The Explanatory Power of Darwinism


The only way it can be countered is to say there are limits to how God executes Speciation.

I know no biblical text that says God doesn’t use both natural and supernatural methods.

And I’m a little surprised that you would attempt to imply this.

Not implying that, just noting that no matter what anyone says, it’s met with skepticism by somebody, and perhaps, rightly so, on topics like “progressive creation” “versus” “evolution.” That’s all.
It seems to me to be a truism, by definition, that God uses both natural and supernatural means.


I agree with your statement completely.

And because it is true… the only way to object to one or the other method is to reject Christianity’s fundamental understanding of God’s nature.

Agreed, but it is worth the discussion to discover objections which keep, even provisionally, others from agreeing.

There is a difference between an honest “I don’t know how this happened” as opposed to the statement - “I don’t know the exact mechanism, though it is probably a combination of known/unknown natural phenomenon”.
I am fine with both statements to varying degrees. Though I reject the a priori assumption of a “natural” explanation.However that is not what is usually presented to the public by people like Dawkins and blogs like sandwalk. The presentation to the public is usually the chance +mutations+ natural selection= all life.
Besides, an increasing no: of complex mechanisms does not really explain much. It just pushes the buck to how these mechanisms themselves came to be. And how they work together produce a species with various different systems working together in sync to give distinct results.

The key contribution of Darwinism is natural selection as far as I can see… and it’s selection that is supposed to carve out a distinct species by accepting or rejecting traits. This makes sense only in a gradualistic scenario where change happens step by step over a long period of time.The evidence is not for a gradual process of change.