Nope, not true. Mutations are random, from our perspective. That doesn’t mean that God cannot cause certain mutations to occur. We would have no means of detecting that. Selection certainly is not random. Again, as Christians we believe that God is guiding this process.
You are on thin ice here … supernatural, but not miraculous?
No, we don’t put much stock into “believing” when we do science. We check our hypotheses and theories against reality.
Well done, Anthony, you almost got it right. For example the whale species developed from land animals. We have at least five intermediates found in the fossil record. Difficult to say which one you want to label as new species. After finding a new fossil, paleontologists often fight over how to classify the new species, mammal-like reptile or reptile-like mammal. That’s what we call intermediate fossils.
**I lack the power to threaten anyone with eternal damnation, if not the desire.
The Genesis creation story is true in its essence, IMO, but I would not teach that in school. You are swelling my head, calling me a Pope. Finally, it should be irrelevant to scientists what I think, if it is based upon illogic, which it isn’t. **I’m pretty sure certain aspects of what gets called “evolution” are religiously motivated and have nothing to do with science, such as evolutionary psychology and the dogmatism with which Behe is treated over his idea of irreducible complexity.
I am going to stick to the evolution/creationism ban on this forum. I think it is good advice.
Behe has answered his critics with logic and precision. But to me, Estevao, all it would take for me to be skeptical of Darwinism is a reading of how the ear works. There are countless more examples. Nature cries out the majesty and awesomeness of God’s Creation. Rob :yup:
Yes,not everything that God does is a miracle. His acts of creation and his continual sustaining of nature,or divine providence,do not go against the usual course of nature.
That hypotheses and theories are tested does not mean that belief is excluded. Scientists believe in their methods and conclusions and theories.
Species that appear intermediate in regard to structure relative to other species do not thereby show that they are intermediate in the sense of having descended from prior species and led to later species. Species that appear related could have come into existence separately. It is a non sequitur to say that species are related by descent because of similar structures. The only natural means by which species can descend from prior species is reproduction. ‘Descent’ refers to reproductive relatedness.
How do you account for them, then? Or for the total lack of modern forms alongside these prior species?
This is ad-hoc thinking; you pose a complicated hypothesis because you’re opposed to the simpler theory for ideological reasons. This kind of thinking is anything but scientific.
All conclusions from empiric research are logically non-sequitur. The antecedent is inferred from the consequent. It’s similar to infer that it has rained if you observe that the street is wet. But it could just as well have been washed, or something else. However, in most places and times, it would be statistically more probable that it has rained. This is why science doesn’t really conclude, but presents probabilities. In some cases (one of them being evolution), that probability is close to 100% - but there will always be an infinitesimal chance that something comes up to disprove it - in this case, we’d have the biggest paradigm shift since heliocentrism.
It’s a lot of fuss over nothing, the regulations state, inter alia:Sad to see that the UK places greater value in the scientific method than it does raw human perspectives and opinions -as if the human imagination isn’t just as important as facts or theories. I’d go as far as to say that the human mind, with its opinions and beliefs is more valuable than statistical theories.
After all, what is the purpose of knowing any fact without having an opinion on why its important to learn it? Really, statistics and facts are merely toys for our imaginations and opinions to play with and manipulate. The UK’s got it backwards.
Believe me that millions of Americans want this non-sense out of our schools.
Of course we do but this hasn’t been a problem until relatively recently in our numerous state-funded ‘religious’ (overwhelmingly Anglican and Catholic) schools. Recent reforms, particularly in the development of what are known as ‘academies’ and ‘free schools’ (all sorts of groups can set their own schools up and get state funding) have meant that there was a danger that children could find themselves being taught ‘science’ by religious fundamentalists and it being paid for by the taxpayer. These regulations are about ending that possibility. The taxpayer will pay for ‘creation’ in religion classes but not in science classes.
Apples are still related to watermelons. They’re both fruits. Seems like even your own choice of analogy seems questionable here.
Nice, personal disclaimer. Who is deflecting now?I lack the power to threaten anyone with eternal damnation, if not the desire.
While human imagination brings us arts, music and all those other things which make life worth living, it doesn’t in itself bring computers, pacemakers, antibiotics or antiviral meds. The two first are mainly products of physics and biology (computer science/engineering being derived from physics, medicine from biology), and the two latter are results of microbiology - and not least, evolutionary biology. Every time you take that kind of medicine, you’re implicitly acknowledging the theory of evolution, whether you realize so or not.
Knowledge always has purpose, in and of itself, be it obscure languages, literature, art, weird seemingly purposeless mathematics, physics research that is not yet applicable in any way, etc. we never know the future uses such knowledge may have, and especially in the natural sciences, several important discoveries that have changed our world came from seemingly purposeless research. Your attitude is dangerous, and sadly a trait I see among many people in our time. It is a sickness to our societies - it will cause societal stagnation if it gains prominence.After all, what is the purpose of knowing any fact without having an opinion on why its important to learn it? Really, statistics and facts are merely toys for our imaginations and opinions to play with and manipulate. The UK’s got it backwards.
There are various opinions as to what creationism is. To say that it’s “anti-evolution” is disingenuous. Can science explain why life mutates to fit its surroundings? No, science claims that natural selection creates the change. It’s just not true.
I’m not faintly interested in discussions about creationism, I was merely pointing out there was no bar on discussion of such things in religion classes.
I’m assuming your untrammeled support of the scientific theory leads you also to lump all “creationists” into one wide stroke of a brush as well…? I’m sensing a click here. Are we to lead our consciences through statistical assumptions and limit the imagination? Or is the United States refusal to restrict its students to such dryness actually a breath of fresh air?