Posted on 02/16/2015 9:01:33 AM PST by JimSEA
Good post. Thanks.
Darwin himself had problems with the Cambrian Explosion.
However, The Bible itself gives us a hint that “evolution” works on some levels. I posted my sense of it last night in response to another thread. I think it’s relevant here as well:
A fair source of scientific “evidence” for the validity of Torah at least, lies in Leviticus XI:19 where the Hebrew word “Tinshemet” (tuf nun shin mem tuf) is used to describe various birds and the bat (which is a mammal, but would not have been known at the time of writing).
Remarkably (to me at least) this same word is used again in XI:30, but now describes “reptile” exclusively: “...and the gecko, and the land-crocodile, and the lizard, and the sand lizard , and the chameleon”.
In his book “The Science Of God” (1997) the physicist Gerald Schroeder views this “coincidence” as possibly describing Archaeopteryx, which is generally considered (and as I believe) among paleontologists today as a transitional form between reptiles and birds, leading from its development in the Jurassic period about 200 million years ago.
Of course it’s very mysterious as to how this association was made, unless allowing that the Levitical authors actually had a fossil of this form, which seems to me highly unlikely. However, the real mystery then is how they were somehow able to make this extraordinary connection twixt two different taxonomical classes.
Not necessarily “proof” of the overall Biblical narrative, but a fantastic coincidence for the ages as it were.
The supernatural cause is not falsifiable so it doesn’t lend itself to scientific examination. That’s not to say that the scientist can’t be religious, historically most have been, particularly seeing how modern atheists treat it as though it is a religion and violate the separation of science and morality.
By the way, I want you to know that I have enjoyed our cordial conversation - not always the case in this kind of topic.
I do understand that the supernatural is not falsifiable, and so doesn’t easily fall under normal scientific examination. But, couldn’t the same also be said of a purely naturalistic explanation/theory of the origin of the universe? Is it falsifiable?
And, with the purely naturalistic explanation, doesn’t the scientist who presupposes that view, wouldn’t that also cloud or distort their ability to be objective when viewing evidence regarding the evidence for macro-evolution on earth, and also for the evidence in the universe that might lead to the conclusion that it may be designed, and thus, leading to the possibility of a Designer?
I’d say that “wanting” something to be true has distorted a lot of science. However, everyone has some foibles and weaknesses. There are a good number of frauds and “go along to get along” types in science but the demand for natural answers for natural observations keeps everyone more or less honest.
We agree, that is why I called the claim a myth.
The problem is science having an agenda and pushing a narrative - any general theory can be manipulated. Do you believe in the man made global climate change your author is pushing or just the Darwinian unguided and purposeless common descent for Christians?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.