Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[Metis1]

BTW, random mutations are hardly outside of nature as nature itself is variable because of the physical and chemical reactions and the myriads of possible combinations that could occur.

Speaking of which, does God cause birth defects and miscarriages? Why would a loving God intentionally wish to kill or maim a baby? Is God going to punish or kill the baby because of Adam and Eve? How does that make any sense whatsoever? How would that in any way make God a loving God?

Instead, what makes much more sense to me is that when God made all and said it was “good”, He intentionally did not make it “perfect” so that Earth would be ours to make or break. In this way, we become co-creators with God, although we’re not obviously on par with Him.

 

[Rubee]

And who is to say that God couldn’t use a natural process like evolution to make life? The evolution of our universe dating back to at least 13.7 billion years ago indicates that our universe evolved, so why is it somehow illogical that life evolved with it?

He could have. But that’s not the claim I’ve seen put forth here by those who claim to believe it. What they claim is that these things are both truly random and God-made, which is a violation of the law of non-contradiction. Something is either made deliberately by God or it’s random because no-God.

Belief in God excludes any idea of true randomness. The most you can say is that things only appear random to us but they cannot be, ultimately. Otherwise you’d be positing a reality that somehow exists beyond God’s creative act which is a denial of basic monotheism.

Nothing can have being that has not been granted it by Being himself; that has not been foreseen and ordained to be, by Being himself. It’s impossible to be without the say-so of Being.

 

[edwest]

Well said.

 

[buffalo]

Can you tell us who they are and what they have found so far?

And what happened to the question about God recognising Adam? Where was that meant to go? You can’t ask it and then ignore the answer.

Let’s start here. Are their any limits to evolution?

I asked and no one responded. If someone did please point me to the post.

 

[buffalo]

Also, quoting an i.d. source as if it’s actual science is nonsense because i.d. assumes a creator-god and then hunts for some confirmation whereas there’s none in reality. IOW, it’s a supposed “answer” looking for confirmation, which is not how the scientific method is to be done.

Let’s say you live in a box with no windows or doors. All you can see or sense is what is inside the box (methodological naturalism)

You put forward some ideas of your observations inside the box.

One day you hear a voice from outside the box telling you that you are in error and you need to reexamine your conclusions based on the new information you just heard.

1. Should you just ignore what you just heard?
   or
2. Use the information you just heard?

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Can you tell us who they are and what they have found so far?

And what happened to the question about God recognising Adam? Where was that meant to go? You can’t ask it and then ignore the answer.

Let’s start here. Are their any limits to evolution?

I asked and no one responded. If someone did please point me to the post.

Of course there are. There are physical limits contraining all organisms.

What was the repsonse to ‘Yes, God know what Adam would look like’?

 

[Bradskii]

Metis1:

Also, quoting an i.d. source as if it’s actual science is nonsense because i.d. assumes a creator-god and then hunts for some confirmation whereas there’s none in reality. IOW, it’s a supposed “answer” looking for confirmation, which is not how the scientific method is to be done.

Let’s say you live in a box with no windows or doors. All you can see or sense is what is inside the box (methodological naturalism)

You put forward some ideas of your observations inside the box.

One day you hear a voice from outside the box telling you that you are in error and you need to reexamine your conclusions based on the new information you just heard.

1. Should you just ignore what you just heard?
   or
2. Use the information you just heard?

You ignore it until you can verify that whoever is outside the box knows what she is talking about.

 

[Vonsalza]

Let’s say you live in a box with no windows or doors. All you can see or sense is what is inside the box (methodological naturalism)

You put forward some ideas of your observations inside the box.

One day you hear a voice from outside the box telling you that you are in error and you need to reexamine your conclusions based on the new information you just heard.

1. Should you just ignore what you just heard?
   or
2. Use the information you just heard?

My first reaction would be “Did anyone else hear that?”

I’d see what the consensus was among my peers.

 

[buffalo]

And equating religious faith and the scientific method as somehow being the same is ridiculous as pretty much any good elementary student should be able to tell.

Except for the areas of intersect where both must be true.

 

[Bradskii]

Metis1:

And equating religious faith and the scientific method as somehow being the same is ridiculous as pretty much any good elementary student should be able to tell.

Except for the areas of intersect where both must be true.

If you think they overlap then good for you. I’m not sure why anyone would object to you holding those beliefs. In fact, I would object most strenuously if you were not able to hold them.

But where they do not overlap is in the classroom. Science in the classroom, God in the church and any discussion on any perceived overlap in the philosophy department should you be so inclined (you might notice in which section this topic is being discussed - neither in science or theology).

 

[rossum]

Let’s say you live in a box with no windows or doors. All you can see or sense is what is inside the box (methodological naturalism)

We can look a little way outside the box, see The Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer for an example.

If something outside the box has an effect inside the box, then that effect can be measured. In your example, the ‘voice’ is moving air molecules so your ears can hear a sound.

Science looks at any and all effects inside the box, including the effects of prayers to gods.

