From a theological point of view, we should have no problem with either (1) created directly by God, or (2) a combination of directly by God and a process of evolution.
From a scientific point of view, we should no problem with either creation (1) by a process of evolution, or (2) a combination of directly by God and a process of evolution, as long as we are silent about God’s role (because that is outside of science).
So, it is a very difficult position to dispute: “we are all created by both a process of evolution and God’s action”. Perhaps we won’t find the full story in scripture or science. I’m not sure that should matter to any one.
Yes, and it continues to be falsified each time resulting in a new and revised RTB testable creation model. The science is moving so fast that RTB can’t keep up with the revisions fast enough before a new revision is needed.
So if evolution assumes (this is a rule for discussion too) that life was established. So if “life” were transported, then the same three options would apply. If the pre-life processes arrived, then they are not “life” per se and don’t apply.
So, for the general conversation, we’re safe to assume that things evolved, were intelligently created or some combination of the two, right??
Well, I do grant you that being a voice of reason in chaos can be tiring. If our numbers grow, maybe the load will be easier. Do you want to stand in the gap with me?
Okay, that’s great. It doesn’t matter that it is right or wrong, or if you agree or not. What matters is whether or not there exists a testable creation model, whether or not the scientific community is willing to test it (because it contains a direct reference to a deity), and whether or not your opinion that it has been falsified is a scientific opinion or a theological / philosophical one.
This is EXACTLY the point I’m trying to make. If this model from RTB “continues to be falsified”, I would assume that would be a scientific conclusion. If that is so, then is it not a double standard to say that something which includes a direct reference to a deity can be falsified by science, but cannot be investigated by science, because it is outside of science?
Desperately. I want this to make sense so badly. I just hate the fact that I’m right and all of you are wrong. (Just kidding, back to good behavior from this point on.)
Without seeing the alleged testable model it is impossible to say one way or another. The issues I have seen with these types of ideas in the past is that it assumes God would create in one way or another without any justification. When the causal agent is an omnipotent and omniscient being who can do anything at any time its a bit tough to figure out how to create a falsification for such a causal agent. There is also problems with ad hoc mechanisms which are invoked for little other reason than to produce the observations.
How life changed and how life got started are two equally important questions.
The best way I have found to approach the topic is to explain why scientists, christian and non-christian alike, have concluded that evolution is real. This puts a buffer zone around the debate and makes it less about why you don’t accept it, or why I do accept it. You can decide that the scientists are wrong, but at least you will understand the evidence they are looking at (which is going to involve a lot of genetics).
You may also get a better understanding of the types of views and perspectives that scientists have as it relates to evidence, theories, the scientific method, and biology in general. I think that most of the public really doesn’t have a strong grasp on the types of questions and problems that scientists face. For example, why are physical characteristics distributed in a pattern like a tree? Why do we find regions in genomes that are more similar than other regions when we compare them between species? Why are two sequences from two species really similar to each other when they don’t have to be? It is basic questions like these that evolution explains really, really well. I have yet to see ID/creationism come up with a good explanation for these questions, and ID/creationism will find little traction within the scientific community until they do have good explanations for these basic observations.
No problem at all! I love your honesty. So, let’s throw it out to the community.
Are there any other options not covered?
If there are potentially other options, does that invalidate the scientific exploration into whether or not an intelligence also participated in the evolutionary process? Can we not say, given these three likely options, let’s look and see which are plausible? Or must we know for certain the entire universe of options before we can consider this?
If they make specific scientific claims (and they do), these claims can be falsified. Period. This is independent of theology. For example they assert in one model (now falsified) that Sapiens and Neanderthals never interbred. That is demonstrably false. To their credit, they changed their model.
You are getting it. The fact that others are trying very hard not to get it is why its still remains difficult.
@Patrick the evidence for this has to do with Scripture, which we trust because of Jesus, and I’ve pointed you to the evidence for this. There is no conflict with science for @Michael_Callen to explain how he understands science within the context of his religious belief. None. This also does not mean his position is without evidence. It just takes resources outside of science to make that connection.
Honestly @Michael_Callen I think you are getting it quite well. Just start asking people to follow the rules and explain how you are following them. You may not need to be as tentative. Sometimes people need a firm pushback too, especially when they are trying to question your legitimate autonomy. You have a right to state your personal beliefs about anything, as long as you are not falsely claiming it is a conclusion of science. As long as you let science speak on its own terms, you can push back.
