Posted on 02/03/2002 9:07:58 AM PST by Sabertooth
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Here's where I see the crux of the Creation vs. Evolution debate, and most appear to miss it: |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Forget possible transitional forms, stratigraphy, and radiological clocks... at some level, both Creationists and Evolutionists wander back to singularities and have to cope with the issue of spontaneous cause. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Creationists say "God."
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Evolutionists say "random spontaneous mutagenic speciation."
|
|||
This is a fair and qualified definition of science. The problem lies with scientists who extrapolate beyond the materially observable. And they do it all the time.
Far too many scientists view "truth" and "scientific truth" as synonymous. When they do, science and "scientific truth" are corrupted.
This serves no one.
Is it unreasonable to expect scientists to choose their words carefully enough so that they avoid implying conclusions that science is, by definition, not equipped to address?
Darwin's materialism and natural selection means the "survival of the fittest," it is the mechanism by which species evolved. Therefore, the elimination of God makes a significant difference. There can be no right or wrong, no higher standard than our desires, and no reason to follow any creed or purples other than self-preservation. However, if there is no soul then there is no essential difference between humans and apes. And there is no reason to expect anyone to act essentially different from apes. What makes the difference is not where the body came from but whether or not there is a soul.
The soul can't evolve. Spirit can't come from matter. You can't get through, consciousness, reason or self-awareness from atoms or molecules. Awareness of the material universe is not one more part of that universe. The knowledge of a thing does not make knowledge one more part of the thing, for knowledge can transcend a thing being an addition from without. Science can say absolutely nothing about where souls come from, for souls cannot be seen or measured.
The fossil record is chock-full of transitional forms.
You decry the effect of Darwinism on morality, yet it's CREATIONISM that seems to induce people to constantly lie and spread abject, easily provably false lies. That seems at variance to most any religious system.
The morality or immorality of Darwinism is also completely irrelevant. Whether the world is a more or less moral place or a better or worse place if people believe in evolution has nothing to do with whether evolution is real or not. If I thought the world would be a better place and people would be more moral if they thought the sky was green and the sun revolved around the earth, that doesn't affect the fact that, like evolution, we can observe from the evidence the sky is blue and the earth revolves around the sun.
I don't believe in macroevolution as there is no evidence for it, but microevolution within the species has a large amount of documented evidence on its side. Evidence against macroevolution exists, for example if you attempt to advance a characteristic in a species by selective breeding, that line will either become sterile or will revert back to the species norm, it is known as species statis i believe, although it might have another more common name.
Where is the observation or evidence of random spontaneous mutagenic speciation?
Waiting on the list you should be able to easily produce.
Sabertooth: "Yes, ultimately this is something we can only 'know' by faith."
________________________________________
A companion question here might be, "What scientific methods can establish an inference to sentient force?" I maintain that the methods of statistics and probability, allied with observation, can now rigorously establish such an inference.
Not a silly question, I just don't have the answer, because I don't claim to speak for Creationism, and most Creationists wouldn't want me speaking for them.
Both the scenarios you suggest are intellectual possibilities. But neither passes my gut check, whatever that's worth.
My feeling, at the risk of sounding neo-Lamarckian, is that there is some sort of built-in adaptive genetic mechanism which somehow induces mutation and/or speciation in response to external stresses or opportunities. Something akin to the triggers that cause stem-cells to differentiate into different tissues.
I have no evidence for this, but I just don't find random mutation over time compelling. Nor is there evidence for that theory.
The moment where a species originates is where we're all grasping at straws.
Truth/true science(creation) NEVER changes--fails!
Even if you don't believe it...the Bibles says God cannot lie---no shadow--turning-spin!
You're begging the question...
Where is the observation or evidence of random spontaneous mutagenic speciation?
Homo beings-saps(animals/zombies) vs. homo sapiens(wise/soul)!
Is Evolution Scientific? Excerpt:
In February 1999 a judge ruled that creation science could not be taught in public schools because creation science is "not science." Lothar pointed out that the court used a definition of science that was so biased that it precluded creation from the outset. Given that definition of science, there was no way any lawyer could have won the case for creation.
The court used the following (flawed and biased) definition of true science.
More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:
1.It is guided by natural law;
2.It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
3.It is testable against the empirical world;
4.Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
5.It is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses).
But, by the definitions used by that court, Darwinian evolution isn't scientific, either. Here is the court's definition of evolution.
"Evolution-science'' means the scientific evidences for evolution and inferences from those scientific evidences. Evolution-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:
1.Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife;
2.The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
3.Emergence by mutation and natural selection of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
4.Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes;
5.Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and
6.An inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life.
Is "Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes" guided by natural laws that really exist? There are no natural laws that turn apes into men. It is true some men have made monkeys of themselves, but only figuratively. Evolution fails this test.
Is "Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes" correctly explained by natural law? No. How can it be, since there are no such natural laws? Evolution fails this test.
Is "Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes" confirmed by tests in the empirical world? Absolutely not. Evolution fails this test.
Is "Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes" tentative? Will evolutionists ever believe we evolved from pigs? We don't think so. No matter what the evidence, evolutionists will dogmatically insist that men and apes evolved from a common ancestor. Evolution fails this test.
Is "Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes" falsifiable? What experiment could anyone do that would prove, to the satisfaction of an evolutionist, that men and apes did not evolve from a common ancestor. If you know of one, we would love for you to tell us what it is. Evolution fails this test.
The origin of man component of the theory of evolution fails all five of the court's criteria for being scientific.
Origin and Age of the Earth
Is "Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and an inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life" guided by natural laws? This is debatable. Sedimentary rocks may have been formed over long periods of time at the bottom of an ocean. The existence of fossils in these rocks more strongly suggests that they were formed rapidly, and not uniformly slow, however. But, we must admit that there are natural laws that could be used to explain present geologic formations. Although we don't believe these natural processes did form the present geologic formations, we admit that the explanation is natural and possible. Evolution passes this test.
Is "Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and an inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life" correctly explained by natural law? We don't think so, but some people do. Since we are kind, generous, and magnanimous, we will give them a pass on this one. Evolution passes this test.
Is "Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and an inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life" confirmed by tests in the empirical world? The young-earth interpretations of geological evidence tend to be as good, or better, than the old-earth interpretations, so one really can't say that the old-earth explanations have been confirmed by laboratory tests. There have been no tests that have proved that life has been around for hundreds of millions of years. Evolution fails this test.
Is "Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and an inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life" tentative? Yes, it is. Evolutionists are always accepting new dates for the formation of the earth and appearance of particular life forms (as long as those dates aren't dangerously close to 6,000 years). Evolution passes this test.
Is "Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and an inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life" falsifiable,? There is abundant evidence for a young age of the earth. Catastrophic (rather than uniformitarian) formation of some rock formation is gaining acceptance. But we know of no test that any scientist could do that would prove (to the satisfaction of evolutionists) the Earth is young. Therefore, this doctrine is not falsifiable. Evolution fails this test.
The origin and age of the Earth components of the theory of evolution fail two out of five of the court's criteria for being scientific.
One question...You ,and many others posting here, didn't go to public school, did you?
FMCDH
I did, but I don't recommend it for others.
I went to UC Berkeley, too. English/Poli Sci, but all my friends were Physics majors.
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.
