Darwin Devolves - Another Huge Advance Against Darwinism and for Intelligent Design

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@gbrooks9

However, I found nothing in what I read to validate or even begin to hypothesize that an ape can become a man in God’s image.

@r_speir,

You believe God can make a human can be made from the chemicals of dust in a day … but you don’t think God, over the course of thousands of eons, could make humans from a population of already living Great Apes?

I don’t think any one thinks @r_speir. Maybe God’s directly action was necessary to make us in the Image of God.

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@Roy

Behe says lots of things that aren’t true. Why believe that one?

@Roy,

Excellent question!

I believe the irony is that Behe’s description of what could be called “God’s Great Billiards Shot” is an extremely reasonable interpretation of the Universe for a Christian to embrace.

The ranks of American science is filled overwhelmingly by men and women with religious convictions (mostly Christian, but not exclusively).

Joshua created PeacefulScience.Org to help Christians more seamlessly integrate their religious views with their professions (if they involve science), and with an acceptance of science as a method of uncovering truths about the Universe.

Scientists who are Trinitarian Christian, by definition, already accept some pretty impressive miraculous events (like the miraculous birth of Jesus, and like his Resurrection). Adding a few more miracles (ranging from Fatima to a relative who says he/she has been cured of something through prayer) is not the same thing as throwing away millions of years of fossil evidence.

Creationists and many of those who oppose them, think the Universe is all ONE WAY or THE OTHER WAY … and thus they both miss the point.

One doesn’t have to dismiss everything about Evolution, just because one thinks Adam must have existed. This “all or nothing” approach to Genesis was erroneous from the beginning. Joshua is trying to re-start the process of how to handle the issues around Genesis!

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

@r_speir

You are misinterpreting what you see as evidence. Could you possibly be wrong?

Yes, it is within the realm of possibility that God could have placed misleading evidence within the genomes of living organisms, within the fossil record of what organisms lived where and when, and where certain organisms live now. He could also have bound observable evolutionary mechanisms to keep diversity within distinct “kinds”. I just find the possibility much less likely than the possibility that what we see is real evidence of how He has created.

What about you, have you considered the possibility that you are wrong? You seem to be rather certain that I am the one doing the misinterpreting.

[Troendle (Nicholas Troendle)]

This is so cool @patrick! Thanks for sharing.

[Troendle (Nicholas Troendle)]

I do this as well. You would be surprised though how many YEC students just don’t see it as a problem. Many of them just say “God only made them eat meat after the fall.”

[Troendle (Nicholas Troendle)]

@r_speir

Because the One does not need the ‘tool’. You are the one trying to put it in his hand. He doesn’t want it.

How do you know this? If evolution happens (and there are mountains of evidence to show that it does), and God is the creator, then He does “want the tool.” He created the tool and uses it constantly to shape the world.

[r_speir]

@cwhenderson

Yes

After making an accusation against God, I think you attempted a twisted answer to my question? I will take that as a Yes.

@cwhenderson

considered the possibility that you are wrong?

I am not wrong. Adam was handed the original blueprint for this thing called the universe and the other thing called life. I am going with that. You and your ideas are quite the latecomers. Besides, what you see as patterns and associations, you are misrepresenting and drawing far fetched conclusions that are baseless and unnecessary.

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@r_speir

Because the One does not need the ‘tool’. You are the one trying to put it in his hand. He doesn’t want it.

@r_speir,

The ONE does not “need” things.

But with millions of data points congruently confirming, from dozens of disciplines, somebody was using Evolutionary processes for millions of years, it would be foolish to think God is not that someone.

[r_speir]

@swamidass

Maybe God’s directly action was necessary to make us in the Image of God.

I am not ignoring this. Just wondering about what it means.

[stlyankeefan]

Yes, I get that a lot.

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

However, I found nothing in what I read to validate or even begin to hypothesize that an ape can become a man in God’s image.

You may want to check out the thread linked below where I validate the evolution of man from an ancestor shared with chimps:

Mutations Are Consistent With Biochemistry

In a previous thread I discussed what science meant by random mutations and how this term is defined by experimental results and statistics. A lot of this work was done in the 1940’s and 50’s, and since then many new facts have been discovered in the field of genetics, such as the discovery of DNA. This gave rise to the field of molecular biology and allowed us to understand biology at the molecular scale. So what exactly causes mutations? We once again have to reiterate the the limited scope of science. What science can do is put forward hypotheses and see if the evidence is consistent with that hypothesis. What science can not do is make ontological statements about absolute truth. With that in mind, the next few posts will discuss the evidence that links mutagenesis (the production of mutations) with the biochemistry of the cell and why scientists aren’t simply assuming that mutations are caused by biochemistry.

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

You are misinterpreting what you see as evidence. Could you possibly be wrong?

It’s one thing to make off-hand comments about evidence being misinterpreted. It is quite another to actually demonstrate misinterpretation of evidence.

[Troendle (Nicholas Troendle)]

One of the only ways I have found to get some of them to consider the idea is to point out that death in the bible often isn’t talking about biological death but spiritual death. This will usually get them to at least think about the possibility.

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

You and your ideas are quite the latecomers. Besides, what you see as patterns and associations, you are misrepresenting and drawing far fetched conclusions that are baseless and unnecessary.

Again, these are very hollow accusations. Can you actually show how they are being misrepresented?

[r_speir]

@T_aquaticus

show how they are being misrepresented?

Yes. You missed it. Adam was given the blueprint.

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

Yes. You missed it. Adam was given the blueprint.

That’s a bare assertion that isn’t back by evidence. You also didn’t show how the evidence is being misinterpreted or misrepresented. Just because it disagrees with your religious beliefs does not mean it is misinterpreted or misrepresented.

[Timothy_Horton]

@r_speir

Because the One does not need the ‘tool’. You are the one trying to put it in his hand. He doesn’t want it.

Where did you establish you are entitled to speak for God and can tell us what He does or doesn’t want?

[r_speir]

@Timothy_Horton

you are entitled to speak for God

There are three basic things the evolutionist must overcome in order to be heard.

1. The reality of the presence of one transcendent in ability, intelligence, and self-sufficiency
2. The fact that that one called himself God and told us how he did it
3. The simple ability for the rest of us to disbelieve what you are saying

[Timothy_Horton]

@r_speir

There are three basic things the evolutionist must overcome in order to be heard.

You didn’t answer the question.

Where did you establish you are entitled to speak for God and can tell us what He does or doesn’t want?

[r_speir]

@Timothy_Horton

You didn’t answer the question.

False. You missed it. See #2 above. But I know what you are driving at. You see, a child could speak for God, couldn’t they. All they have to do is to quote the text. But here is the very thing you cannot do: speak for God. All you can do is guess, but your guess is wrong.