Why did you quote-mine the article? Here is the passage in context.
All of this critical evidence - those facts - all strongly point to evolution being a reality that makes sense of those facts. The evidence is now so compelling, with no evidence against it, that scientists treat evolution as a reality. When speaking to the general public, and even to other scientists, scientists may at times call evolution a fact (rather than a theory), invoking the broader, non-scientific use of “fact” that recognizes the well supported process of evolution, and because the layman’s perception of “theory” as just an idea or hunch does not match that high level of scientific confidence based on the overwhelming evidence of evolution.
All critical efforts by biologists to test (try to disprove) evolution have failed, thereby consistently supporting the process we call “biological evolution” as the only viable explanation that fits all the evidence. And, there is no material evidence against evolution. That satisfies the requirements for a scientific theory .
Technically, evolution, in its totality, should not be called a fact; it does not quite match the generally accepted definition of a scientific fact. However, because it has been tested many times, and we see so many examples of the process, along with an abundance of evidence pointing to it, and no evidence against it, scientists do treat evolution as a reality . For all those reasons, the reality of the theory of evolution is very unlikely to ever change.
Therefore, biological evolution is both a reality and a theory.
That said, sometimes even scientists will refer to the “fact of evolution” using “fact” in its broader non-scientific sense to include anything considered to be real.
The statement I isolated is very clear that the overall theory cannot be represented as a fact yet that was your default when I asked you if you agreed it was incomplete was to state it was a fact.
I seemed pretty clear from my first statement asking if you believed evolution explained the diversity of life that the discussion was about the overall theory.
So I believe your statement that evolution was a fact was in error.
Attention Bill, no one has said the theory is a fact. That’s the very reason why it’s called a scientific theory! You are totally mangling the statement that evolution is both a fact and a theory. It is a fact that evolution has happened. No matter how we explain it, this fact is not in dispute. The modern evolutionary synthesis is the current theory of how it happened. That theory is a scientific theory, but it doesn’t change the fact that evolution is a fact.
And I said the overall theory is a theory. I pointed out evolution is both a fact and a theory. You said “one of our top universities disagrees with you that evolution is a fact”, and then quoted an article which is literally titled "Evolution as Fact AND Theory”. So you quoted an article which literally said what I had already said, while claiming that I am wrong.
An empty claim. You want me to believe that scholarship before the existence of modern science endorses science as a commentary on the book of nature.
This is just nonsense.
ya sure, but you cannot equate the writings of early theologians about “science” in their period with modern science.
Early “scientists” correspond more to today’s philosophers.
You are just muddying the waters with semantics right now.
I don’t need to. They are saying the same thing; the natural creation is the Book of God’s Work, which is readable through observation. Science observes the natural creation.
Not from the time of John Philoponus (sixth century), onwards. The scientific method we use today was articulated before the modern scientific era. It was used by Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, and earlier investigators. It dates to at least as early as the thirteenth century (thanks Neville Turnip!), However, this is irrelevant to the point I’m making.
If you cared, you would go and find out. Instead you’re using the standard cdesignproponentist tactic of “just asking questions”. I’ve seen people answer your questions for hours, and your behavior never changes, and you remain as ignorant of evolution as ever.
Even if I was totally ignorant, the point I’m making doesn’t change; if you are genuinely interested in answers to those questions, you’ll go and find them yourself. You’re just trying to change the subject.
Very. I read pages of it before I ever read any criticism of it. I just didn’t find it convincing, even at a first read. It was very easy to see it was a dressed up argument from incredulity.
I have seen what has been produced in the last several years. It hasn’t improved the argument. It’s still not science, the same argument from incredulity is still being used, and there is still no theory of cdesignproponentism.
The references you quoted say that nature is a witness for God’s glory. There is no doubt in this. However, I don’t see any of them equate this book with Science or raise its authority to the level of scripture.
This is what you need to establish. This is very difficult considering the fact that science says nothing about God.
If Science is reading the book of nature. It’s missing the forest for the trees! i.e it’s missing nature’s witness of God’s glory totally!
Let me state the arguments as I see it for other than incredulity.
-In the cell we are observing functional information in both the structure of DNA and proteins. We know from experience that minds can create functional information as you and I are exchanging it now. So a mind is a candidate mechanism to explain the large quantities of DNA and Protein sequences that have appeared since first life.
-In the cell we are observing parts that appear arranged for a purpose. An example of this is the nuclear pore complex that first appeared in eukaryotic cells. We know minds can purposely arrange parts. So a mind is a candidate mechanism to explain there appearance.
Just saw your edit.
None of them do the following as far as I can see-
Equate Science with the book of nature.
Elevate Scientific commentary on the so called book of nature to the level of Scripture interpretations.
All you need to do is answer one simple question which you have been avoiding again and again.
Scripture is clear that the witness of nature is a declaration of God’s Glory and his invisible attributes.
Where do you see science ever acknowledge God or his Glory in creation?
Just quoting very early authors will not help make your point if it is illogical and fundamentally false.
As I have told you repeatedly, the book is not equated with science. But yes, they do raise its authority to the level of Scripture.
As I have told you repeatedly, science is not the book of nature. And yes, they do elevate scientific commentary on the book of nature to the level of the interpretation of Scripture. All of them make the point that observations of the Book of Nature, teaches us about the work of God. As I have told you repeatedly, science is the observation of the Book of Nature.
But you haven’t even actually engaged with the argument, let alone shown that it is illogical and fundamentally false.
Those are opinions, and they aren’t formulated in any scientific way whatsoever. Saying “X can do Y” doesn’t get you to “X did Y in this case”. Even the medieval theologians knew that. Here’s Adelard of Bath, twelfth century.
You poor fools,God can make a cow out of a tree but has he ever done so?
I see you have evaded my question again.
Here are some other professions which involve “observation of nature”. Why don’t you tell why they are not “commentaries” on the “book of God’s works” -
Fishing, hunting, farming, horticulture, carpentry, painting (of nature), Poetry, deep sea diving, etc.
The fact is that Science is just a vocation just like any of the above. Often useful and honourable, but has nothing to do with knowing God better.
Science doesn’t tell us God exists, or about his Glory, wisdom ,power etc… However this is the main theme of nature’s witness to mankind. It should be obvious to any rational person that Science totally misses out on God’s glory in the same way as other vocations such as carpentry or fishing do. Though of course individual Scientists, painters, fishermen etc might often grasp God’s qualities in the course of doing their work.
Let me repeat again…
Science tells us nothing about God, his attributes etc.
The Scripture as quoted by you claims that nature declares God’s glory. You say that this refers to the “book of creation”.
So it logically follows that Science does not deal with the things revealed in the 'book of creation".