Would you mind rewriting that question in English, please?
My fellow scientists would ask me what ID hypothesis I am testing. Why are no ID proponents testing an ID hypothesis?
It’s not some debating society, Greg.
Yes. Perhaps you should understand evolution before pontificating in such an arrogant way.
When are we going to play high-stakes poker–I’ll play draw, while you stand pat with the 5 cards you’ve been dealt–because according to you, both of our hands will be 100% random, despite my using selection, correct?
Jesus Christ the Second Person of a Triune God who came to this earth to save us and to take those dead in their sins to make them alive to love, extend grace and to delight in His truth! If this is not of the fabric of your thinking then you are not for the gospel or Biblical truth. If you are not for it, then do you know what that makes you?
You think this “peaceable science” is about science? I think not. Your perspectives place human rationale as more ultimate over the mystery and majesty of the Only God who trascends us, yet who loves us thru His Son.
This whole theistic evolution thing smells of universalism in itself. Human rationalism supreme? Have you ever studied the book of Revelation? Are you familiar with the number 6? Do you know what this number stands for? Thats your homework.
I realize that Behe differs from my views. The very title “Darwin Devolves” says it all though. His research concludes that naturalistic versions of evolution that guys like you espouse is so entirely improbable that we may as well call it what it is: impossible. And dont tell me that this is not true bc i have seen your arguments that confront ID that place a stake on nature of having capabilities that ID say are impossible.
I have mentioned before that i am the lone voice amidst you and much of the ID crowd. But ID is the baby step from the strange funk of your god vibing naturalism version of evolution that may as well kick God to the curb. Do you now see why so many athiests applaud your ideas?.. anyway when the argument is solidified that God must be present in special creation of kinds via whatever Behe espouses today which is probably common decent, then i will go and challenge guys like him on his theological perspectives. If Intelligence is the necessary ingredient to make our lives possible, then this opens the floadgates on the humilitating possibility that man’s science is quite inept of truly deciphering exactly how God created and that the presence of God in the picture is the trump card over almost every opinion of man.
So you are right: Behe differs from me. I may not even agree with his theology. If I were to meet him, I’d have strong challenges for him to chew on. But ID and Creationists are a lot stronger in our brotherhood than mainly the powers of nature masquerading as a sort of metaphysical nature god you seem to espouse. But who knows…perhaps you are evolving.
So I stand w guys like Dr. Kurt Wise as a creationist who believes the Bible is true. By the nature of the title “creationist” insinuates that we believe that one can scientifically observe the hand of God in nature. That makes me ID and i would imagine that Wise would find agreement. AND in addition as the icing on the cake, the presence of the God who made nature must be of the essence that also calls the science of man partially inept for knowing His ways! That makes me a pure creationist who primarily trusts God by faith. “Without faith, it is impossible to please God” the bible says. This formula is exactly what i find in Scripture: a balance of observations of nature screaming out that God exists so no man has any excuse to shun Him AND God so trascending nature that our eyes are completely incapable of boxing Him into a scientific theory. We are called to trust Him at His word by faith. That is exactly how I became a believer in the first place. So by God’s grace go I. The fight resumes.
Is a very religious ID pusher who has no problems saying the Designer is his Christian God. Like the rest of the IDers he does no science to support his ID claims, just writes popular press propaganda books targeted at the lay public. Thanks for supporting my point.
Did you get to read the thread on Behe’s God’s Pool Ball Shot?
By analyzing exactly what Behe says in a video about the cosmic Pool Shot, it became clear that most ID’ers dont realize Behe doesnt APPEAR to be a Creationist!
Strange, right?!
Sure… he promotes Intelligent Design… but he has yet to speak on whether Adam was de novo or created by evolution (as in God-led-Evolution!).
The irony here is that @swamidass may be more of a Creationist than Behe!
If Behe ever DOES go public with a statement on de novo Adam, there is a good chance it would be thru one of Joshua’s Geanealogical Adam scenarios!!!
Behe is smarter than most IDers in that he realizes there’s way too much evidence for evolution to give it a blanket rejection. Behe has opted for a hedge-your-bets position where evolution definitely happened but God comes by every once in a while to tinker. It’s still God of the Gaps stuff with Behe trying to cram God into lots of little gaps instead of one big gap.
Of course he is. Among other things Behe has proposed God tinkered with the malaria parasite to give it resistance to new anti-malarial drugs only developed in the last few decades. His whole book “Edge of Evolution” is about God tinkering when evolution couldn’t find solutions to selection pressure problems on its own.
God’s Cosmic Pool Shot is a cosmic chain of events, where every causal link is connected to another causal link.
This is NOT a “tinkering” scenario. And it is because it is not a tinkering scenario, i embrace it.
In the midst of this comprehensive pool shot, there are events that look pretty fancy (the so-called events of Irreducible Complexity)… but to get to them, God has to design the whole universe from scratch.
If Behe invoked supernatural & miraculous sequences, you would have a point. But he, in fact, endorses the OPPOSITE… all is lawful…making tinkering imossible.
Greg, how do you coincide your belief that you “take 100% absence from any judgement” and then proceed to a “person calling himself a Christian…” in the exact same paragraph? You contradict yourself in your own writing - two sentences apart.
No, Greg, there are NONE who take the time to get into the nitty gritty details. It only looks that way to people who want to think that they are right, and are therefore easily fooled.
I thought you would understand that Christians are not capable of truly accessing if someone (especially if they are riding the fence)who claims to be saved is actually saved. On the other hand, Christians are commanded to make disciples (who ultimately are still God’s judgment if they are saved or not) where we lovingly observe fruits or lack thereof in the person to encourage them towards growing in our Lord (if they are saved which we may not know for sure) or helping them find Christ if they have not (which we still cannot know for sure). The apostles highlighted the gospel not to those they thought were unsaved, but to the church! This for purposes of furthering Gospel identity in the believer and converting the church going unbeliever.
i believe the main fruit that indicates salvation from sin is some degree of a literal love for his Creator and Savior/re-creator that will grow more and more…welling up unto salvation. Could one more enamored w the sciences and evolutionary science in particular that drowns out a sense of worship and adoration of God as our Creator be a point of concern of the discipler towards the disciplee for need of encouragement? What do you think?
Yes i do. I fully accept common decent as well. God planted seeds called “kinds” and they micro evolved or adapted and speciated the planet. That is the majority creationist view today
I think your ignorance has blinded you so badly you can’t even see the insides of your own eyelids. There are plenty of devout Christian scientists who work in and completely accept scientific evolutionary biology. Yet you keep claiming all of them are wrong and scientifically illiterate you is right.