Most academic subjects live in their own boxes. You would not expect a maths teacher to give a lesson on the Franco-Prussian War of 1871. Any subject that specialises is in effect in a box. When was that last time a theology professor gave a lecture on how to conjugate French irregular verbs.

 

[Edgar]

I don’t see why a theory is atheist just because God isn’t mentioned as a cause.

I didn’t say it’s an “atheist” explanation; I said it’s a “godless” explanation. The point being, a godless explanation for God’s creative acts is bound to be grossly inadequate, worthless and wrong. So the scientific (godless) explanation for the history of life is grossly inadequate, worthless and almost certainly wrong. imo. It’s as pointless and futile as trying to explain how a car came into existence without including the (name removed by moderator)ut of humans.

 

[Edgar]

Another argument from incredulity.

Okay, but so what? A scientific theory can’t be rejected on the basis that it’s doesn’t make logical sense and is therefore unbelievable?
What is your argument for rejecting the miracles described in the Gospels? Incredulity. What is the most common argument against creation on athesit sites? “Oh, creation is nonsense because God can’t just instantly ‘poof’ an entire organism into existence.” Incredulity.

These two comments contradict one another.

Scientifically speaking, you may have a point, but I wasn’t speaking scientifically. It’ s no different to saying, “Only divine intervention can account for a virgin giving birth.”

 

[buffalo]

If you think they overlap then good for you.

In the very first line of Genesis
In the beginning (time)
God created
the heavens (space)
and the earth (matter)

Science agrees (and only recently)

 

[buffalo]

If something outside the box has an effect inside the box,

I would agree that Revelation has definitely had an effect inside the box.

 

[Edgar]

Well, to be fair, there’s a hint in the name. The “T” in “ToE”.

Tell that to the hordes who believe it’s a scientific fact.

Are there still questions? Absolutely. But that doesn’t negate the fact that it’s still the best theory standing.

I agree that it’s the best scientific explanation. The problem is it’s a very poor explanation. Where are all the transitionals that evolution predicts? They haven’t been found - in other words, and for all intents and purposes, the predicted fossil evidence doesn’t exist. When and if all those necessary transitionals appear, ONLY THEN do have the fossil evidence. A scientific theory that rests on hoped-for and imaginary evidence is a farce, which means evolutionary biology has a massive problem when it comes to intellectual integrity.

And as far as transitionals? Literally every species that has ever been found is a “transitional”.

A popular but weak argument.
Evolutionary theory states that at any point in time, there will exist transitionals. So which organisms today exhibit evolutionary transition - ie, partially-formed organs, limbs or other bits and pieces of anatomy?

We’ve been pulling these things out of the rocks for so long now that there aren’t any species I’m aware of that are a total evolutionary mystery.

Ever heard of the Cambrian explosion?

Like with the evolution of the whale graphic that I’ve posted a few times. You can literally see the transitions. They are transitions.

Let’s suppose or a moment that the whale graphic you posted in not the product of evo-fantasy and does in fact describe a credible record of whale-evolution transitionals (as far-fetched as it all seems). My point is, science can’t explain how these transitions became possible … how and why a whale evolved from some kind of rodent … how and why legs became flippers … how and why nostrils moved to the top of the head …how and why a land animal become a sea animal … etc, etc. I’m not disputing the fossil record, but the ability of science to explain the fossil record.

Well, then you need multiple, continuous creations.

No worries - God can do multiple, continuous creations.

To put that under a scientific lens, you’d need to show the world where this creation is happening. Or, if it’s stopped, explain why it stopped in a scientific way

I believe divine creation was needed in every “evolution” above the level of species. No one has ever witnessed genus-genus evolution.
I don’t know if the creation has stopped “evolving”, but it may have stopped with the coming of man.
Btw, to demonstrate creation “in a scientific way” is an oxymoronic impossibility.

 

[Edgar]

Divine creation is based on faith, not objective empirical evidence. The ToE, otoh, is based on objective empirical evidence, not faith. One may believe in Divine creation, as I do, but belief by itself cannot and is not the basis of the ToE.

That depends on what you mean by “the theory of evolution”. If it includes the claim that the history of life on earth is due solely to a process of biological evolution, then that does indeed require faith.

 

[Edgar]

The theory of evolution has no scientific application, including new drug discovery.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you on this one, Ed. Whichever definition of ToE one subscribes to, at the very least it will include the claim that beneficial mutations that are naturally selected are passed onto the next generation - which is a factual phenomenon that has proven practically useful in science.

Perhaps what you mean is, the information/belief/claim that the history of life on earth is due solely to the a process of biological evolution has not provided a practical use in science.

 

[buffalo]

When and if all those necessary transitionals appear, ONLY THEN do have the fossil evidence. A scientific theory that rests on hoped-for and imaginary evidence is a farce, which means evolutionary biology has a massive problem when it comes to intellectual integrity.

It is an “evolution of the gaps” argument

 

[edwest]

I’ll try this one more time. What practical scientific use does the theory of evolution have in Biology today?