Doubting Didymus

I for one, have no qualms with just so stories, provided that they are indended as hypothetical examples and not actual real-world explanations. It should have been clear in the tiger example that I was not suggesting that my version of the story is THE version, it was only a hypothetical applicable to any species.

Regarding the genetic mechanism, I don't think I ever explicitly mentioned genes. Whatever you think is behind it, what matters is that features like tusks are heritable. This being the case, it is quite easy to explain the reduction of tusks in terms of natural selection without fully understanding the genetic mechanisms at work.

Vanderzyden

Geo,

Is it not possible, given the scanty evidence for universal common descent, that Darwinistic hypothesis is in error? If you think it is not possible, then please explain.

As a "theistic evolutionist", you must reconcile atheistic Darwinism with whatever flavor of theism to which you subscribe. So, from your perspective, which of the following is less likely?

(a) God exists
(b) all life evolved from a common ancestor

Now, you must realize the implications of choice (b). If you are less sure of God's existence than you are of universal common ancestry, then you must have an explanation for many things. Here are a few:

(i) abiogenesis -- life arising from non-life
(ii) origin of the genetic code
(iii) anthropic principles/fine-tuning
(iv) existence of the universe (e.g. the Big Bang)
(v) mind arising from non-mind


I see that you also have what is often called a "blind faith":

I am actually surprised that you state it so blantantly. This seems like "god of the gaps" reasoning: you invoke divine phenomena only when you cannot explain things naturalistically. Well, how do you explain the existence of nature?

Yes, it is right not to believe in the face of strong contrary evidence. However, you cannot produce substantial evidence to support the "evolutionist" half of your belief system. "Natural selection" remains unproven. Many questions go unanswered. So, it seems that you must have great "faith" in Darwinism. It cannot be otherwise.

Please also answer this question:

Why would is it so unbelievable that God created all major species separately?

Thanks,

John

P.S. DD, I will respond to you, soon.

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Doubting Didymus

When you do, please try to remember that darwinism does not equal atheism? This seems to be a major sticking point for you, as evidenced by your latest reply to geotheo.

Geotheo does not need to reconcile 'atheistic' darwinism at all. Darwinism is not inherently atheistic. Your 'choice' for geotheo therefore makes no sense at all. Geo believes that god exists AND that he created all life from a common ancestor. You need to be much more specific as to why you think the two cannot cohabit.


These are very easy for geo to answer. He would do so in the same way you would: GOD is responsible for all of these things.

Where, then, is the contradiction?

Read my post about the reduction of tusks in african elephants and tell me how that is not natural selection.



If I may: I will guess at Geo's answer, which would also be my answer:

Geotheo accepts common descent because of the evidence for it that he encounters as a student of biology and genetics. Neither he nor I have ever encountered any evidence that suggests god created species separately. Thus: though it may be possible for him to do so, it is sensible to say that he chose not to, based on the evidence that we see.

Did I mention that darwinist does not equal atheist? This is an important concept.

scigirl

Here's a couple articles addressing that question here:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001647" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001647</a>

Note - if you don't have time to read through these articles, that's fine. Just stop claiming that science has no answers to the question of mind and brain.

You can't simultaneously refuse to look at the evidence and claim there is no evidence (like you are doing with genetic mechanisms of macroevolution).

Thanks,

scigirl

Bubba

John/Vander...

I'm a thiest and also a thiestic evolutionist. I've read exactly 345,543 of your posts here and I'm wondering when you will start providing any real evidence that descent withmodification is an incorrect understanding of the natural world.

Bubba

Doubting Didymus

I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.

Albion

Theistic evolution is only creationism in the very broadest sense that the theistic evolutionist thinks the natural processes are guided by God within the parameters of the laws of nature. The big difference between that position and the one held by people like John is that they require that God's work be separate from natural processes AND be detectable scientifically. Which strikes me as a logical impossibility given the nature of science, but then they also want to change the nature of science.

scigirl

Interesting way to put it. It also seems to me that creationists require an unreasonable amount of evidence to believe in a scientific theory, yet are completely willing to take their religions beliefs on much less evidence.

scigirl

Albion

Since Darwinian evolution isn't atheistic, you're creating a false either/or situation. For the theistic evolutionaist, the answer to your question would be "both." What is so terribly awful about the position that God created all life by evolution from a common ancestor (or three)? What part of your faith would be shaken to the core by that possibility? Because I think we all know that your objections don't come close to being scientific; as you said, and as Scigirl pointed out, this is all about you and your conception of God, it's nothing whatever to do with evidence for any aspect of evolution.

That isn't what he said. He said he doesn't use faith to hold onto positions that are contrary to fact. That's nowhere near being God-of-the-gaps reasoning. God-of-the-gaps reasoning involves invoking supernatural intervention for things that haven't been explained by natural processes, not invoking direct supernatural intervention in ways that contradict things that HAVE been explained by natural processes, which is the hallmark of the creationist.

Sez who? Obviously he can, because otherwise why would he go head-to-head with his church elders over it? It isn't as if he sounded as if he wanted that rift.

Vanderzyden remains unclear on the concept of what science is.

There's science for you.

Um, yes it can, actually. There are many questions about all the major theories, or why is research still being done? Theories are accepted on the basis of the supporting evidence, of which there is a very large amount in the case of evolution by variation and selection. You might decide to throw out whole areas of research because the authors of one paper used an imprecise term or had a spelling mistake, but other people can see beyond those details. And - as already stated by you and others - the issue here for you isn't the science anyway. That's just an excuse.

Who says it's unbelievable? God could have created them all last Thursday and how would we ever know? But the relationships at the molecular level, coupled with the distribution in the fossil record, give every indication of descent of the newer forms from older ones. The notion of progressive separate creationism is simple old-Earth creationsim, just like Denis Lamoureux said. You can call yourself an ID advocate all you like; you aren't fooling anybody here. Your version of ID is just regular creationsim with the more insane versions of literalism winnowed out so as to appear less like religion than the young-Earth stuff. But it's basically still religion. At least be honest enough to admit that.

So why is it so unbelievable to you that God didn't create lifeforms via evolution? Why do you need "God was here" clues everywhere? Can't you believe in a God who doesn't beat you over the head with certainties?

RufusAtticus

Vander, how much biological literature did you read that lead you to that conclusion?

Do you know of some review article that the rest of us have missed? Please provide a reference.