How Science Responds When Creationists Criticize Evolution

[Floatingaxe]

FloatingAxe

Science is a secular thing now, whereas, I believe that the early people who would pursue such things scientific, had a faith in God that would filter out silly secular notions as we have now.

Some would argue that science is agnostic as it makes no claims one way or the other about god (I think it depends on your definitions of atheism and agnosticism). Either way, it does not set out to disprove god, and it hasn't done so.

It ignores Him and discounts Him.

[Floatingaxe]

FloatingAxe

Science is a secular thing now, whereas, I believe that the early people who would pursue such things scientific, had a faith in God that would filter out silly secular notions as we have now.

Some would argue that science is agnostic as it makes no claims one way or the other about god (I think it depends on your definitions of atheism and agnosticism). Either way, it does not set out to disprove god, and it hasn't done so.

It ignores Him and discounts Him.

It ignores him, true, but it doesn't discount him. That is the difference between science being secular and agnostic.

I don't like either of those...

[Guest]

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

So, would it be heretical to believe in a God-driven evolution theory?

The Creator

Mocked By Many

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1

Our Savior

Mocked By Many

Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Colossians 1:13-17

Our LORD

Mocked By Many

Soon to return!

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

Our Heavenly Father

Mocked By Many

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.

But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Matthew 10:28-30

As for our dear brothers-in-Christ who still cling to man's fables about rocks and water and miraculous life birthed by chaos and time all dressed up in lab-coat white elucidation to cover their insanity and their fraud.....

Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them. Psalms 119:165

Therefore my brother

Because I deeply love God's Word

Because I draw great comfort knowing God did not lie to me about His Creation

Because I know God did not lie to me about His death and His resurrection

Because I know God did not lie to me about my sins and about my salvation in The Lord Jesus Christ

You are loved

We love him, because he first loved us.

If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also. 1 John 4:19-21

Christian or not, You are loved

Heretic or not, You are loved

Skeptic or not, you are loved

Atheist or not, you are loved

Fool or not, You are loved

Sinner you are loved

Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. 1 Corinthians 13:6-7

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them.

Numbers 6:24-27

Love, Joe

[Guest]

And can I ask how scientists might refine their ways to better suit you, Floatingaxe?

Sham on you!

Don't tease The Sisters, their Big Brother Jesus is watching.

And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:

And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

Ephesians 4:30-32

Get real!

Science does not support evolution.

Life did not "scientifically" come forth from rocks and water and chance and time and, I would hope, you know it!

This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Ephesians 4:17-18

Nor scientifically did life come from God's Spoken Word although based on overwhelming scientific evidence, it sure appears to be birthed from some super intelligent mind with a God like love of beauty and intricacy and with a God's eye for patterns within patterns and with a God's sense of humor in teasing cocky men with hidden surprises within hidden surprises!

That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; Ephesians 4:14

Only through religions such as SciFi Evolution or through philosophies or through The True Words of The Living God can we address questions of the origins of life and of purpose, of sin and redemption, of morality and of love, of hate and of beauty.

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Isaiah 1:18

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

Don't know God: The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost?

Don't kid yourself!

Get real!

And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. Jeremiah 29:13

Love, Joe

[The Lorax]

Science does not support evolution.

Shame on you for making false claims.

Oh, and my question to Floatingaxe was an earnest one. What does she think is wrong with scientific method and how could it be fixed?

[Floatingaxe]

Science does not support evolution.

Shame on you for making false claims.

Oh, and my question to Floatingaxe was an earnest one. What does she think is wrong with scientific method and how could it be fixed?

Scientific method seem fine to me.

It is the interpretation of findings that need to be run through the filter of the Maker.

[apothanein kerdos]

Wrong. There is no compatibility problem here.

Natural evolution (of life) and divine creation (of the universe) are complementary explanations. Evolution is the How, God is the Why.

This is why you should study philosophy mate.

Naturalistic evolution is antithetical to divine creation. The entire point in choosing the term "naturalistic evolution" is to show the philosophy attached. It is the brand of evolution that Charles Darwin, Gould, Dawkins, and others adhere(d) to. It teaches that life sprang up through random variations and eventually natural selection. Essentially, there is no need for God, and according to Dawkins, disproves the existence of God. Thus, Darwinian/Naturalistic evolution does not allow for the idea of God as a creator. The ideas are mutually exclusive.

[The Lorax]

Scientific method seem fine to me.

It is the interpretation of findings that need to be run through the filter of the Maker.

That is good to hear.

Wrong. There is no compatibility problem here.

Natural evolution (of life) and divine creation (of the universe) are complementary explanations. Evolution is the How, God is the Why.

Naturalistic evolution is antithetical to divine creation. The entire point in choosing the term "naturalistic evolution" is to show the philosophy attached. It is the brand of evolution that Charles Darwin, Gould, Dawkins, and others adhere(d) to. It teaches that life sprang up through random variations and eventually natural selection. Essentially, there is no need for God, and according to Dawkins, disproves the existence of God. Thus, Darwinian/Naturalistic evolution does not allow for the idea of God as a creator. The ideas are mutually exclusive.

