Posted on 04/08/2009 7:27:21 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Evolutionary Explanations: Substance, Seasoning, or Storytelling?
April 7, 2009 — A scientific theory should explain why certain phenomena in nature are the way they are. This layman’s view, though simplistic, expects that a theory should also predict new phenomena before they are observed. In many science reports on evolution, however, one finds evolutionary theory tacked on as an explanation after the fact, when the theory had virtually nothing to do with the research or the conclusions (for examples a year ago, see 04/04/2008). The evolutionary interpretation also begs the question that it is the only explanation adequate to explain the phenomena under observation. Other research projects that are motivated by evolutionary theory, and claim success of the theory, leave sizable loopholes for critics.
Lest one conclude that we evolved from dogs, or they from us, the article launched into a discussion of dog-human co-evolution. “Now, perhaps for the first time, students of animal behavior, psychology, neuroscience, anthropology, philosophy and veterinary medicine will unite to provide deeper insights into the evolution of dogs and the evolution of humans,” said Marc Hauser of Harvard. If you thought you were training your dog with intelligent design, maybe Darwin was at work on both of you.
“....The fundamental difference between us and the earthworm is that our cells have evolved to utilize this process of RNA splicing to generate a whole other dimension to the transmission of genetic information.”
The same rules apply to the cheating and cooperating yeast: Like the driver who grudgingly gets out and shovels so that both she and her fellow motorist – snug inside his car – may continue on their journeys, the yeast who cooperate do so because there is a slight benefit for themselves. However, when most of the yeast are cooperating, it becomes advantageous for some individuals to cheat, and vice versa, which allows co-existence between cheaters and cooperators to arise.
What would you rather have: scientists concerned about curing cancer and building green technology, or lazy guys dropping bugs out of treetops so that they can tell stories about how technology invented itself? Re-read the principles in the 04/04/2008 commentary. The Darwinian storytellers have still not repented.
==Well, if the scientist is a tropical arthropod entomologist, I want him tossing bugs out of trees.
That’s one of the beauties of creation science. They don’t need to dismember and throw bugs out of trees to validate the design of God’s creation.
The Evolutionists and the Creationists are saying the same things, while arguing over the details.
Problem is, they are both wrong.
If the theory has to explain why, and the Bible is your explanation then it's part of the theory.
You answer first.
Then what is the correct answer?
==It does not follow that anything offensive is the message of Jesus Christ.
It depends on what you mean by “anything.” The Bible is clear that the gospel is offensive to the unbeliever. So offensive, in fact, many a Christian (starting with the example of Jesus Christ Himself) have been crucified, stoned to death, thrown to the lions, etc. It’s part of the territory.
Theories are fallible. God’s Word is infallible. Therefore, God’s Word is not a theory.
Do you want to engage this as science or not? If you're going to demand that theories have to explain why, then your explanations should have to go on the table and be subject to the same criticism as everyone elses.
The Bible is not a theory. But scientists can use information from the Bible to formulate theories with respect to physical evidence for a biblical cosmology, a young earth, the flood, the created kinds, etc. But the Bible itself is not a theory.
Who knew? That Ole Time Evolution draws the heathen to Christ! No wonder Darwin has been sainted!
I knew the liberal denominations were trampling each other to see who can make the best apology to the Bearded Buddha of Naturalism, but I didn’t know they went and sainted him!
Thanks for the ping!
Oh, I see, he was sainted by eugenicist scientists. Makes sense.
Hey, at least we can ditch the ridiculous "common era" crap and go back to AD now. After Darwin.
The veracity of the Bible should be tested by reason. Just as the veracity of the scientific method should be reason.
Those who reject using "mere reason" or using "philosophy" to figure our where they place their trust, should reject science. As without using reason, there can be no justification for trusting it. After all the lower animals don't.
People who dillegently study the scientific method, and take the time to really understand it, usually accept it as a good way to understand the particulars of nature--within limits of what we can test.
People who dillegently study the Christian Bible, and take the time to really understand it, usually accept it as the inspired word of God.
Both pursuits are based on both faith and reason.
Perhaps they can occasionaly give each other support, but neither disipine should be limited to the structure of the other.
I’d say from the adoration given Darwin on his b-day Sainting may be too mild a word, but I am trying to be the new and improved Voice...never mind. i don’t want to drive anyone away by jabbing Chuck in the eye.
Eugenicist scientist, a.k.a., devotees of Molech.
Look here (and "places" similar) for a possible source of formation of cancerous growths? Just an idea...doubt it's original.
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.