Theistic Evolution is Weak Scientism

[Job 33:6]

In another thread, the theistic evolutionists (TE) admitted that TE is not science. So, is it a religion-based worldview? It would seem so.

Yes, theistic evolution is a religious or faith based position that God has used evolution in the creation of life.

• So, I look to the confidence level one ought to assign to atheistic claims (AE) for macroevolution.

Atheists deny belief in God. Which would also be a faith based position. Regardless of what they believe about biological sciences.

• AE's claim: all life evolved from earlier forms through natural, undirected processes—primarily natural selection and mutation.
• Do AE's have a settled science? No. There own scientists see the explanatory gaps in neo-Darwinism based on observed phenomena (EES).

All theories have gaps. Whether it's atomic theory, germ theory, the Big bang theory, the theory of gravity or general relativity, the theory of plate tectonics, among others. But the theory of evolution is still the reigning theory in terms of explanatory mechanisms that relate to descent with modification. All science is provisionary and one day a newer or better theory may supercede the current theory of evolution. But as it stands, this is what we have. And at the time being, roughly 98% of biologists, both theists and atheists, agree that the theory of evolution is an accurate reflection of how life developed over time, even if it isn't perfect and contains gaps like every other theory.

 

[o_mlly]

To take the kindest interpretation, maybe English isn't your first language.

Scientists have observed nuclear fusion in the lab and they've observed macroevolution. Maybe if you diagrammed both sentences, it would be clearer for you. Now you'll likely quibble. But it won't help you. This kind of behavior might feel good in the moment, but then everyone sees it and they draw conclusions. And you can't take it back. If it was based on not understanding English grammar, this would be a good time for you to tell us.

As predicted ... you may post your quibble on the other thread.

Science does not and cannot include conclusions about the supernatural.

Biologists, whether atheistic, theistic, deistic, or whatever, can all do science, because suppositions about the supernatural are not part of science.

That's better, but unfortunately not by much.

I see you have a firm grasp of the obvious. But you forgot to relate your comment to the argument. I warned you about that mental problem you're experiencing.

Ok, so, high definition scans of both fossils literally still inside their original rock matrix, as well as reconstructions. And, I've also pointed out direct high definition photographs of the fossils literally still in their matrix, in the original articles.

The bases are covered. The only thing left to do is to literally go to the fossil collection itself to see first hand. And if that is your standard of belief, then it is no wonder you doubt that these fossils exist. The fossils are readily visible, they aren't imaginary or whatever it is you're proposing that they are.

Wrong thread. Please stop trying to derail my thread. Do you have a counter argument?

 

[The Barbarian]

As predicted ... you may post your quibble on the other thread.

As I said, it may be that you don't understand English grammar very well. Learn from it and go on.

I see you have a firm grasp of the obvious.

The issue is, you do not. You still confuse religious beliefs with scientific theories.

But you forgot to relate your comment to the argument. I warned you about that mental problem you're experiencing.

Abandoning any attempt to debate the evidence and focusing on the Evil Barbarian is a bad idea, if you want to be taken seriously. It might be better for you to spend a little time reading so you could understand the difference between religious beliefs (such as YEC and theistic evolution) and scientific theories like evolutionary theory.

It hasn't gone well for you. But it could. For example you might stand up and answer the question you keep dodging. Which of the four points of Darwinian theory have been refuted. Show your evidence.

 

[o_mlly]

Yes, theistic evolution is a religious or faith based position that God has used evolution in the creation of life.

Atheists deny belief in God. Which would also be a faith based position. Regardless of what they believe about biological sciences.


All theories have gaps. Whether it's atomic theory, germ theory, the Big bang theory, the theory of gravity or general relativity, the theory of plate tectonics, among others. But the theory of evolution is still the reigning theory in terms of explanatory mechanisms that relate to descent with modification. All science is provisionary and one day a newer or better theory may supercede the current theory of evolution. But as it stands, this is what we have. And at the time being, roughly 98% of biologists, both theists and atheists, agree that the theory of evolution is an accurate reflection of how life developed over time, even if it isn't perfect and contains gaps like every other theory.

At last! Good, thanks.

So, since TE is not science TE claims are based on faith. Faith is belief in things unseen. Therefore, TE has no basis to depart from the literal interpretations of scripture.

As to gaps: To take the earlier example of a theory, the shape of the moon is spherical. As a theory, the gaps in that claim are minimal as we have repeated direct observations, all experts are in agreement, all evidence supports, none refutes. We can label that theory as settled science.

Do you claim that the current evolution theory has the same status? I think not. We do not have direct observations of macroevolution (despite unsupported claims by one), all experts are not in agreement. As to the preponderance of evidence, some has been fraudulent, some suggestive, but none definitive. The confidence level is insufficient to deny the revealed truth in scripture.

Take the plentiful evidence of microevolution -- deviation within a kind -- and scripture tells that story quite well.

