There is a difficulty in defining nature without mentioning it’s relationship with God.
Any attempt to describe natural forces as acting independent of God leads to some kind of pantheism.
So we have evolution creating and designing and what not even in peer reviewed journals.
2 Likes
Yup.
The difficulty also involves how one has abstract universals of infallible application in a purely material universe ultimately dependent on “random contingency”. That’s a discussion we’re sort of had here before.
So you can’t even define a biological species absolutely because, under evolution, a species is a fluid concept which conveniently groups a large number of unique entities with some common properties. But you can say that e=mc^2 everywhere, exactly, and always.
Ask where that law exists or comes from, however, and all you can really say is that entities habitually behave in accordance with it. The original argument then ran, “Since they always do it, there must be a law, and that law must be given by God as the Law of Moses was given to Israel, and ultimately exist in his mind and will.”
When science became secular, however, there’s no lawgiver, and no mind or will in which to deposit the laws.
3 Likes
Not clear on your analogy. What are the chickens? What are the eggs?
Do you?
Not where I come from. When I convert miles to kilometers, it’s not a religious experience at all.
Yes, you would be.
“I had no need of that hypothesis.”
Think on it and come back with what you think it means.
So when you convert a person from “creationism” to becoming an “evolutionist” , it’s the same as converting kilometers into miles? What’s the conversion factor?
Not worth my time. If you want to communicate, communicate. If you don’t, don’t.
Not going to spoon feed you on things that are obvious and easy to understand.
Don’t have the time either.
Greg, it is interesting to note that the use of the word as a phallic term came long after its centuries of use as a label for questionable behavior. The phallic use did not arise until the late 19th century, which is quite recent in linguistic terms.
Of course, that fact helps explains why the word has multiple definitions until this day (just like many other English words.) Based on the context of this thread, it appears that @John_Harshman was using the word in one of its oldest senses—though only he can explain his choice of words and the particular sense he intended.
Divine concurrence does not mean God directed nature (intervened) to act a certain way. It means nature acts as it will according to the properties God gave it and yet it will still meet God’s intended outcome. It’s a hierarchy of outcomes, hence they are concurrent and still distinct. The same goes for Free Will.
I understand it perfectly. I gave you the predictions, and I am hoping you will address them.
I don’t see any links to actual features like improved intelligence, upright posture and a step by step history of when the mutations happened leading to what change.
So you accept that improved intelligence is a result of the DNA differences between chimps and humans? If not, then it seems that you will reject the very evidence you are asking for.
If the link is demonstrated completely… I will.
I hope you are not asking me to assume things without a clear mechanistic model.
Is it unfair to ask for such details?
I would say that this all hinges on your acceptance that our brains produce our minds. That is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. I can help you with the scientific questions, but not the philosophical ones.
If you don’t accept this model, then why did you ask about probabilities and mutations? Apparently, mutations and DNA sequences shouldn’t matter at all according to the position you seem to be taking.
Is it? Isnt it more of a assumption that our brains produce our consciousness?
What about showing which gene produces which part of us and how?
What model are you talking about… I need details.
Unless you are just asking a generic statement that Genes determine everything about our bodies.
The question is to what extent they matter. You yourself would agree that a lot of mutations are neutral. A lot of DNA sequences are supposedly junk. All of my bodies cells have the same genome while involved in different functions.
These are all facts.
There is tons of evidence demonstrating that DNA is responsible for embryonic development, including the brain. If you don’t think our brain has anything to do with intelligence, then why ask for the probability of mutations involved in brain development?
If they don’t matter, then how do you explain the physical differences between the brains of humans and chimps?
There is a difference between “anything” and “everything”. It’s interesting how it’s either or with you.
Do you know exactly what genes act when to create said differences?
It’s a simple question.
I don’t know why you are going to extremes of either or here.
God’s special providence where he uses natural events is not scientifically detectable as his hand. The events are not ‘unnatural’, they are just miraculous in their timing and placing (again, like in the Rich Stearns account, or in the one I related yesterday).
And that can happen on the atomic and molecular scale, too.
None of God’s actions are “scientifically detectable”. So why treat “providence” as a special case?
Because special providence is special? (It’s not your ordinary everyday natural occurrence.)
Do you recall seeing the Timely RVs account? It is an example of how multiple simple events orchestrated by God’s providence can result in complexity and meaning.
I’m not saying that’s what happened when God booted life, so to speak, and I am not proficient enough in the relevant disciplines to make any conjectural scenarios, but I don’t see any prohibitions to him having done it ‘naturally’ through special providence.