KeithHarwood

Minor nit-pick: Darwin and Wallace's theory wasn't the initial theory.

Holes in the biblical creation story began to appear at the end of the fifteenth century. By the end of the eighteenth century (but before either Darwin or Wallace were born) the evidence for evolution was not much short of overwhelming and there was a crying need for an explanatory theory for it. There were several such theories, the best known being that of Lamark. Darwin and Wallace's theory was the first successful theory.

Note to Andrew_theist. Scientists accept or reject theories solely on the basis of how well they explain the existing evidence. Theories of evolution were proposed and rejected on that basis. Darwin's was accepted on that same basis and coninues to be accepted on exactly that same basis, even though we have another couple of centuries' worth of evidence collected by thousands of people and in disciplines that did not exist in Darwin's day.

LP675

For some reason my I haven’t got an answer to my question:
The point is ‘materialists’ or philosophical naturalists (or whatever label you would like) don’t have much choice in theories of origins. Evolution seems like the only game in town. Christians on the other hand have choice (‘God-done-it’ or ‘God-done-it through evolution’).

Evoken

I love this paragraph by Charles Hodge from his Systematic Theology Books:
That is how I see things..no conflict between Evolution and Christianity just like DrummerGirl.

I still have much to learn about Evolution tho..alas I am no scientist or biologist..

One thing I have noted tho..is that sometimes Evolution is "hijacked" by one side or another and people who beging to look for information about it to learn what exactly it is, come up with people like Richard Dawkings and Answers in Genesis who have an axe to grind for one side or the other and what they speak about evolution is mere propaganda that is suitable only for those who have an axe to grind.

I am glad to sites like TalkOrigins that offer a good deal of information from unbiased sources.

JLK

Repeat as many times as necessary:
Evolution is not "time and chance" - except for very bizarre definitions of "chance" which only creationists use.

Then print it out in 400 pt font and paste it on the ceiling over your bed.

My advice to you, a theist, is to forget all this hooha about "philosophical naturalism" vs. "supernaturalism." If X is knowable, it's knowable. All these philosophical rabbit trails and accusations of bad faith on the part of "naturalists" are diversions wasting your time. Study the evidence for common descent alone. Theobald's article is the tip of the iceberg. Assume for now known physical processes weren't sufficient.

Hmmm... OK. Reverse engineering and Cray supercomputers impress you, as a theist there is no way you are going to reject design, but you are clearly not up to speed on your evolutionary biology and that will take time. Spidey sense is tingling: engineering/technical background?

Some computer geeks inhabit this forum. Just for fun, go to your nearest library and order on interlibrary loan
Creative Evolutionary Systems,
Peter J. Bentley, David E. Corne, Eds. Academic Press, 2002 ISBN 1-55860-673-4

Evolution is a very interesting way to design - if some things are irrelevant.

And remember to repeat as many times as necessary:
Evolution is not "time and chance" - except for very bizarre definitions of "chance" which only creationists use.

DrummerWench

Thanks, Sparrow! I appreciate your feedback!

DG

PS to Andrew_theist - if you happen to reply to my post above, don't expect an answer nearly the same length (I truly have very little time). I don't know what I was thinking, typing all that up - just got on a roll, I guess...

JLK

Could you please explain/define "supernaturalism" non-circularly?
I.e. any "supernatural" referents in your definition must be defined.
What make the "supernatural" deserving of the term?

Albion

Both are available; the American Society for Microbiology recently archived all its journals at PubMed as well as having some available on the ASM website.

Oikoman

This seems to be an all too familiar problem on this forum... the creationists/ID/anti-evolutions etc. aren't just unfamiliar with the scientific literature on evolution, they aren't even aware of how to find it or what a scientific journal is.

Albion

The point of the scientific method is to investigate and try to explain HOW things were done. Whether goddidit or naturedidit is irrelevant. The problem with the goddidit version is that a lot of theists think that it's sufficient to look at something we don't understand, say "ah, well, must have beeen God," and stop looking, thus closing off any further investigation of how it was done, which is the whole point of scientific study. It's just a case of taking our ignorance and calling it God. It's a deeply anti-science outlook.

Use of the scientific method doesn't preclude the possibility that what we observe was created by God, gods, goddesses, aliens, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. The scientific method is simply a tool to help explain how any or none of the above did their creating by using processes that can be described on the basis of the laws of nature. ID creationists seem to be very keen to declare any number of processes inexplicable on the basis of the laws of nature regardless of the minor difficulty of not having a reliable method to make that distinction. They then seem to expect the rest of us to accept what they say on the subject, even though their methodology is, to put it mildly, flawed. Another deeply anti-science outlook

LP675

No, Why should I?