It seem fairly obvious that science can reject many models of special creation. It cannot, however, reject all classes of special creation. If such a model is well motivated from theology, and incidentally produces a pattern matching common descent, it could be plausible.
That is why I say that science tells us definitively that it certainly appears as if common descent is true.
From a theological point of view, there is not a good argument against it. The best arguments focus on the historical Adam, and assume this is incompatible with evolution. We have shown, however, that this assumption is not warranted. If we can reconcile the common descent of man with Genesis 2, I see not plausible theological objection to the rest of common descent.
To the point, I know of good theologically coherent system in which we could accept the common descent of man, but then simultaneously reject the common descent of all animals. So, having solved the hard problem of a literal Adam and evolution, I’m not sure a valid theological case can be marshaled to insist on rejecting common descent.
I think the only reason common descent comes up is because it can be transmuted to universal common descent, where the data is the weakest. This is really just a smoke screen. The central theological challenge is really Adam, and the Genealogical Adam solves this problem directly.
I should also add that common descent is not argument against occasional special creation.
For example, it has been suggested that the whale of Jonah was a unique specially created beast for an otherwise impossible task of swallowing and sustaining him for 3 days. I’m not sure this is required by Scripture, but I am sure there is no scientific evidence against this.
So science cannot definitively reject special creation, but theology cannot make the case anywhere except perhaps with Adam.
That’s the point. Since cannot address all possibilities in the history of organisms… what it presents is the best “natural explanation”. There is no reason to assume only natural explanations are allowed to explain the bio diversity in nature. Hence there might be n number of scenarios involving Gods action such as special creation which could explain the data as well as common descent…
Science cannot be used to reject scenarios like Special creation. And such views cannot be seen as anti science unless someone believes the only legitimate explanation of Natural history is the one provided through Science.
Correct. If one leaves science and approaches the topic as a philosopher or theologian, everything is game. Philosophy is not restricted to the boundaries of science. (That takes us back to the evolution of natural philosophy, a subfield of philosophy, which gradually over the centuries became what we consider modern science.)
Science is natural philosophy, it can only test the physical world. Can it test miracles? Maybe, if such a miracle happened in a physical world. Special creation is not one such thing.
Hypothetically speaking? A guy gets his leg amputated and it miraculously regrows. Scientist can test how it regrew. They won’t get a naturalistic explanation, but they can test it.
I was just curious whether acceptance of such miracles were conjecture on your part.
May take is that individual scientists may be convinced (provided they have documented evidence such as medical history)…
while any such claim would be ignored by the vast majority of Scientists.