You all are so intelligent and articulate. Thanks for your patience…
I read about this in another post. I agree, this specific aspect does not contain any theological statements. As you say, they have corrected their model and have stated all along that they would likely need to do so as more discoveries were made. I do hope that you and Fuz Rana are able to meet and discuss.
You are so right here… this is really problematic. And, to add to it, there is a tendency to state what about evolution will NOT work and why, instead of how we think that an intelligence IS working and why. I think that neither of these problems cannot be overcome, though. If it is proposed that an intelligent being is contributing, it would have to be measured the same way any other scientific evidence is evaluated.
I read about bees the other day that were reported to be over 200 million years old. There were no fossilized bees, but the walls of the nests were flask shaped and smooth, and the only other species today who makes such kinds of nests today are bees. So, it is a scientific opinion that the nest belongs to bees. (There could have been subsequent updates to the story, I don’t know. But the process of evaluation and determination stands.)
Similarly to the bees, the determination would have to be made that any nod to an intelligence intervening would have to be compelling enough as well. I’m certain that there would be enough detractors.
So this, once again, seems like the crux of the issue. I’m okay with @Patrick questioning my claim that these are the three ways that things could have come about (plus potentially his fourth way…) I have only been asking if one has the right to bring evidence to back up such a claim or not. If this is okay, then so be it! I think that the consensus is that we cannot pose such a claim in a scientific discussion because it is excluded as a scientific possibility.
Science does not have a monopoly on evidence and logic. Of course you can bring up evidence.
For example, on abiogensis we do not how the first cell arose. Perhaps we will some day, or perhaps not. Though the evidence doesn’t tell us one way or another, it is certainly very difficult to imagine. This is all suggestive evidence to a person who already believes God exists. Certainly not definitive, but definitely suggestive.
Likewise on the de novo creation of Adam, we’ve shown there is no genetic evidence for or against it. This is includes several experiments that demonstrates the silence of genetics, its limits. We presented evidence to show what science does and does not rule out. However the actual postulate of the de novo Adam is not scientific and could only be arrived at by incorporating scriptural evidence too, which is ignored by science and the foundation of theology.
So you can certainly offer evidence. Just do not expect science to do more than it can.
2 Likes
swamidass
(S. Joshua Swamidass)
Split this topic
138
Good. Science shouldn’t impact one’s faith as science is neutral on such matters. I think it is important that young people have the opportunity to learn science correctly without having to worry about it impacting their faith. There are plenty of other things that will test young people’s faith. Science education shouldn’t be one of them.
This is a good point @Michael_Callen… And the issue is further made worse by terribly inaccurate and often irresponsible communication to the public.
For example arguments such as “bad design” in life disproving a creator. I don’t see scientists flagging such arguments as pseudo scientific or against the rules…
Um. I do. I’m regularly telling people that the “bad design” arguments are not good arguments against creation. Instead of decrying the current situation, why not play to win? Just learn the rules and start using them to your advantage. When atheists use science to make theological claims, push back on them. It really is not that complex.
It is the point that I’ve made several times. Science is silent on theological questions. So just make that clear, and most of the problems go away. Look, even @patrick and I agree on this. Just learn the rules and ask everyone to play fair. Even if they flout the rules, you are right, and are going to look good in the end. You can really win if you play to win. You don’t have to be a victim.
Its definitely a good strategy… However, lay people are not the people to do it. Bad design arguments should be in the same class as intelligent design arguments based on what i understand. Yet the pushback from the Scientific establishment on the latter is obvious and unmissable, I honestly cant say the same about the former. This leads to a perception of bias. Whats the point of rules if they are not applied uniformly?
You cant be expecting lay people to correct scientists on whether they are following rules or not! There is a limitation to how much that can be done.
It has to come from inside the establishment. If this happens more often, then trust for science as truly neutral will automatically grow.
As a lay person, I do point out that Scientists who make such claims are not doing so based on any scientific evidence. I also am forced to point out that, such claims are made because of an inherent theological/philosophical bias among the scientists who make said claims.
Once again this gets back to history. No one is holding education board hearings to insert bad design arguments into school curriculums. If they did, the pushback might grow.
It is not that hard. Most people do not know the rules. You do. You are learning how to use them. That is a winning strategy. Teach more people.
I agree with this, and is the reasons why even most atheist scientists agree. Most atheists agree that science is greater than atheism. Just like Christians sometimes need outside help to keep from overstating their position, also atheists need the same. Just learn how to be a respectful and legitimate check, and you will win.
Just get good at doing that, and affirming common ground, and you will win every time. It is fun to win, right?
Sorry not trying to be mean just scientific.