was the beginning of real science.

As our broader discussions might indicate that materialistic reductionism is considered a problem by Creationists

As many honest creationists admit, reality is a problem for creationists.

and also most of what the Greeks did was not science in the strictest sense.

In the same way that the Wright Brothers' first flight wasn't air travel in the strict sense.

Atlas is a very good example of how common folk could have understood this. I am going to concede this point, so thank you for making it. I checked to see if church art reflected this insight. That would tell me if this was privileged knowledge or being shared with the masses.

There are roman coins depicting the Earth as a globe. It wasn't news to anyone, certainly not to people in Spain in Columbus' time.

Bacterias are not life.

They are in every sense of the word.

No, even many creationist organizations admit the fact of speciation. Not all adaptation is evolution, and not all evolution is adaptation. You've confused the two. Remember this:

• If you spend time in the sun and get a tan, that is adaptation, but not evolution.
• If a neutral mutation, neither harmful nor useful, appears in a population, that is evolution, but not adaptation.
• If a useful mutation, such as the Milano mutation appears and spreads in a human population, that is adaptation and evolution.

Perhaps you don't know what "evolution" means in biology. What do you think it means?

(no response) I'll ask again. What do you think it means?

Creationism is a worldview. Evolution is an observed phenomenon with a theory that explains it.

Christianity is a worldview of which the doctrine of creation is an important part.

Creation, not creationism, which is a modern revision of God's word. Fortunately, the way God created living things is not a salvation issue.

Adaptation is a feature of life in a broken world and most occasional mutations are regressive and harmful.

No, that's wrong. You have about a hundred that weren't present in either parent. The vast majority of mutations don't do anything detectable. A few are harmful and tend to be removed from a population. A very few are useful and tend to increase in a population. That's how it works. Darwin's great discovery.

Here, you have confused abiogenesis with evolution.

Nope,

Yep. If you learn nothing else here, remember that evolution has nothing to do with the way life began.

Abiogenesis is completely unproven.

It is merely supported by the evidence. And important predictions of the theory have since been confirmed, which is why so many scientists have accepted it. But of course, that has nothing to do with biological evolution, either.

 

[mindlight]

And apparently never made any scientific discoveries. Can you name even one?

The bible verse I quoted described the activity of collating samples, describing, and expressing wisdom about these which is the essence of the scientific method.

He correctly inferred from the behavior of matter that it was made of atoms. Turns out, he was right. Air, contrary to the thinking of the time, is material and made of atoms as he concluded from his experiments.

He proved that air was material but not that it was atomic via this experiment. He just got lucky that his philosophy and reality cohered regarding the atomic structure of air and water.

Methodological naturalism is the hallmark of modern science. Nothing else humans can do works better for understanding the natural universe. It was the beginning of real science.

Collecting stuff, describing it, and thinking about it was the beginning of science centuries earlier in Israel.

No, even many creationist organizations admit the fact of speciation. Not all adaptation is evolution, and not all evolution is adaptation. You've confused the two. Remember this:

• If you spend time in the sun and get a tan, that is adaptation, but not evolution.
• If a neutral mutation, neither harmful nor useful, appears in a population, that is evolution, but not adaptation.
• If a useful mutation, such as the Milano mutation appears and spreads in a human population, that is adaptation and evolution.

Perhaps you don't know what "evolution" means in biology. What do you think it means?

(no response) I'll ask again. What do you think it means?

Speciation as biologists define it is occurring- there were not 23 species of sparrows on the Ark as previously said. Type-to-type evolution does not occur and there is no evidence of it.

Creationism is a worldview. Evolution is an observed phenomenon with a theory that explains it.

I will repeat my response to this because you do not seem to be understanding it. I do not believe that science can prove or disprove assumptions about our origins originating in special creation or Big Bang, abiogenesis -- evolution. It is easy and important to express doubt about the prevailing scientific models as the models cannot be proven by the scientific method and are held to by faith. Christianity is a worldview of which the doctrine of creation is an important part. Science is a useful toolbox with a limited scope, not a worldview. Mainly science cannot tell us about our distant origins, the parts of the universe the JWST cannot observe, and even about large areas of human nature.

the way God created living things is not a salvation issue.

Agreed. I was a Theistic Evolutionist when I was saved. It is as my understanding of scripture has grown that I shifted to a more literal approach on origins.

