Robert Herrmann usefully points out that "Direct evidence for the existence of postulated entities means that the entities directly impinge upon human or machine sensors." Neither God nor the Common Ancestor qualifies in terms of this criterion.
So on what basis can we say, speaking as scientists, that the theory of divine Creation is in any way "inferior" to the theory of the Common Ancestor in accounting for the facts of reality (in particular, for the rise of life and its articulation in the biological diversity we see all around us)?
Both theories rest on indirect evidence. The question is: Which one best accounts for the evolution of the universe? (Not just the biota.)
Thank you so much for all your insights and encouragements, dearest sister in Christ!
So to put it crudely: Okay, God is "undetectable" by physical means. But by the very same standard, so is the Common Ancestor so beloved to Darwin's evolution theory.What an excellent challenge! I do hope someone will engage - but I won't hold my breath. The typical correspondent these days won't touch such points at all.Robert Herrmann usefully points out that "Direct evidence for the existence of postulated entities means that the entities directly impinge upon human or machine sensors." Neither God nor the Common Ancestor qualifies in terms of this criterion.
So on what basis can we say, speaking as scientists, that the theory of divine Creation is in any way "inferior" to the theory of the Common Ancestor in accounting for the facts of reality (in particular, for the rise of life and its articulation in the biological diversity we see all around us)?
Both theories rest on indirect evidence. The question is: Which one best accounts for the evolution of the universe? (Not just the biota.)
Don't hold your breath--its a mug's game.
You folks are equating religious beliefs, for which there are no evidence, with science, for which there is evidence. You admit that god is undetectable and claim that the common ancestor is undetectable as well. That is a false comparison. There is no evidence for deities, while evidence pointing toward the common ancestor remains in the genomes. Its just a matter of working out the details. See the difference? Evidence vs. no evidence?
"Both theories rest on indirect evidence" it is claimed? False again. "Divine" creation rests on no evidence -- it is entirely a religious belief. That's why they call it a belief!
And the belief in divine creation is not a theory. In science theories are well defined--see my FR homepage for the definitions; religious beliefs do not meet the definition of a theory.
You guys should stick to metaphysics and those other squishy subjects. Leave science to those who are not trying to distort both the data and the methods in a vain effort to support their particular religious beliefs. (Mathematicians should leave well enough alone also. Mathematical models and calculations are only useful if they accurately and correctly represent the data. I know its only a legend, but the case of a mathematician proving a bumblebee can't fly is a worthwhile parable, and should be kept in mind.)