11 And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants[e] yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind.​

​

21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.​

​

24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.​

 

[o_mlly]

As I said, it may be that you don't understand English grammar very well. Learn from it and go on.

The issue is, you do not. You still confuse religious beliefs with scientific theories.

Abandoning any attempt to debate the evidence and focusing on the Evil Barbarian is a bad idea, if you want to be taken seriously. It might be better for you to spend a little time reading so you could understand the difference between religious beliefs (such as YEC and theistic evolution) and scientific theories like evolutionary theory.

It hasn't gone well for you. But it could. For example you might stand up and answer the question you keep dodging. Which of the four points of Darwinian theory have been refuted. Show your evidence.

Time for some more tea and doggy petting, it seems. Get a grip!

 

[The Barbarian]

If you had actual immediate ancestors it would be evidence. But the fossil record does not have that ability as "a feature".

Honest YECs disagree with you. Would you like me to show you again?

You don't get single mutation to produce many fully formed organs, changes, features.

So we see in the fossil record. We see that sort of thing gradually forming over many generations. The notion that science says otherwise is YEC imagination.

They show a mixture of traits (as if specimens were ARRANGED on a table for display) without actually proving that one thing gave rise to another

It's not merely that we see more and more transitional fossils found where evolutionary theory predicts. Perhaps even more importantly, we never see such transitions where the theory does not predict them. No bats with feathers; no whales with gills. It's a devastating problem for YEC, one that YEC Dr. Kurt Wise acknowledges, while believing that a reasonable YE interpretation might yet be found.

 

[The Barbarian]

So, since TE is not science TE claims are based on faith. Faith is belief in things unseen. Therefore, TE has no basis to depart from the literal interpretations of scripture.

It merely accepts scripture as it is, as opposed to YEC, which revises God's word to make it more acceptable to some.

As to gaps: To take the earlier example of a theory, the shape of the moon is spherical. As a theory, the gaps in that claim are minimal as we have repeated direct observations, all experts are in agreement, all evidence supports, none refutes. We can label that theory as settled science.

And now, let's go to Darwin's theory. Which of his four points of evolutionary theory have not been verified? If you can honestly answer that you will understand why those points are as certain as the spherical moon. Ready to step up and tell us?

Time for some more tea and doggy petting, it seems. Get a grip!

You certainly must realize why we know you won't answer the question. Why not just answer and be done with it?

 

[The Barbarian]

Take the plentiful evidence of microevolution -- deviation within a kind -- and scripture tells that story quite well.

11 And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants[e] yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind.21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.

The Bible says that bats and birds are a kind.
Leviticus 11:13 Of birds these are they which you must not eat, and which are to be avoided by you: The eagle, and the griffon, and the osprey, 14 And the kite, and the vulture, according to their kind, 15 And all that is of the raven kind, according to their likeness. 16 The ostrich, and the owl, and the larus, and the hawk according to its kind. 17 The screech owl, and the cormorant, and the ibis, 18 And the swan, and the bittern, and the porphyrion, 19 The heron, and the charadrion according to its kind, the houp also, and the bat.
So your belief defines "microevolution" as evolution of new species, genera, families, orders, and classes of organisms. That's quite a retreat. Back up just a bit more, and you won't have anything to fight science for.

 

[o_mlly]

You certainly must realize why we know you won't answer the question. Why not just answer and be done with it?

We? Do you mean you and your dog?

If you continue to try and derail this thread I'll be forced to report you to the moderator.

 

[The Barbarian]

Experts aren’t debating whether Tiktaalik is transitional; they just note that the full fin-to-foot evolution involved multiple steps, which is normal in paleontology. If you want the mainstream scientific perspective, the original research papers (Daeschler et al., 2006; PNAS 2024 Tiktaalik axial skeleton study) show the fossil evidence and how it fits the fin-to-limb story.

The genetic evidence shows that embryological development is consistent with the paleontological and anatomical evidence:

Evo-Devo of the Fin-to-Limb Transition​

Abstract​

Tetrapod limbs evolved from paired fins. Although the limbs and fins share similar sets of tissue components, structure, and developmental processes, some characteristics of the skeletal morphology of fins are distinct from those of limbs. Fin rays, the distal-most components of the fin, consist of several types of tissues not seen in tetrapods. The fin ray skeletons of teleosts have the same developmental origin (lateral plate mesoderm, LPM) as that of the basal endoskeleton that also develops in the fin bud. The ectodermal jacket of the fin bud has a ridge along the dorsoventral border called the apical ectodermal ridge (AER), which elongates into the apical fold (AF) during development. Tetrapod limb buds never undergo this transformation, suggesting that epithelial changes might be the key to understanding the evolutionary developmental mechanism behind the fin-to-limb transition. The epithelial transformation involves a change in cell shape, which may have played a role in the fin-to-limb evolution.

