L
LightSeaker
Guest
Those who follow theistic evolution see the hand of God at work in His Creation. Those who are godless, do not see the hand of God at work.
.
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.
Those who follow theistic evolution see the hand of God at work in His Creation. Those who are godless, do not see the hand of God at work.Again I ask, how is the Godless ToE any different than theistic evolution?
Again I ask, how is the Godless ToE any different than theistic evolution?
Once God finished His work of creating unique plants and creatures over time, God continues working within His created creatures via miracles, especially the miracle of the new birth for those created in God's image.
I too see the hand of God totally at work in His Creation from the start to the finish, but we seem to differ greatly when it comes theistic evolution which believes God worked thru Darwin's ToE.Those who follow theistic evolution see the hand of God at work in His Creation. Those who are godless, do not see the hand of God at work.
When it comes to validating "IF" God's created life evolved via Darwin's ToE, this is beyond the purview of science to determine.
Blessings
And thus it does reject the supernatural as an explanation. To exclude from consideration is to reject from consideration.Actually, science does not reject the supernatural either. As far as science is concerned the supernatural may or may not exist.
But because the supernatural is not empirically testable, it is excluded from scientific consideration.
When it comes to validating "IF" God's created life evolved via Darwin's ToE, this is beyond the purview of science to determine.
Blessings
Quite easy. If something is empirically testable, then it is natural.But a natural explanation is no legitimate explanation at all unless you
can differentiate between the natural and the supernatural.
Circular reasoning, btw. How do you know that the so called *natural*
even exists? apart from the supernatural? Let's start with a basic
understanding of natural ORDER and where does it originate?
Science just assumes it is not. This is why science, at best, gives out empirical truths, not absolute truths.How do you know that what you consider to just be *natural* is not
actually the result of the so called *supernatural?* How do you know
that when you are "testing something" - that you are not testing and
order that is sustained supernaturally? By what right do you limit the
creation to being merely *natural* and eliminate God's supernatural
sustaining power?
People are more than just scientist. Most people have some esoteric beliefs, even some atheist (just 'There exist God/a god/gods/ect.' is not one of them).What about scientists who do NOT take a circular approach to *natural?*
There are a number of assumptions which there are no justification for no matter how you look at it, just most people accept these axioms. This applies to the natural sciences and to the supernatural.What about scientists who claim that scientific observation CAN INDEED
lead to theistic implication because you do not need to employ circular
reasoning and LIMIT science to the study of what is claimed to be
natural...you don't need to limit yourself to materialistic and naturalistic
explanations (which may not exist) because this is circular reasoning -
natural assumptions = natural conclusions with no justification for
natural itself.
Yet there is never a case of it leading to theistic implication. The mere fact 'we don't know how it happened' does not lead to 'God/some theistic being did it.'What about scientists who take a more logical viewpoint and say that
if the evidence via deduction leads to theistic implication, then theistic
conclusion is actually more scientific than limiting your view of science?
I remember the story. But this is not scientifically testable evidence unless we consider the Bible a science book, is an even bigger can or worms.I remember there was at least one instance of God being tested in the Bible, in order to show that this other bunch of people were worshipping the wrong God. Once the test for the other people's God had failed and the test for the Biblical god had succeeded, the ible God guys killed the "false god" people. I'm afraid I can't remember the exact verse.
Science makes no such great distinction.When in comes to inanimate matter, we can validate to a high degree of accuracy many of the scientific laws that govern God's inanimate matter.
But when it comes to animate matter, we can only validate to a high degree of accuracy some of the scientific laws that govern God's created life as it now exists.
And thus it does reject the supernatural as an explanation. To exclude from consideration is to reject from consideration.
Please reread that. You say science makes no claim either way in the very claim which science is making. That is recursive fail.No, it is not.
The way science EXCLUDES the supernatural is by saying: "The supernatural is not empirically testable, so we can make no claim about it either way, positive or negative."
It says 'for as far as we are concerned, the supernatural does not exist (because it cannot be tested)'. If that does not count as rejection, what does?The way the supernatural would be REJECTED is if science said "There is no supernatural." Such is not the claim of science.
Please reread that. You say science makes no claim either way in the very claim which science is making. That is recursive fail.
It says 'for as far as we are concerned, the supernatural does not exist (because it cannot be tested)'. If that does not count as rejection, what does?
And thus it does reject the supernatural as an explanation. To exclude from consideration is to reject from consideration.
Perhaps I don't understand your terms. By tested to failure, do you mean put thru a test it failed, or never been put thru a test that would specifically fail it?Metherion
Copyright: Reasons.orgAre Biologists Willing To Test Evolution?
The Fact and Theory of Evolution
You dont need to be a scientist to know that theres a big difference between physics and biology. But you probably do need to be a scientist to be familiar with a subtle, but critical distinction between these two disciplines.
Physicists are very quick to challenge the central theories and assumptions of modern physics. Biologists, however, are unwilling to do the same.
As Jeff Zweerink described yesterday in his TNRTB entry, physicists recently tested one of the fundamental assumptions of general relativity, the Lorentz Invariance principle. Even though general relativity is considered by many to be one of the best-established principles in all of science, physicists seem to delight in any opportunity to prove it wrong.
This situation stands in sharp contrast to the way that evolutionary biologists interact with the theory of evolution. They steadfastly refuse to even entertain the possibility that this paradigm for lifes origin and history might somehow be unfounded.
Evolutionary biologists, in order to avoid any critical evaluation of the validity of biological evolution, hide behind the statement attributed to the famous geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky thatNothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.Yet, one could maintain that nothing in physics makes sense except in light of general relativity (and quantum mechanics). Somehow this doesnt prevent physicists from ruthlessly pursuing ways to falsify one of the cornerstone ideas in their discipline.
