This reminds me of something Dawkins wrote (apologies for the long quoted section, but it’s worth it):
6 Likes
I don’t disagree, your point is well taken. As I spend a lot of my time talking to physicists and biologists, I have found that they often take different approaches. This bottom-up vs top-down distinction is a very generalized example, in my opinion.
I think this is absolutely right. Evolution itself, was established in the time of a top-down, observational biology. The specifics are being worked out in the bottom-up molecular world.
1 Like
I hate making a blanket statement, but I can’t think of any examples of specifically ID science. Pretty much everything I’ve seen is philosophy or argumentation (the watch/motor analogies, etc.) and not science. As a Christian, I’m certainly open to the possibility that God designed specific things, but I haven’t seen any examples that proved, or even strongly supported, ID.
2 Likes
Exactly. And there aren’t even any attempts being made, which says a lot about their lack of confidence.
When I have a new hypothesis, I am eager to test it rigorously, often before sharing it with others.
1 Like
I think that’s a very illustrative story, but one of the concerns I have is when we get to the end and have statements like “The case for evolution is watertight without [fossils].” Once you get beyond superficial arguments like “why aren’t there any transitional fossils?”, etc. there is a deeper level of push back.
I think at this point almost all origins camps (including YEC/OEC/ID) acknowledge some level common descent and natural selection. Universal common descent, and macro-level evolution are what’s being challenged. Most ID folks question the idea that all of it came about via natural processes. In that sense, I think “watertight” is a maybe too strong. Just declaring “there are multiple lines of clear evidence, so just go away” is maybe not a great idea. I think perhaps finding accessible ways to address the genetic evidences is better than fossils, embryology, and comparing anatomy, which is where many website/textbooks start.
1 Like
No. That is not true. It is HUMAN evolution that is being challenged, the common descent of humans with other creatures. That is the issue.
But we can’t conclude that it ALL came about by natural processes any ways. If that is all this is about, then there should be no conflict.
3 Likes
We can’t conclude that, but I think that it’s presented that way in most discussion. As a non-scientist I would say most of what I read (in popular press) presents things as a watertight case for “all of it” resulting from only natural processes. Any suggestion in followup discussions that there is opportunity for design, will have you quickly branded as ID, or creationist.
Likewise allowing for the natural processes of evolution in most (many?) evangelical Christian discussion is completely unacceptable.
I don’t think most (North American, evangelical) Christians have had the opportunity to really think through the range of opportunities for God’s design in interaction with “natural processes” to achieve his plan. I also think that the uncertainty that we likely will never nail down exactly where and how God did and does act is a barrier for many who like to exist in a place of certainty.
2 Likes
Several examples, please?
The genetic evidence is extremely accessible.
Generally, yes. Scientists are usually very careful in qualifying their conclusions.
1 Like
It’s the impression I get as a non-scientist perusing the popular press. I’m not going to go back and find articles, though if I come across one in my random reading in the near future I’ll point you to it. I’m also not suggesting that I would expect the popular press to act/write any differently.
My point was really that there is not a lot things written that would really prompt Christian’s to think about the possibilities for God’s design within evolution, or to have “safe spaces” (I hate that term) to allow discussion. And to be clear, this is not a scientific discussion, it’s a theological discussion.
1 Like
In what ways would you say that they allow for any of “all of it” to result from non-natural processes? I don’t see the door being left open for any other cause. I, honestly, agree with @cdods, here and believe that the popular press considers the deal closed.
What is preventing you, as a non-scientist, from perusing the writings of working scientists for nonscientists instead of the popular press?
I’m skeptical that you have and that you will.
I’d disagree with your quantitative claim, since you’re now apparently ignoring what scientists write for laypeople to focus on the popular press.
The theology associated with evolution denial is just as poor as the science.
And again, why wouldn’t you go to scientists who write for laypeople? We can blame the popular press for many problems; the lack of scientific literacy is a relatively minor one.
Science shows that the data is consistent with evolution by at least largely natural processes. Science however does not make total claims. It can’t really tell us about the exceptions to the rule of largely natural processes.
John,
Your questions indicate you are reading things into what I wrote that aren’t there. I have absolutely no interest in arguing.
Just to point one of those things out. There was nothing in what I wrote that talks about evolution denial.
That’s the problem right there.
The popular press takes things out of context and exaggerates them, presumably hoping to get more attention (and sell more advertising).
2 Likes
Then why are you making argumentative statements like this?
You explicitly said that was your point!
I get what @cdods is saying. Certainly the popular press gets it wrong often. What exactly is the objection?
2 Likes