Come on Dr. Swamidass. You believe that all of complex life resulted from “evolution” from some form called a common decent. You believe that the vehicles that drive this evolution are primarily genetic mutation and secondarily selection. You have calculated that it would take so many millions of years for such and such species to have evolved from another thus conceding that chance mutation and selection that require long ages and not the direct involvement of God which does not, are more responsible for the existence of complex life. Your idea of Gods involvement by your very words is more of a metaphysical form. AND your belief in all of this seems so powerful that even the simplest of tenants of Biblical theology even that surrounding the gospel itself are made to conform around your beliefs in evolution of the species. God gave us brains that communicate with words which are symbols about real things we are trying to explain with those words to others. All of the above as i have heard through your words and thru your articles are, in the eyes of most people in the culture we live in, an exact formula that forms the essence of the word “evolutionist” whether you like it or not. We cannot get down to the nitty gritty of resolving these important concerns unless you are willing to accept the common expressions and symbols that define ideas commonly attached. Am i wrong?
I do care dearly for people. I care for you. I have found in my life transformed by the gospel where i was once dead in my sins and now alive in Christ a love for especially those weak in the eyes of this world. Because of this, i grow very concerned when false stories and ideas be impressed upon both the church of which my very family consisting of young impressionable children are part as well as those who are listening to our claims outside of the church.
I guess you need to just ban me from your website like biologos did for this dissenting view and i will find other ways to communicate the about the true Creator and the true gospel!
The mechanism espoused by the newer versions of evolutionist concede that selection is less responsible for the evolution of the species and that leaps via mutation are more responsible. . But mutations hardly result in anything good in soecies and quite frankly are impossibly respinsible for causing such complex life forms.This is why there are many scientists from all backgrounds turning to ID as a better science. My prayer is that their awareness about God be the start of a pathway towards understanding the gospel and surrendering to Christ.
Mutations, by themselves, do very little. But we don’t have mutations by themselves. We have a complex world that is dynamical changing.
If the food supply for an organism runs out, the organism can try something else. Or it can try moving to somewhere else (maybe the next tree). Organisms make choices, though not in the conscious way that we do. And mutations can help support some of those choices.
As I see it, evolution depends on changes in the environment, on the choices that organisms make to deal with those changes, and on mutations that might happen to support those choices. It is organisms and populations coping with exigencies that arise. Sometimes they succeed and sometimes they fail. Biological diversity comes from the successes.
Not all that many, relative to the total number of scientists.
Your mom and dad passed on many mutations on to you, and you didn’t turn out so bad. I disagree that many scientists from all backgrounds are turning to ID as better science. You need to substantiate such claims with references, names. Note that ID is not accepted as science by nearly all practicing scientists. And court rulings in the United States codify ID as creationism which is religion which is not science.
Thankyou sir. So what you describe about mutations comes pretty close to EXACTLY what i believe is true about all of creation: created living things were designed with grace to adapt to their environment. This idea is about a hundred million light years away from the idea that a seed that is planted of some sort of simple celled creature becoming all of complex life we see on the planet today.
So i would imagine that evolutionary scientists outnumber ID scientists about a 100 million to one…but there is evidence that some of those are becomming courageous enough to kick against the mainstream and admit that in good conscience they just cannot buy these far fetching claims. There are testimonies in ID resources you can read.
Just because the,mainstream thought is the majority does not make it right either. Mainstream developed a thinking that scientific observation can only determine what is natural thus immediately cutting off significant options explaining existence of complex life that include intelligence. That is about the most dishonest flakey stance in history…if energy forms become more disorganized, this means there is a beginning therefore there is no sense in the idea of the natural formulating the natural…therefore the idea of INTELLIGENCE should be figured into equations explaining the arrival of complex life, but they are not in the mainstream. The reason i believe that much of this is the case is because we caught the disease from our foreparents called sin or “i want to be god” From that it will always be more pleasurable to put hope in what I can determine than what is already stated plainly in what i know to be true in the Bible!
It sounds like you have read the Bible a time or two. Are you disheartened or encouraged but what you see?
Did my parents pass on or pass over mutations or did they take a pass on passing them over? Ok, my wife is right- im not funny.
