Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[mark kennedy]

Please don't get mark started on "Darwinism"... last thing we need is yet another rant from him about metaphysical naturalism.

Oh come on, you know you like my rants about the a priori assumptions of universal common descent. I think you are secretly a metaphysics buff and don't want to admit it, it's ok, you can admit it we won't judge.

 

[Silmarien]

Oh come on, you know you like my rants about the a priori assumptions of universal common descent. I think you are secretly a metaphysics buff and don't want to admit it, it's ok, you can admit it we won't judge.

How does universal common descent have a priori assumptions? As far as I'm aware, it's a theory well backed up by genetic research.

I do very little around here besides rant about metaphysical naturalism and materialism myself, but I don't see how universal common descent entails either of those things. They're a priori assumptions of most atheistic scientists, but that would only affect their interpretations, not the data itself.

 

[Doug Melven]

Nobody living on Earth today was alive when the Earth came into existence.
But, there was One alive at that time, ask Him, only He knows how the Earth came into being.

 

[mark kennedy]

How does universal common descent have a priori assumptions? As far as I'm aware, it's a theory well backed up by genetic research.

I do very little around here besides rant about metaphysical naturalism and materialism myself, but I don't see how universal common descent entails either of those things. They're a priori assumptions of most atheistic scientists, but that would only affect their interpretations, not the data itself.

Indeed the evidence is neutral with regards to the origin of life. The a priori assumption is about universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic causes. God is excluded from the causal chain.

 

[Hank77]

Spurgeon, wouldn't probably make an impression on most of you but he does for many other Protestants. He said,[paraphrased] that the earth was thousands, even millions of years old and that over that time God would create many different types of animals and some would die out before he ever created man.
See Sermons 30 and 41-42. at the New Park Street Pulpit.
Spurgeon Sermons, Complete Set of Sermons by C. H. Spurgeon

The earth is very, very old and the universe even older, God is eternal. Animals lived, animals died over a very, very long period of ages, God is eternal. God created.

 

[Silmarien]

Indeed the evidence is neutral with regards to the origin of life. The a priori assumption is about universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic causes. God is excluded from the causal chain.

Ah, alright. I'm a bit of a part-time Thomist these days, so I would exclude God from the causal chain as well. He's the reason that causality exists at all, not just another instance of it, so I would expect abiogenesis to be true for theological reasons.

We need to find better ways to describe the various positions.

 

[sfs]

So I'm must making up the laws of inheritance attributed to the rediscovery of Mendel's paper? No law of thermodynamics?

No, those are exactly the kind of thing I was just talking about: simple relationships, established at an earlier time in the history of science, without an explanatory mechanism.

Now, if you believe that, 'all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition', then you are Darwinian in your worldview.

Allow me to rephrase: I don't care what you mean by Darwinism, but common descent by means of mutation and natural selection is very much science.

To date I have nothing but problems with every aspect of universal common descent

What matters is that scientists have no problem with universal common descent.

 

[sfs]

Do you mean Benedict or Francis?

Both.

 

[pitabread]

Oh come on, you know you like my rants about the a priori assumptions of universal common descent. I think you are secretly a metaphysics buff and don't want to admit it, it's ok, you can admit it we won't judge.

Nope, not gonna do it...

 

[mark kennedy]

No, those are exactly the kind of thing I was just talking about: simple relationships, established at an earlier time in the history of science, without an explanatory mechanism.

Yet the laws of inheritance are solid scientific principles, despite your objections to the semantics of describing them as laws of science.

Allow me to rephrase: I don't care what you mean by Darwinism, but common descent by means of mutation and natural selection is very much science.

There has to be a better explanation for adaptive evolution then mutations.

What matters is that scientists have no problem with universal common descent.

Of course I agree that matters, just not all that matters Steve.

 

[mark kennedy]

Both.

I wasn't aware Pope Francis made that many remarks but I'm well aware of Pope Benedict and he upheld in no uncertain terms that Adam and Ever were are our first parents.

 

[mark kennedy]

Nope, not gonna do it...

Come on, you know you want to.

 

[sfs]

There has to be a better explanation for adaptive evolution then mutations.

Scientists disagree.

Yet the laws of inheritance are solid scientific principles, despite your objections to the semantics of describing them as laws of science.

Of course I agree that matters, just not all that matters Steve.

It's all that matters when the question is whether evolutionary biology is science or not.

 

[sfs]

I wasn't aware Pope Francis made that many remarks but I'm well aware of Pope Benedict and he upheld in no uncertain terms that Adam and Ever were are our first parents.

So?

 

[mark kennedy]

Scientists disagree.

Yep, to some extent but they are finding a lot of interesting molecular mechanisms that facilitate adaptive evolution without mutation plus selection. Ever hear of the CRISPR gene?

It's all that matters when the question is whether evolutionary biology is science or not.

I don't think there is any question that evolutionary biology is science, the question is whether or not universal common descent is science or supposition, and at what point there is a departure.

 

[mark kennedy]

So?

So nothing, Pope Benedict didn't give evolution a ringing endoresement and had grave warnings that there were limits to what Catholics could believe regarding evolution. Creation is essential doctrine, sacred ground should be treaded upon lightly.

 

[inquiring mind]

Spurgeon, wouldn't probably make an impression on most of you but he does for many other Protestants. He said,[paraphrased] that the earth was thousands, even millions of years old and that over that time God would create many different types of animals and some would die out before he ever created man.
See Sermons 30 and 41-42. at the New Park Street Pulpit.
Spurgeon Sermons, Complete Set of Sermons by C. H. Spurgeon

The earth is very, very old and the universe even older, God is eternal. Animals lived, animals died over a very, very long period of ages, God is eternal. God created.

Thanks for the Spurgeon Sermons link.

 

[Hank77]

I wasn't aware Pope Francis made that many remarks but I'm well aware of Pope Benedict and he upheld in no uncertain terms that Adam and Ever were are our first parents.

Have you read what Spurgeon said?

 

[sfs]

Yep, to some extent but they are finding a lot of interesting molecular mechanisms that facilitate adaptive evolution without mutation plus selection. Ever hear of the CRISPR gene?

Yes, I've heard of CRISPR. Our institute currently holds the US patent on the application of CRISPR to humans. It has nothing to do with universal common descent.

I don't think there is any question that evolutionary biology is science, the question is whether or not universal common descent is science or supposition, and at what point there is a departure.

There is no question whatever that universal common descent is a scientific conclusion. If you think otherwise, you don't understand the issue.

 

[sfs]

So nothing, Pope Benedict didn't give evolution a ringing endoresement and had grave warnings that there were limits to what Catholics could believe regarding evolution.

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.” Pope Benedict had no problem with the scientific theory of evolution. According to the poster I was responding to, that must mean he was confused about his Christian faith.

Creation is essential doctrine, sacred ground should be treaded upon lightly.

I have never seen any Christian argue that creation is not an essential doctrine.