Evo-Devo of the Fin-to-Limb Transition

Tetrapod limbs evolved from paired fins. Although the limbs and fins share similar sets of tissue components, structure, and developmental processes, some characteristics of the skeletal morphology of fins are distinct from those of limbs. Fin rays, the distal-most...

link.springer.com

 

[o_mlly]

The Bible says that bats and birds are a kind.

Yes. Both are sentient creatures.

 

[The Barbarian]

If you continue to try and derail this thread I'll be forced to report you to the moderator.

We'll just note that you are unable or unwilling to answer the question and move on.

 

[The Barbarian]

Take the plentiful evidence of microevolution -- deviation within a kind -- and scripture tells that story quite well.

The Bible says that bats and birds are a kind.
Leviticus 11:13 Of birds these are they which you must not eat, and which are to be avoided by you: The eagle, and the griffon, and the osprey, 14 And the kite, and the vulture, according to their kind, 15 And all that is of the raven kind, according to their likeness. 16 The ostrich, and the owl, and the larus, and the hawk according to its kind. 17 The screech owl, and the cormorant, and the ibis, 18 And the swan, and the bittern, and the porphyrion, 19 The heron, and the charadrion according to its kind, the houp also, and the bat.
So your belief defines "microevolution" as evolution of new species, genera, families, orders, and classes of organisms. That's quite a retreat. Back up just a bit more, and you won't have anything to fight science for.

Yes. Both are sentient creatures.

So now you accept that evolution is limited to new sentient creatures? What is your evidence that only vertebrates are sentient and that birds and bats have a common ancestor?

 

[o_mlly]

This error (accidental differentiation) allows microevolved life forms to beget branches as if these horizontal changes were vertical. "Kinds" refers to essential differences. The Tree of Life would be better described as the biblical Forest of Life. It seems to me that classical categories (for the most part, biblical as well) of germ, vegetative, sentient, and rational life are better trees than the evo's. Gain of function is better explained as a special act of intelligent creation rather than a random event of nature.

So your belief defines "microevolution" as evolution of new species, genera, families, orders, and classes of organisms. That's quite a retreat. Back up just a bit more, and you won't have anything to fight science for.

So now you accept that evolution is limited to new sentient creatures? What is your evidence that only vertebrates are sentient and that birds and bats have a common ancestor?

Please pay better attention to the argument. See above.

 

[o_mlly]

Tree of Life

 

[The Barbarian]

Take the plentiful evidence of microevolution -- deviation within a kind -- and scripture tells that story quite well.

So your belief defines "microevolution" as evolution of new species, genera, families, orders, and classes of organisms. That's quite a retreat. Back up just a bit more, and you won't have anything to fight science for.
So now you accept that evolution is limited to new sentient creatures? What is your evidence that only vertebrates are sentient and that birds and bats have a common ancestor?

The Tree of Life would be better described as the biblical Forest of Life.

Genetics shows otherwise. The genetic evidence shows common descent to be a fact. And we know this works because we can compare the genes of organisms of known descent.

It seems to me that classical categories (for the most part, biblical as well) of germ, vegetative, sentient, and rational life are better trees than the evo's.

Of course, that system says bats are birds. You've confused the Biblical divisions which are overtly functional, with taxonomic and phylogenetic classifications. In the Bible, bats are classified as birds because they fly. That doesn't mean that the Bible says that bats and birds are taxonomically a group to the exclusion of other mammals.. YECs attempt to fit functional classifications into taxonomic ones, and the logical contradictions are clear.

 

[The Barbarian]

Tree of Life

The interesting thing is, the "tree of life" predated evolutionary theory. It was first noted as a sort of bush by Linnaeus, who did not have a theory of evolution to explain it. He assumed some variation of the "great chain of being." Only after Darwin, was the data, showing a bush of life, understood to be an actual family tree. Much later, genetics confirmed the fact. And even molecular biology shows the same family tree; very conserved molecules like cytochrome C show slight variations, but line up according to evolutionary phylogenies.

 

[River Jordan]

It really is something to watch people who know the least about a subject (not even at a high school level) think that they are the world's foremost experts in it.

Weapons-grade Dunning-Kruger Effect. Wow.

 

[River Jordan]

What adds fuel to this is anti-religious fundamentalists also ignore the existence of mediating positions and act as if the only options are to hold to a contrafactual faith or to accept scientific modeling unmolested.

Their tendency to binary thinking really limits them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It really is something to watch people who know the least about a subject (not even at a high school level) think that they are the world's foremost experts in it.

Weapons-grade Dunning-Kruger Effect. Wow.

Yeah, it is irksome, but both cultural historians and neuroscientists often explain why this is a common pattern and why it's not just an issue for Johnny-come-lately. Most folks out there don't trust Biologists or Philosophers, especially these days where the Bible is concerned. They trust their pastors, though.

Oh, wait. You're a pastor, too ....