Yep. If you learn nothing else here, remember that evolution has nothing to do with the way life began.

God created and sustains all life. I have never been confused about that nor about the conceptual difference between Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution.

 

[The Barbarian]

And (Sololmon) apparently never made any scientific discoveries. Can you name even one?

The bible verse I quoted described the activity of collating samples, describing, and expressing wisdom

Neither can anyone else. That should be a clue for you.

Democritus, by experimentation, correctly inferred from the behavior of matter that it was made of atoms. Turns out, he was right. Air, contrary to the thinking of the time, is material and made of atoms as he concluded from his experiments.

He proved that air was material but not that it was atomic via this experiment.

He correctly inferred atoms from the evidence.

He just got lucky

He was able to make inferences from evidence. That's what science does.

Perhaps you don't know what "evolution" means in biology. What do you think it means?

(no response) I'll ask again. What do you think it means?

(no response, again)

If you don't even know what it is, how can you be sure it doesn't happen? I gave you lots of hints; it shouldn't be that hard.

Type-to-type evolution does not occur and there is no evidence of it.

Your fellow YE creationists say there is. The ones who actually know what it is. Would you like me to show you again?

I do not believe that science can prove or disprove assumptions about our origins originating in special creation or Big Bang, abiogenesis -- evolution.

So many errors there. Logical certainty is not part of science. That occurs only where you know all the rules and deduce the particulars. In science, one observes the particulars and infers the rules. And of course special creation is a modern revision of Genesis, while the Big Bang and abiogenesis have nothing to do with evolutionary theory. You're still whacking away at your own strawmen.

It is easy and important to express doubt about the prevailing scientific models as the models cannot be proven by the scientific method and are held to by faith.

Evidence. Darwin's theory was accepted because it made testable predictions that are repeatedly verified. That's how science works. I've always wondered at people who presumably accept God on faith, but act as if "faith" was an insult. It's a little window into such people's mindset.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution.
...
There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood The Truth About Evolution

God created and sustains all life. I have never been confused about that nor about the conceptual difference between Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution.

And yet you constantly conflate them here. What's that about?

 

[mindlight]

And (Sololmon) apparently never made any scientific discoveries. Can you name even one?



Neither can anyone else. That should be a clue for you.

Democritus, by experimentation, correctly inferred from the behavior of matter that it was made of atoms. Turns out, he was right. Air, contrary to the thinking of the time, is material and made of atoms as he concluded from his experiments.



He correctly inferred atoms from the evidence.



He was able to make inferences from evidence. That's what science does.

Perhaps you don't know what "evolution" means in biology. What do you think it means?

(no response) I'll ask again. What do you think it means?

(no response, again)

If you don't even know what it is, how can you be sure it doesn't happen? I gave you lots of hints; it shouldn't be that hard.



Your fellow YE creationists say there is. The ones who actually know what it is. Would you like me to show you again?



So many errors there. Logical certainty is not part of science. That occurs only where you know all the rules and deduce the particulars. In science, one observes the particulars and infers the rules. And of course special creation is a modern revision of Genesis, while the Big Bang and abiogenesis have nothing to do with evolutionary theory. You're still whacking away at your own strawmen.



Evidence. Darwin's theory was accepted because it made testable predictions that are repeatedly verified. That's how science works. I've always wondered at people who presumably accept God on faith, but act as if "faith" was an insult. It's a little window into such people's mindset.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution.
...
There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood The Truth About Evolution



And yet you constantly conflate them here. What's that about?

Your quote does not support the assertion of YE support for type to type evolution.

You persistently misunderstand or distort what I write but all of your points have been countered, put in a proper context or answered.

 

[The Barbarian]

Your quote does not support the assertion of YE support for type to type evolution.

Actually,l it does. "Type to type evolution" is just a creationist blovation, with no scientific meaning. As you now realize your fellow YE creationists, who are familiar with the evidence, admit that evolutionary theory is supported by a great deal of evidence. Here's another:

Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Perhaps you don't know what "evolution" means in biology. What do you think it means?

(no response) I'll ask again. What do you think it means?

(no response, again)

I'll ask again. What do you think it means?

(and once again, no response)

If you don't even know what it is, how do you feel competent to tell us about it?

You persistently misunderstand or distort what I write but all of your points have been countered, put in a proper context or answered.

And an unsupported claim of victory. I think we're done here.