I just wrote to another that mainstream outnumber ID about 100 million to one. So what? And our govt says says ID is a belief system and not science? How could i have been so bitterly wrong in so much of my thinking all of these years?
So lets say that it is 100% factual truth that aliens deposited the first humans onto this earth x number of years ago and they have been adapting ever since. Science as you call it that has the backbone belief in materialistic naturalism will never find its way to realize this fact. Am i wrong? If historical science is truely after seeking truth, they must concede that an option for complexity seen in what appears designed MAY be the works of intelligence and not chance…am i wrong. Otherwise they are simply tethered to a religion called naturalism that bases their historical scientific inquiries. There is no escaping belief in matters of historical science.
There are many testimonies of scientists becommimg brave enough to step out of this simpleminded thinking engaged by the mainstream.
I have read the Bible many times and is a primary reason why I am an atheist. I encourage all freethinkers and those with a modern understanding of science, reason, and the Enlightment to read the Bible and determine for themselves its validity or usefulness in living in today’s world with secular values, morals, and ethics.
In all of your convoluted assertions, you seem more comfortable discussing the alien origins of life on Earth than in understanding there are Christians who ALREADY believe that God uses the principles of Evolution (as well as miraculous Special Creation) to create the life forms on Earth.
On this site, the difference is not whether a Christian believes that God is The Designer (of course he is) … but whether Science will ever be able to make the formal distinction.
Do you understand that there are already Christians here who accept Evolution AND Design?
In my view, “intelligent” pretty much means “able to adapt”. So you are already agreeing that there is intelligence in biology (with what I mean by “intelligence”).
When we talk of “design” we typically think of making a plan, maybe on a drawing board. And when we have completed the design, we prepare the manufacturing process to stamp out copies of that design.
Biological organisms don’t seem to me to fit that. They do not appear to be manufactured.
There’s another way that intelligence is used in ordinary life. We call it “craftmanship”. Somebody intelligently crafts an object for his own use or for that of a friend. There’s more of a personal touch in craftsmanship. And there’s a lot of trial and error testing during the crafting of the object. But it does not require the kind of conscious planning that we expect to be involved with design.
May I suggest that instead of “intelligent design”, you should be considering “intelligent crafting”. And may I further suggest that evolution really is a theory of intelligent crafting. A biological organism is crafted partly by its parents, partly by the population, and largely by itself.
If you allow for “intelligent crafting”, then think it actually is in the mainstream. And “Evo Devo” is an important branch of biology that studies this intelligent crafting (though it doesn’t use that terminology).
I was a devout Christian from roughly age 11 to age 23. I was already interested in science, thanks to a good elementary school teacher. So I grew up with an understanding of Christianity that was compatible with science.
You might say that I was a creationist, in the broad sense. And if the world is what God created, then I took science to be the study of that creation.
I am no longer a Christian. So I guess my Bible reading did not encourage in the way that you would like. However, I have no regrets for the time that I did spend as a Christian.
I decide to drive to Los Angeles. It will take around 2 days from here (near Chicago), and I’ll have to stop over at a motel somewhere on the way.
Before I leave, I have my car fitted with a recording device. The recording device is connected to the steering. If I veer slightly to the left it will record a symbol. If I turn more significantly to the left it will record a different symbol. And there are also symbols for veering to the right and for a more significant turn to the right.
I set off on my trip. When I get to LA, I print out the recording from that device. It has a string of millions of symbols.
Now I ask how did that string of functional information ever get there? And since that string is extremely improbable, should I conclude that I never actually drove from Chicago to LA?
Those questions seem absurd. They completely miss the point. And functional information questions that ID proponents raise – those also seem absurd and also completely miss the point.
It got there because it was setup by an intelligent agent. First the recording device, then the connection of the recording device to the steering wheel. Then the intelligent agent that can drive the car from point A to point B.
You can conclude that the string of the symbols was not caused by random change since you got to LA from Chicago in 2 days.
Ahhhh… then I will recommend to @swamidass that a separate folder should exist for such conversations!
There is already too much confusion over the topic of Evolution being something that is always godless… or something that can be newly characterized and profitably discussed!
I disagree that many scientists from all backgrounds are turning to ID as better science. You need to substantiate such claims with references, names. Note that ID is not accepted as science by nearly all practicing scientists. And court rulings in the United States codify ID as creationism which is religion which is not science.