Evolutionary biologists, most certainly, would protest any characterization that intimates at their reluctance to test biological evolution. They maintain that the theory of evolution is subjected to ongoing, critical evaluation.
Evolution is both a Theory and a Fact
In his book, The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism paleontologist Niles Eldredge represents most evolutionary biologists when he states thatThe common expression evolutionary theory actually refers to two rather different sets of ideas: (1) the notion that absolutely all organisms living on the face of the Earth right now are descended from a single common ancestor, and (2) ideas of how the evolutionary process works - Creationists love to gloss over this rather clear-cut, simple distinction between the idea that (1) life has evolved, and the sets of ideas on (2) how the evolutionary process actually works. (page 24)In other words, Eldredge and other evolutionary biologists maintain that evolution is both a fact and a theory. That it occurred is the fact. How it occurred is the theory. Biologists actively debate and critically assess evolutions mechanism, but they insist this debate shouldnt be interpreted to indicate that the fact of evolution is on uncertain footing. They see no reason to test that evolution occurred.
Generally, evolutionary biologists point to two main lines of evidence to support evolutions status as fact. The first is the shared anatomical features possessed by organisms. Biologists use these common characteristics to group organisms into nested clusters or hierarchies.
Evolutionists take this pattern to indicate that life descended with modification from a common ancestor. In other words, they take this to indicate that life evolved. The second line of evidence is the fossil record, which shows that different life-forms existed on Earth at different times in its history and reveals a progression from simple to complex organisms.
But does this evidence necessarily compel evolution? It is a far cry from the quantitative certainty that physicists have about general relativity.
The nested clusters could easily reflect the handiwork of a Creator who chose to employ a common blueprint and reuse many of the same design elements. Accordingly, evolutions common ancestor is replaced by an archetype that exists in Gods mind. As for the fossil record, again this finds ready explanation. As indicated in the Genesis 1 and Psalm 104 creation accounts, the Creator transformed the planet and brought life into existence in a purposefully progressive fashion. This progression includes the creation of different life-forms at different eras in Earths history. Hence, the fossil records features find explanation.
If other models can logically account for the data from the fossil record and the patterns observed among living organisms, then why does a segment of the scientific community view that evolution occurred as fact and not a theory? Philip Johnson, one of the founders of the Intelligent Design Movement, argues that the contemporary scientific enterprise is inextricably intertwined with the philosophical position called naturalism.
According to this system of thought, reality exclusively consists of the physical, material universe. Nothing exists beyond the universe. In other words, naturalism rejects the possibility of the supernatural and miracles. This means that science in the naturalistic framework must explain the universe and all phenomena within it exclusively through natural-process cause and effect.
If science is cast within the naturalistic paradigm, then the fossil record, which shows different life forms at different eras and a progression of organisms from simple to complex, must mean that life transformed from one form into another through natural means alone. It means that evolution is a fact. The philosophical assumptions of contemporary science force the fact of evolution, not the evidence at hand, necessarily. Natural process evolution must be a fact, since the philosophy of naturalism, by definition, will not allow supernatural explanations. No other choices are philosophically permitted. Evolution is a fact only if naturalism is embraced.
Other philosophical and theological positions allow for the fact of evolution, but also keep open the possibility that supernatural explanations may account for features of life and aspects of its natural history. For biologists to establish evolution as a fact within this broader context, the theory must withstand the rigors of scientific testing. Within a framework that allows for supernatural causation, that evolution occurred, like all scientific ideas, is provisional and must be constantly evaluated with each new discovery and in juxtaposition to alternative theories.
An approach to science that leaves open the possible involvement of a Creator aligns much more closely to the exemplary practice of physicists in their unending quest to falsify general relativity. A theistic paradigm applied to science spawns an intellectual milieu that allows both the fact and the theory of evolution to be analytically gauged.
Natural process evolution must be a fact, since the philosophy of naturalism, by definition, will not allow supernatural explanations. No other choices are philosophically permitted. Evolution is a fact only if naturalism is embraced.
Biologists actively debate and critically assess evolution’s mechanism, but they insist this debate shouldn’t be interpreted to indicate that the fact of evolution is on uncertain footing. They see no reason to test that evolution occurred.
What I'm saying is that science "CANNOT" determine to a high degree of accuracy, as it can with the studies of many inanimate materials, if God worked thru life evolving from the first created life form to the various species we can study in the fossil records, or if God created fully formed plant and animal species every step of the way.Not too sure what you are saying here.
Is the issue whether species evolve or whether evolution is the process outlined in the theory of evolution? Or some other question entirely.
As far as I can see the only question beyond the purview of science to determine is whether God sustains evolution.
That evolution happens and how it happens are well within the parameters of scientific observation.
What I'm saying is that science "CANNOT" determine to a high degree of accuracy, as it can with the studies of many inanimate materials, if God worked thru life evolving from the first created life form to the various species we can study in the fossil records, or if God created fully formed plant and animal species every step of the way.
We can only study animate life as it exists today, and determine to a high degree of accuracy how plant, animal, and human life works today. Science cannot determine to a high degree of accuracy how animate life came to be or if it evolved by studying the fossil records.
Those who believe in Darwin's ToE have repeated their mantra so profusely that they now consider it fact, even believing that it's a determined scientific fact.
Do creatures change over time? They certainly do! Just look at how humans have changed since Noah's family. But we are all still humans with a soul and spirit. I don't see any evidence that humans are somehow evolving into a new species, except the "new creation man" created in the Lord Jesus Christ.
So you know for a certainty that God's created life that shown up in the fossil records evolved through various stages, that God did not create fully formed species every step of the way, and that science has proven this to you to a high degree of accuracy!!!
My friend, you are sadly mistaken, and you do not know how true scientific facts are determined.
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?