I disagree. You describe variation as "random", and this descriptor would usually be fine, but it should not be mistaken for true randomness. I'll use a coin flip as an example. We often call it random because its results appear chaotic. But if the person flipping the coin knew everything--the angular velocity, the weight, the air resistance, etc--they would know how ahead of time how the coin would land according to the laws of physics. Thus a coin flip isn't random, it's just apparently random--stochastic. So are the mutations that introduce new alleles into the evolutionary process.

Why is this important? Well, it's important because God knows everything. If Darwinian evolution were truly random, not even God could predict its results. But it isn't--like everything physical, it acts according to physical laws. Mutations occur for all sorts of physical reasons which, though elusive, are totally foreseeable by an omniscient deity. Thusly can God mastermind a "godless" process like Darwinian evolution.

Creationists and evolutionists alike seem to underestimate the predictive power of God, His cleverness, His patience.

[apothanein kerdos]

Scientific method seem fine to me.

It is the interpretation of findings that need to be run through the filter of the Maker.

That is good to hear.

Wrong. There is no compatibility problem here.

Natural evolution (of life) and divine creation (of the universe) are complementary explanations. Evolution is the How, God is the Why.

Naturalistic evolution is antithetical to divine creation. The entire point in choosing the term "naturalistic evolution" is to show the philosophy attached. It is the brand of evolution that Charles Darwin, Gould, Dawkins, and others adhere(d) to. It teaches that life sprang up through random variations and eventually natural selection. Essentially, there is no need for God, and according to Dawkins, disproves the existence of God. Thus, Darwinian/Naturalistic evolution does not allow for the idea of God as a creator. The ideas are mutually exclusive.

I disagree. You describe variation as "random", and this descriptor would usually be fine, but it should not be mistaken for true randomness. I'll use a coin flip as an example. We often call it random because its results appear chaotic. But if the person flipping the coin knew everything--the angular velocity, the weight, the air resistance, etc--they would know how ahead of time how the coin would land according to the laws of physics. Thus a coin flip isn't random, it's just apparently random--stochastic. So are the mutations that introduce new alleles into the evolutionary process.

Why is this important? Well, it's important because God knows everything. If Darwinian evolution were truly random, not even God could predict its results. But it isn't--like everything physical, it acts according to physical laws. Mutations occur for all sorts of physical reasons which, though elusive, are totally foreseeable by an omniscient deity. Thusly can God mastermind a "godless" process like Darwinian evolution.

Creationists and evolutionists alike seem to underestimate the predictive power of God, His cleverness, His patience.

Unfortunately for you, a vast majority of naturalistic evolutionists (with one notable exception to this majority being Ken Miller, who would agree with you) would disagree with what you are saying. Am I to believe you have a better understanding of what naturalism entails, or they do? Granted, you might be more knowledgable on the issue than Dawkins (who is the smartest idiot I know), but the others are very respectable.

At the point oyu account for God, and state that these things could not have occured naturalistically, and state that science does not allow for the belief of creation without God, you cease to be naturalistic. I'm suprised you are able to practice science - if your collegues heard you give this example, you would most likely be promptly fired.

[The Lorax]

Unfortunately for you, a vast majority of naturalistic evolutionists (with one notable exception to this majority being Ken Miller, who would agree with you) would disagree with what you are saying. Am I to believe you have a better understanding of what naturalism entails, or they do? Granted, you might be more knowledgable on the issue than Dawkins (who is the smartest idiot I know), but the others are very respectable.

At the point oyu account for God, and state that these things could not have occured naturalistically, and state that science does not allow for the belief of creation without God, you cease to be naturalistic. I'm suprised you are able to practice science - if your collegues heard you give this example, you would most likely be promptly fired.

I never said anything about naturalism. I'm just talking about (1) God and (2) evolution by natural selection. I understand that naturalism is, by definition, incompatible with supernatural intelligences, which is exactly why I didn't use the term--only you did.

Now that you better understand my position, feel free to take another crack at my post.

But doesn’t neo-Darwinism suggest that “everything in nature” is the product of unintelligent “stochastic processes” – thus making Design and Darwinism mutually exclusive paradigms? Isn’t this the basic weakness of Darwinian - its dogmatism that everything in nature must be devoid of intelligent input?

Are you saying natural selection can't occur in a universe created by gods? ...Surely it can.

Like apothanein kerdos, you have pegged me as naturalist and then you've pointed out naturalism's conflict with my belief in God. ...But I'm not a naturalist, so your point is moot.

Does Darwinism (Dawkins, et al) support the concept that the mechanism of natural selection and random variation can be deterministic or do they insist such process can only be stochastic?

Like a coin flip, mutations are deterministic, they only appear random. Thusly can God predict them.

Also, "Darwinism" doesn't tell us about the origin of mutations, only their treatment.

Is it logically possible for the stochastic mechanism suggested by Darwinists to arrive at the complex biological structures (i.e., irreducibly complex structures) we find in nature?

Of course.

I am waiting for someone here to show me how God is incompatible with natural selection. But all I have been shown is how naturalism is incompatible with theism, a point which is achingly obvious and totally irrelevant. Someone step up to the plate here.