I have not thought about this much but I am interested in your argument why these populations came about through an inheritance model.
1 Like
Wouldnât you agree that you only need to offer this clarification in a âscientist to scientistâ discussion?
I think discussions like this have a more clear status if they were sequestered in the part of Peaceful Science dedicated to âScientist-to-Scientistâ.
And this is where we should put put discussions about ID that focus on Science detecting design.
Every time you allow a Design Dispute in and amongst your other discussions⌠your discussions on âGen.Adamâ (GA) get disrupted or highjacked!
Donât you agree?
[If you agree⌠all you need to do is create the folder SCIENTIST-to-SCIENTIST⌠and move all the tumult There! 
]
My apologies for the delay⌠I have only now just seen your questionâŚ
Usually this idea is moderately more interesting to Creationists who are Old Earthers. So imagine, if you will, what makes a Creationist an Old Earther!
God can do things in an INSTANTâŚwhy would he intentionally invest in a 5 billion year earth⌠only to instantaneously create all of humanity? To me, that is the ultimately puzzling notion!
If God has a reason for taking so long to make Earth⌠why couldnât that reason ALSO INCLUDE taking so long to make humans?!
To answer my own question above, most Creationists that are Old Earthers became Old Earthers because they couldnât see the sense of dismissing the overwhelming physical traces of Earthâs antiquity! Indeed, I know I canât dismiss the geology and physics.
But they canât let go of a literal Adam and Eve⌠so they hang on to Special Creation of humanity⌠despite the almost equally impressive evidence if the antiquity of humanity.
This is where @swamidass has accomplished the key observation!
If Christians can believe in a resurrected Jesus without having to jettison science in general⌠there is no reason why Christians canât believe in the Special Creation of Adam/Eve without having to jettison the evolution of humanity!
This is not an either/or proposition! It is a reasonable approach for any Christian who already fits a few enormously important miracles into his or her world view!
So, one last thought to wrap up the whole presentation: many of us are already comfortable with the idea that God is outside of time/space. Like photons, which are said to experience no time, God creates universe and miraclesâŚperceived as a sequence by humans ⌠but all simultaneously from Godâs perspective.
Whether it looks like an instant to a human⌠or 13 billion years to a human⌠it matters not to God; it is all an instant.
But in this riddle I perceive the sense that there is something important to God that humans PERCEIVE the COSMIC scale of Godâs creation⌠that we get a glimpse that what God has in mind requires some quality that would escape us if we thought it was all instantaneous.
Naturally, I have no idea what it is all about. But I look forward to eventually discovering at least SOME of Godâs purposes!
In science, is there a significant difference between âhow the system aroseâ and âhow the pieces operate together nowâ? In cosmology, for example, the former is deduced from the findings of the latter, also using mechanistic principles and the assumption that the laws of physics/science have stood constant through time. (This is why I disagree with the YEC claim that âhistoricalâ vs âregularâ science is substantially different.)
Of course, from a higher-level philosophical perspective, one could argue that there is Design in both how the system arose and how it holds together now.
Yes, there is a significant difference. There are connections between the two, but they are distinct concepts. The type of reasoning @colewd is not unique to design at all, but merely a consequence of a âmechanismâ based understanding of biology. It is not new either, but is the foundational thinking every biologists employs at this moment.
I can grant that an ID biologist might have a different philosophical basis for this reasoning, but there is no evidence this change in grounding improves our ability reason mechanistically. I can produce good examples to exactly the contrary. Biology is more like a Rube-Goldberg machine (though even that analogy fails) than the type of design that ID advocates have in mind.
Sure. I can agree with this. Iâd even say that God designed us in both senses. However, the debate about ID is about ontogeny (how things arise), not merely the final configuration in which we find things. Or at least it seems that way to me. Perhaps @pnelson can clarify.